ed_avis2

It's only vaguely related but I will note that older bodies such as the 1N don't focus as smoothly with STM lenses like the 40mm f/2.8. It still works but the focus motor seems to buzz more and move in many small jerks.

It depends how much you want to spend, but Dell's 5k monitor UP2715K is very good. HP make an equivalent, the Z27q. Both can now be picked up on auction sites for a lot less than list price. You need a suitable video card (I use the Nvidia NVS 510). They are both beaten for colour gamut by the current-model iMac with 5k Retina display, which can be considered a monitor with a free computer thrown in. If this is too much, a 24 inch 4k monitor such as Dell's UP2414Q is good too. Dell are going to launch an 8k 32-inch display next month (UP3218K) but it will be hugely expensive. But bear in mind that for photo editing some prefer a lower pixel resolution with colour gamut and calibration being more important. The Surface Studio looks lovely too...

Both tested at f/2.8? Anyway, your result is not that surprising, since others have said "the fastest focusing 50mm lens is the 24-70 zoom".

<p>Not a completely fair comparison since grass or straw in the background brings out 'harsh bokeh' in any lens but the very smoothest. At least that's my uninformed opinion.</p>

<p>FWIW my experience with Canon UK has been that they are happy to service out-of-warranty Canon camera equipment and do not ask for any proof of purchase or check for UK-only model numbers. The repair prices seem reasonable and they will not charge for something that they couldn't fix. Older lenses and bodies go out of service, typically about ten years after the last new one was sold, but that is independent of what country they were bought in.</p>

<p>Sorry, I did not account for the price shown being "currently unavailable". Only the 50/1.4 Planar can be bought for $400. The 50/2 Makro-Planar costs more than $500.</p>

<p>If you buy used, either of the Zeiss ZE lenses costs $400 or less on a well-known online retailer. I would be content to buy them used since they are mechanically well constructed and do not have an autofocus motor to fail.</p>

<p>Have a look at the two Zeiss ZE 50mm lenses, particularly the "classic" ones which can often be picked up cheaply now that the Milvus line has superseded them. The 50/2 Makro-Planar is a great all-rounder and sharper than the Canon 50/2.5. The original 50/1.4 Planar isn't at its best wide open, but stopped down a bit it performs well and has a lovely rendering style.<br> (I have used the comparison tools on the-digital-picture.com for the comparisons above.)<br> If by 'reliable' you mean autofocuses reliably, then your options are a bit limited, since the Canon 50/1.4 is known for focus motor problems, while the 50/2.5 (and Sigma's 50/2.8, also good) are a bit "coffee grinder" and slow. The manual focus Zeiss lenses sidestep the question of autofocus altogether, and will certainly be reliable in some sense.<br> You might do worse than the latest version of the 50/1.8. With its STM motor I would expect it to have pretty fast and reliable autofocus. It too is a good performer stopped down a little.</p>

<p>I have another Samyang lens without a chip. It is fairly fiddly to get the right exposure. By contrast fully manual lenses with a chip do at least get the exposure roughly correct in Av mode (though never quite as good as native Canon-mount lenses). So I would say definitely get the chipped version if you can. There are horror stories of camera electronics being fried by bad chips, but these anecdotes seem few in number compared to the number of chipped lenses out there.</p>

<p>Any macro lens will be good enough that technique is the limiting factor, not the lens. They are all sharp, and all give good results for general photography too. Third party manufacturers (Sigma, Tamron, etc) have macro lenses with focal lengths of 50, 60, 70, 90 or 100 mm. You could do worse than just pick the cheapest you find (but not a zoom lens with "macro" mode). The cost will be a fraction of what the 100mm L lens costs.</p>

<p>I recently bought an EOS M, Canon's first mirrorless interchangeable lens digital camera, for 150 GBP with the 18-55 zoom lens. I bought the 22mm fixed lens too for 80 GBP. As long as you have the latest firmware it works well as a pocket camera and you can use your existing lenses with a cheap third party adaptor or the slightly pricier Canon one (either is just an empty tube with contacts).</p>

<p>Keep the macro lens. Baby photography is often close up.</p>

<p>This article shows the difference between the real 50mm f/1.8 II and one known fake: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=19642</p>

<p>You can buy a Canon 20D for under $100 - that might work out cheaper than the cost of film and processing.</p>

<p>It may be that the 1/3 stop changes are effectively just exposure compensation, plus adjusting the exposure in software after the shot is taken. (It depends on the nature of the sensor, but I believe this has been the case for some Canon cameras in the past.) In which case you may as well limit the ISO speed to 100, 200, 400 etc but keep the exposure compensation dial at 1/3 stop increments for small adjustments. As long as you shoot raw and don't mind tweaking the exposure in post-processing, that is.</p>

<p>Canon make a 24mm f/2.8 pancake lens. It is much cheaper than the 24/1.4 or the 35/1.4. Unless you're sure you need the wider apertures why not try it out?</p>

<p>I see that the older 400mm f/4 IS DO is within your price range if bought used.<br> There is also the option of a 2x teleconverter. Apparently Canon's newer model is much improved. You would face the same loss of autofocus as with the 400 and 1.4x.<br> <br />I don't have an opinion on these, I just mention that they are other possibilities.</p>

<p>You could float the level in your drink as a levelling ice cube.</p>

<p>Could I add a 'me too' that the old version of the site is a big improvement on the new one. I'm particularly enjoying the clean old comment box which handles formatting and hyperlinks correctly. Good work!<br> <br />By all means make improvements, but any big changes need to not make things worse; a particular problem with the new site was that all incoming links to forum threads (including those posted in other photo.net comments) got broken.</p>

<p>Using old lenses with adaptors can be fun and can sometimes save money - but the ones you have are either hard to adapt to Canon mount (Minolta / Rokkor and Pentax), surely poor quality compared to modern equivalents (the zooms), or both (Albinar is not a well-known brand but I doubt it is some undiscovered gem). I suggest selling them all, but don't expect to get much cash.</p>

<p>There's also a 24-105 STM lens which may cost a little bit less than the 24-105 L, and while it doesn't have better image quality across the whole zoom range, may be better at the wide end. It depends on whether you can get the L one cheaply as part of a kit.</p>

<p>You could look into Eye-fi cards, see if the newer ones have an option to transfer the raw files, but as others said it's really not something I would want to be messing around with while shooting. The whole thing is just too flaky and transferring raw files will be too slow - one photo every few seconds if you are lucky.</p>

<p>Adrian K, sorry I misremembered. I think you're right and it is 160 but you can weirdly set it to some lower value like 125 for a fraction of a second. The EXIF data for my photographs doesn't include the ISO setting. Harry J - isn't this true for most older lenses, whether Canon or Sigma or other make? You have to change the switch to MF before moving the focus ring, else you may damage the motor.</p>

<p>Adrian K, I think you may be mixing up different Kodak models. There was the DCS 520C, a 2-megapixel, 1.6x crop camera where I believe the base ISO was 160. Its big brother was the DCS 560C, with 6 megapixels and 1.3x crop, but an ISO range of only 80 to 200. These were both made from a Canon EOS 1N body with extra electronics Frankensteined into a bulky vertical grip.</p> <p>A few years later (and after various Nikon-mount bodies) Kodak launched the DCS Pro SLR/c, which is the subject of this thread. It is a full frame body with roughly 14 megapixels, built by Sigma and similar to their DSLRs of the same period. I think that the base ISO on the SLR/c is 100 though there is an interesting firmware bug where the ISO can be momentarily set below that level before quickly jumping back up again. Possibly this might indicate that an early prototype had a lower ISO setting which was then disabled in firmware, but who knows? (This weirdness is typical of the poor handling of the camera.)<br> <br />The DCS Pro SLR/c does have a special extra-low-ISO mode for long exposures, allowing as low as ISO 8 or something around that. I don't know how it works.</p>

<p>FWIW, there are some photos from this camera at and https://www.flickr.com/photos/7500206@N08/sets/72157623334602174</p> <p>They are just holiday snaps but they may give some idea of the sensor quality.</p>