- Original Message -
From: "Chip Louie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Was just wondering something. I recently suggested that someone with a EF
> 28-105USM and a vignette problem try testing wide open and stopping down
> until the problem went away to see if the problem was the lens or the
> fi
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 18:50:06 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Or, you may want to give the new Tokina AT-X 24-200 f/3.5-5.6 a try. I just
>bought one and I'm have lots of fun with it...and some pretty nice results
>too.
>
>Gary Russell
Ooh, ooh, let's see!
(hi gary!!)
Ken Durling
Website http://home.e
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:24:12 +0100, you wrote:
>- Original Message -
>From: "Cian S. Perez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> > So, anyone using this scanner? Any words of condolence, advice or
>> > congratulations?And yes, a CD burner is next.
>>
>>
>> Just remember to also acquire a stash o
> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:05:37 +0100
> From: "Craig Zendel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: EOS 70-200L IS - First impressions
>
> I've had the IS lens for three weeks now. It's used with 1Ns.
>
> The autofocusing is quicker than the old lens, which was no slouch. I
> suspect the difference woul
-Original Message-
>> "Lawrance Lee" wrote:
>> If I were to travel again, perhaps I'll leave both Canon lenses behind
>> and find a single lens like a Tokina that does 28-200mm. Maybe.
>> Still toying with that idea.
Or, you may want to give the new Tokina AT-X 24-200 f/3.5-5.6 a try.
> "Hugo Gävert" wrote:
> Great! Now if you could just dig up an archive of all of their
> prochures, especially the technical ones (I only have one about
> EOS-3)!
Hi Hugo,
I find one library, now you want more :-)
Do you mean the CPS Technical Library?
http://cps.canon-europa.co
- Original Message -
From: "gawaine maxwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "eos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: EOS EF 70-200/2.8L
> Hello John
> I have the 70-200f4. Like you I thought long and hard about which version
to
> choose. I also considered t
> "Lawrance Lee" wrote:
> If I were to travel again, perhaps I'll leave both Canon lenses behind
> and find a single lens like a Tokina that does 28-200mm. Maybe.
> Still toying with that idea.
Hi Lawrence,
If photography is not the primary purpose of your travel, then just
getting a compact ca
> I should have been more specific.
> Since I have 3+ slides with data I need a batch conversion tool.
> Actually a C library would be enough. I would write my own programme.
> The above tool can do batch filtering.
> So if I can implement EXIF tagging as a filter operation I could use
it.
> H
>
> Look at item #1284912874 if you need something to bring
> a little levity to your day.
Okay, for ten bucks I will send you a link to a guy who will
sell you a link to a guy who will sell you a link...
Did you see one of his other auctions, he is *selling* the Win98
boot disk made when
Henry P is both right and wrong!
Vignetting caused optically from within the lens (i.e as a result of the
distance and angle of exit of light from the diaphragm) is lessened as the
lens is stopped down.
Vignetting caused mechanically from outside the lens (e.g as a result of
filter ring(s)/too l
At 01:33 PM 10/19/2001, you wrote:
>Also available Canon PC Adapter £24 + VAT.
No one here has ever SEEN a Canon version. Do you have a picture, or a link
or a Canon product code?
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo
Tim Franklin wrote:
>
>
> Why is everyone so surprised by this. All fast lenses vignette more, and
> fast wide-angles worse than others. Its the price you pay. :o)
>
Not surprised, Just need an excuse to talk "shop" ;-)
BTW, today I shot my first 4x5 B&W polaroid with a 1930's-40's
press came
It sure is a small world!! I saw you name in my inbox. I did
not know you too were on the list. And here we are both picking
the inquisitive mind of Mr. Loke. ;-) It sure is fun!
-Dan
>
> BTW, Daniel, congratulations for your POW!! I was even in the chat if
> you
> can recall... I didn't
Lawrance Lee wrote:
> My biggest hassle with the camera during the entire trip was swapping
> between lenses. This no doubt increases the amount of dust entering the
> camera and lenses themselves. If I were to travel again, perhaps I'll leave
> both Canon lenses behind and find a single lens l
Hi,
I guess manufacturing differences must play in to the equation. My
100/2 is a great lens. I actually have two 50/1.8mrk1's. I should see
if there is a difference in them. The second one I just picked up and
have not even used it. You know what is funny My ef15/2.8 vignettes
Sorry I can't remember who asked for this info.
Available from The Flash Centre in London £17 + VAT.
Also available Canon PC Adapter £24 + VAT.
Both do the same job. You choose!
No fiscal connection with TFC. Tel 020 7837 5649
*
***
**
I've had the IS lens for three weeks now. It's used with 1Ns.
The autofocusing is quicker than the old lens, which was no slouch. I
suspect the difference would be more noticeable with later bodies (e.g 3s or
1Vs). I haven't
had to use it in AI Servo (Follow focus) mode yet but expect an improvem
From: Lawrance Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> My biggest hassle with the camera during the entire trip was swapping
> between lenses.
Simply buy a new body !
This no doubt increases the amount of dust entering the
> camera and lenses themselves. If I were to travel again, perhaps I'll
leave
> both
Various folks wrote,
>>> In short, vignetting in the three lenses in
>>> question is close to that of Canon's
>>> best lenses rather than to the worst.
>>
>> These are the best (or near)? My 50/1.8 at 1.8 vignettes fairly bad.
>> looking a contact sheet I know what frame was shot wide open in
>
Daniel Flather wrote:
> >In short, vignetting in the three lenses in
> >question is close to that of Canon's
> >best lenses rather than to the worst.
>
> These are the best (or near)? My 50/1.8 at 1.8 vignettes fairly bad.
> looking a contact sheet I know what frame was shot wide open in
> bri
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ralf Schmode
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 4:28 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: EOS EF 70-200/2.8L
> why not think of a used 80-200/2.8L instead? I have it for about
> four months now and
>From: "Charles Cabaniss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>The link is current. I've successfully accessed it and related links. I
>believe the brochures were uploaded in pdf format, since clicking on a
>brochure link brought up a second window for Acrobat Reader (latest version
>can be downloaded for free
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Pawel Nabe wrote:
> >Any idea how I could convert exposure data to EXIF tags?
> >And after that how would I combine the JPEG and EXIF portion?
>
> A quick web search showed up http://www.pixoid.com/ where there
> is a freeware Windows tool that can (losslessly) upda
Julian Loke wrote:
> Is it possible to line the pressure plate with some film that has an
> anti-halation layer?
> Could this fix the "dark mark" due to the QD hole?
> Or could it also affect the blown highlights of HIE?
Hi Julian,
To avoid the 'dark mark' on HIE you can cover the pressure pla
At 01:32 AM 10/19/01 , Lawrance Lee wrote:
>My biggest hassle with the camera during the entire trip was swapping
>between lenses. This no doubt increases the amount of dust entering the
>camera and lenses themselves. If I were to travel again, perhaps I'll
>leave both Canon lenses behind and
Chip Louie schrieb:
>
> Hi,
>
> Was just wondering something. I recently suggested that someone with a EF
> 28-105USM and a vignette problem try testing wide open and stopping down
> until the problem went away to see if the problem was the lens or the
> filter. Henry P. said that lenses that
>Any idea how I could convert exposure data to EXIF tags?
>And after that how would I combine the JPEG and EXIF portion?
A quick web search showed up http://www.pixoid.com/ where there is a
freeware
Windows tool that can (losslessly) update comments in a JPG file. That
should
handle the second q
Now that I have a film scanner I could produce JPG files from
my slides. The missing link is the exposure data that I collected
with my Canon EOS600 and a Technical Back E during all these
nondigital years.
Any idea how I could convert exposure data to EXIF tags?
And after that how would I combi
Quoting John M. Lovda:
> I want a 70-200L and have the alternative of buying a new f4 at about $600
> or a nice used F2.8 for $850.
Hi, John,
why not think of a used 80-200/2.8L instead? I have it for about four months
now and its optical qualities are nothing but superb. In some situations I
h
A pity they don't have the L-lenses and Flashworks brochures also (hard to get).
Sounds like my to pages are going out of "busyness" now...
(http://home.wanadoo.nl/erwin.harkink/Photo/EOSAccesoriesCompatibility.html &
http://home.wanadoo.nl/erwin.harkink/Photo/EOSAccesoriesCompatibility.html)
E
Snorre A. Selmer wrote:
| > both Canon lenses behind and find a single lens like a Tokina that does
| > 28-200mm. Maybe. Still toying with that idea.
|
| Why not get the EF 35-350/3.5-5.6L USM? ;)
Sigma 28-200: $209
Tamron 28-200 : $289
Vivitar 28-300
32 matches
Mail list logo
