> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 05:11:02 -0800 (PST)
> From: Bob Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: FD vs EOS - what happens if you don't care....
>
> > http://www.photoquack.de/tutorials/plastic.htm
>
> I don't know, of course, how "slight" the impact was,
> but I have to suspect it was harder than you think.
> Why? Because I've seen a plastic mount lens, attached
> to an Elan II, fall several feet onto a wood floor
> without damage. And yes, the impact was on the lens,
> not the body.
I think that the important part in this rupture was the
impact direction. The lens shade is neither dented nor
scratched, and the camera was over my shoulder, so I
felt the impact and was able to see it happen.
It was very slight. The same impact towards the lens
from the front would certainly have no effect at all.
> Besides that, reaching a conclusion on a sample size
> of one is just plain bad practice.
I have seen another one as a result of this posting.
Yes, still no reason to say this happens to all lenses,
but I didn't say that. But I keep my ground and state
that metal would not have been able to be torn off so
easily.
> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:24:43 -0800
> From: Ken Durling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: FD vs EOS
(75-300 mm zoom lens)
>
> Why do you *insist* on dissing this lens in a less intelligent
> manner than the rest of your often-informative posts?
I am not "dissing" it, I am voicing my experience about it.
It is very poor at the long end, and contrast is absolutely
unimpressive.
> Some of us are trying to make the best possible photographs we
> can on a less expansive budget, and are trying to learn as much as
> possible from people likje yourself who impart a lot of valuable
> information on this group. I am also shooting dozens of rolls of film
> in an effort to improve my skills, not just talking about it here.
> When I keep hearing someone tell me the stuff I'm using is "crap" andf
> "shitty" it's tiresome, and I stop listening to you.
You shouldn't. The different focal length aside a simple 1.8/50 mm
lens outperforms this telezoom by several dimensions. And a simple
prime 4.0/200 should outperform this zoom as well. Ask Canon to
build one for the price this telezoom costs. canon can easily do that.
> Especially when I find out you use it yourself.
Yeah, twice last year. And I know that it can only serve as an
emergency option to bridge distances where I cannot go, being
aware that it is a very foul compromise I only accept because I
shoot no sports and newswork is such a low profit area that it
doesn't warrant buying a good lens "just in case".
I would never use it for important jobs, 99.9% of the
days I carry it along it is just ballast.
> What would be helpful is if you would post some ways to get
> the best out of this lens,
Easy. No filters, and please, use the original lens shade.
Stop down one or two f-stops, do not use this lens at focal
lengthes over 200 mm. Use a tripod. Sell it to a nut and
add a little money for a good lens.
--
Michael Quack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.photoquack.de
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
