Canon Bodies, Lenses and Accessories

Q: EOS 5 and EOS A2E. What is the difference and which should I buy??

A: - EOS 5 pops up its flash automatically - EOS A2E don’t do.

- EOS 5 show, in manual mode, +/- 2 stops of exposure biasing on a bar graph - EOS A2E only show the +/- indication.

Q: … Anyway, hope you can give me some guide about the Tamron lenses . Here are the lenses that I would like to know about their quality:

1. 70 - 210 mm f/2.8 LD
2. 28 - 105 mm f/2.8 LD
3. 28 - 200 mm f/3.8 LD
4. 20 - 40 mm f/2.7
5. 90 mm macro f/2.8

Answer:

1) 70 - 210 mm f/2.8 LD

All the lenses in this categories are excellent. Better than my 70-210 USM of course. We buy third party lenses because of their cheaper prices. If you can buy it cheaply, why not??? It cost about RM2,000 if I can remember.. If you can get it with about RM1,500, I wouldn't think twist to buy it. Value for money certainly great. ( Take note that RM is Money in Malaysia)

Conclusion: Depends on the price.... (BTW, Tokina 80-200 ATX Pro / RM1950 is great)

Note that RM is Malaysia Money. RM3.00 is about US$1.00

2) 28 - 105 mm f/2.8 LD

It is a very new lens. Not much comments except it use a BIG 82mm filter!!!

3) 28 - 200 mm f/3.8 LD

Just for convenient, that's all. Optically is OK for up to 100mm.

4) 20 - 40 mm f/2.7

Optically good. But not advisable to buy it. I had heard quit a number of complaints from the users itself. Something's wrong... like the focusing is not accurate with EOS 5 and A2 so far. Don't trust the Popular Photography in this lens. It's lens report conflict with my own test. I might wrong, but the report was not making any sense to me. According to the lens report, the wide open performance better than prime lenses. It is just not making any sense. Or maybe I got the faulty one.

Anyway, stop down to f4 and above give very good result (much higher contrast and saturated color).

5) 90mm macro f/2.8

I can rank this lens as excellent. I had done some great pictures with it.

Q: How does the Canon EF24 f2.8 perform?

A: As far as I am in the EOS mailing list, I had never heard of people saying any bad words against Canon EF24. Their owner only praise this lens. 'Excellent', 'Very sharp' and etc are the only words they used to describe their lens. That's why I bought it myself. And I am really pleased with the performance.

Q: What is the Guide Number in High Speed Sync. Mode for Canon 380EX?

A: From the 380EX Manual: High-Speed Sync Guide No. Table

Q: How does the Canon EF70-200 2.8 L perform with Canon 1.4X TC as well as 2X TC???

A: Below information is taken from George Lepp's quarterly newsletter: "THE NATURAL IMAGE"

The rating system is based on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the sharpest. The only lenses that have attained a 10 rating are macro lenses. It is his opinion that lenses with a rating of 5.0 to 6.0 would normally satisfy the needs of advanced amateurs that will be only projecting their images or making prints up to the 11"X14" size. The above explanation has been paraphrased from his newsletter.


Table of Sharpness

Q: Canon 70-210 3.5-4.5 USM focus faster than Canon 70-200 2.8 L??? Canon TC focus slower than third party TC???

Last week I got a change to test the 70-210 and 70-200 L side by side with my EOS A2. It was hard to believe that the 70-210 USM focus noticeable slightly faster than the 70-200 L. Maybe it is the shorter focusing scale on 70-210 USM I think.
I tried the 70-200 L with Canon TC 2X too. When ranked out to 200mm (X2=400mm), the focusing speed is very slow. With the combination, it took about 1.5 to 2 seconds to focus from macro to infinity and back to macro. Is it normal??? Or maybe something wrong with the Canon TC I used???

When I use off brand TC 2X like Kenko 2X with the 70-200 L ranked out at it's maximum focal length, the focusing speed didn't been infected at all. With or without TC is the same focusing speed!!! If I am right, I would advise people to go for good off brand TC if they are looking for high focusing speed.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

A: Another reason might be that the 70-200 has a lot heavier glass pieces to move around. If the EF70-200/2.8L's focusing scale is actually longer I guess that would lead to higher focusing precision as compared to the
70-210.

I think this too is related to focusing precision. The EF extenders report to the camera that the focal length has been multiplied by 1.4 or 2 times. The off-brand extenders don't do that. With the extended focal length (in this case 400mm vs. 200mm) the AF electronics/mechanics needs the slowed down speed in order to maintain accuracy. If the camera still thinks it is still dealing with a 200mm lens it probably won't stop the AF motor in time. I guess it will therefore overshoot a bit, and will have to move back and forth a number of time to find the proper focus position.

In other words, yeah the off-brand extenders may seem to provide quicker focusing but probably at the cost of less AF accuracy. This is at least what I think is happening...

Inge Johnsson
Plano, Texas, USA
e-mail: Inge_Carina@usa.pipeline.com

Q: Which camera perform best in focusing speed??? Canon?? Nikon??

A: Refer to AF speed test in ColorFoto

They measured AF speed, AF accuracy and AE accuracy. The rating was based on all three tests. Since the AF accuracy was within the DOF for all tested cameras, the final rating is useless.

The interesting part was AF speed. They tested with a 50/1.4 lens. The results in seconds at EV 15, 10, 5 and 0:

Nikon F5: 0.19, 0.19, 0.29, 0.41
Canon EOS-1n: 0.23, 0.23, 0.33, 0.51 (w or w/o booster)
Nikon F90X: 0.26, 0.26, 0.35, 0.53
Pentax Z-1p: 0.27, 0.29, 0.39, 0.58
Pentax MZ-5: 0.28, 0.31, 0.40, 0.61
Minolta 700si: 0.27, 0.32, 0.40, 0.60
Nikon F70: 0.30, 0.30, 0.39, 0.78
Canon EOS-5: 0.30, 0.34, 0.42, 0.60
Canon EOS-50: 0.33, 0.37, 0.43, 0.63
Minolta 500si: 0.40, 0.40, 0.45, 0.67
Contax AX: 0.39, 0.42, 0.50, 0.60 (back focus in body with MF lens)
Canon EOS-500N: 0.45, 0.52, 0.49, 0.73
Minolta 300si: 0.47, 0.50, 0.53, 0.72
Nikon F50: 0.49, 0.50, 0.52, 0.75
Pentax MZ-50: 0.49, 0.49, 0.56, 0.79
Sigma SA-5: 0.56, 0.57, 0.61, 0.80

AE accuracy was within 1/3 stop for almost all cameras. Some low-end
cameras was biased towards overexposure that is best for print film.

/Olle
Uppsala, Sweden
E-mail: olle.bjernulf@eu.pharmacia.com
Homepage: http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/8917/

Q: Does anyone know how to interpret the serial numbers on the cameras and lenses? A guy in the shop once showed me how an F1N was built in 1987 by virtue of it's serial number... but I haven't been able to figure out when my
EOS1 was built.

A: Because they are chronological, serial numbers usually do tell the approximate age of a Canon SLR or SLR lens, but Canon Inc. has never put out any sort of public info about it. However, there's another way to get the information: look inside the body's film chamber for an alphanumeric code printed in black ink on the black surface of the film chamber. You may have to hold the camera under a strong light to see it. What you'll see is a date code, possibly something like "U1140F."

The first letter tells the year the camera was manufactured: in this case, 1980. It's an alphabetic code; A = 1960, B = 1961,....T = 1979, U = 1980, and so on up to Z = 1985. The next 2 numbers tell you what month the camera was made, in this example, November. (the leading zero for the month code is sometimes omitted, so an A-1 with a code of "Y362" would have been manufactured in March, 1984, for instance.) The following 2 numbers are an internal code that is irrelevant for determining age, but year and month is close enough anyway, IMO. (This internal code is also occasionally omitted based on reports from Canon owners.) The last letter stands for the name of the factory. In this case, "F" stands for Fukushima which was the main Canon SLR factory for about 20 years from the early 70s until 1991. (The factory code is rarely omitted, if ever.)

Starting in 1986, the year code was restarted with "A" again, but the factory code was placed before it. Now that Canon SLRs are no longer manufactured at Fukushima, you're more likely to see a code starting with "O" for Oita. So, for SLRs
manufactured in 1994, you might see a code starting with "OI" followed by the month code.

Incidentally, the same type of code is printed on the back of most EF lenses as well, typically in small white characters on a
black baffle in the rear lens mount. Since Canon's SLR lens factory is in Utsonomiya, you might see a date code starting with
"UG" for a lens manufactured in 1992, for example. Previous to 1986, though, the lens date codes did not include the factory
letter.

Christopher Yo < CYo@d2k.com >

Q: EF70-200 2.8 L VS EF 80-200 2.8 L VS EF75-300 IS USM. Which one is better?

The EF75-300IS appears to have a slightly better MTF curve at 70/75mm. Other than the EF70-200/2.8L is at least as good in that respect. I've included Olle Bjernulf's lens tests from the Swedish "Foto" magazine.

Canon EF 70-200/2.8L USM (72-194mm / -2.1%, +1.3%, +2.0%)
70mm, f/2.8: 75/73, 72/68, 63/40
70mm, f/8: 75/75, 81/73, 79/50
135mm, f/2.8: 83/83, 76/83, 60/60
135mm, f/8: 86/86, 85/86, 78/76
200mm, f/2.8: 62/64, 69/62, 63/40
200mm, f/8: 80/79, 81/69, 82/69

Canon EF 80-200/2.8L (82-190mm / -2.3%, ?, +1.9%)
80mm, f/2.8: 79/80, 75/77, 34/57
80mm, f/8: 84/85, 83/79, 77/70
135mm, f/2.8: 76/80, 77/83, 61/53
135mm, f/8: 87/87, 86/85, 84/54
200mm, f/2.8: 75/81, 72/75, 52/37
200mm, f/8: 85/86, 83/83, 82/32

Canon EF 75-300/4-5.6 IS USM 77-294mm, -3.5%, +1.6%, +3.9%
75mm, f/4: 80/79, 79/71, 79/64
75mm, f/8: 83/82, 84/80, 83/62
180mm, f/4.5: 74/68, 69/50, 56/37
180mm, f/8: 78/77, 77/64, 67/40
300mm, f/5.6: 54/56, 50/33, 52/23
300mm, f/8: 67/67, 64/39, 63/23

Inge Johnsson
Plano, Texas, USA
e-mail: Inge_Carina@usa.pipeline.com

Q: I need a external power supply for my 540EZ. Any suggestion?

A: A very good option is a Canon "Compact Battery Pack E" which uses 6 AA-size cells and improves the recycling time on the 540EZ (also 430EZ) flash. The "CBP-E" costs $80 from B&H in New York.

Another option is a 3rd party 6-volt power supply and adapter (module). B&H sells a Quantum Battery-1 for $145 and modules for about $40 each.

A Quantum Turbo is $280 and cable $30.

The Turbo will give the fastest recycling time, with the CBP-E and Battery-1 almost as fast. The CBP-E will give the fewest flashes per battery set.

Dave herzstein@svl.ems.lmco.com

Q: Canon EF50 1.8 II plastic quality???

A: Just wanted to share my EF50 II experience with all the list members. I was the photographer in the last Saturday Fiber Optic Seminar which was held in my campus. In the seminar I drop my EF50 II!! on a carpet floor and about 1.4
meters from the floor. No lens hood was attached.

Hahaha... it was my very first experience to accidentally drop lenses. And I don't like that feeling... It hurt a bit!!! (but not much because it is cheap, about US$88.00)

As a result, the rear element came out half. At first, I had some difficulty pushing it back into it's position. And with the help of a screwdriver to push some element and some force used, I managed to push it back into the position!!!

Outside seem fine 'BUT' when I mounted it on my EOS A2 and the auto focus fine. Then why I use the word 'BUT'??? When I switch it to manual focus mode, it auto focus too!!! Hahaaha.. (smiling in special expression) I can't manual focus..

Ok.. Then I tried switch it to auto and to manual mode several times (about 10 times). Finally the auto and manual focus worked fine. Some time it can manual focus but some time can't. After 10 more times trying the above procedure, at last, it finally recovered 100%!!! like a new lens!! I am so happy. Then I tried everything and everything work fine. Finally I can
smile like usual.

For those who are too much worried about plastic quality EF50 II, don't worry too much! It is OK and I had 'accidentally' tested the quality against a carpet floor. Anyone tried this lens on a concrete floor??? Please share with us.

Q: Can't autofocus with aperture smaller than f5.6?

Answer 1

The problem with the f5.6 limit, as Canon describes it, has little to do with light level. Think about it: a 28-105 3.5 inside a nightclub is sending much less light to the autofocus sensor than a 500 f.8 lens in bright sunlight. Yet the autofocus works fine in dim light, maybe not so good in the bright light.

As someone else explained earlier, the problem has to do with the angle of the light rays passing through the lens aperture. That said, f5.6 is NOT an absolute limit. Many of us have discovered that lens+TC combinations that yield apertures smaller
than 5.6 autofocus just fine. Canon made a decision that f5.6 was provided the minimum acceptable level of focusing accuracy (or, if you're cynical, Canon made a marketing decision to force people to spend more money on lenses).


Bob@Meyer.net

Answer 2

The f5.6 limit has *nothing* to do with low light....it is an optical/mathematical issue....you don't get the right angle of light
on the AF sensors....this has never worked on manual focus split screens, and it will never work with AF systems....
You can stack dozens of polarizers on a f2.8 lens, until you have an effective f64 light level, but it will still focus. Mount a physical f11 combination, and AF is history.

Note also that the only exception to this f5.6 rule is the Minolta 500/8, but only because it is a mirror lens, with a different optical path and focus/defocus qualities than glass lenses.

Willem-Jan Markerink
w.j.markerink@a1.nl

Q: How good is Canon lenses coating?

A: Canon uses the same coating technology for filters and lenses. I think it's quite obvious that the coating has a huge influence on the reflections within a lens and these reflections are nothing else than 'flare' (=loss of contrast & ghost images of the aperture). I suggest to take a look at Canon's "Lens work" book for detailed explanations.

Canon states that it's super spectra coating reflects between 0.2 and 0.3% of the light. Based on the 18 elements of the 70-200L this COULD accumulate to a "dangerous" degree of light reflections. This is probably the reason for the usage of a flare-cutting diaphragm in this lens.

Anyway, these reflections shouldn't be important under normal contrast conditions but MAY be critical when shooting directly
into the sun. It's probably quite save to say that e.g. the 300/2.8 (just 10 elements) is a bit better under these these conditions. The same should be true for a lens with the same construction and a better coating.

Nobody doubts that the 70-200L is a great lens! We're just discussing why someone reported flare problems with this lens. Not more and not less!

Klaus
kschroiff@metronet.de

Q: Slow Sync with Canon EOS 5/A2E??

Being a new owner of the Canon EOS 5, I can't seem to locate the instructions for the Slow Sync function of the built in flash. I tend to use this function often in my previous camera (Minolta 700si) particularly for night scenes.

Can someone advise me please?

A: I suppose you are not talking about second curtain flash, right? Using the slow sync flash cannot be more easier with EOS. To make it short, try using AV, TV or M for it, that's all. In these mode, the camera will use slow speed (up to 30 second) to achieve proper exposure rather than fixing the shutter speed to 1/60 (in automatic mode) to avoid hand shake.

BTW, make sure you have a tripod. And hopefully the speed isn't slower than 1/8 if you are taking pictures including people.

Q: I would like to ear your comments about Speedlite 540EZ compared with the Metz 40MZ-2 or the newer 40MZ-3 for an EOS 5 body.

Answer 1

I think the 40MZ who is a bit shorter than the 540EZ (taller) will suffer red light effect easier (or at lease at a nearer distance). Normally the built-in flash need red light reducer because it is built very near to the lenses, so the flash fire from it will reach the eyes and then back to the lenses at angle approximate 0 degree (at 2~3m). Even my 540EZ will suffer red light if my subject is too far away (20m), and the angle will again approximate 0 degree.

Any comments???

Answer 2

The winning combination is ... EOS 5 + Metz MZ-40 2/3. A-TTL now, upgrade to E-TTL with new adapter next year.

That's simple: How long will you use a EOS 5 ? 3,4,5 years ? Thereafter there'll be a new EOS generation with a new flash
system (or at least w/E-TTL) and you still will be able to upgrade a Metz flash with the latest technology while the 540EZ will be totally outdated.

Based on the quite reliable test from Chasseur d'Image the Metz is better anyway and you have an additional option for remote TTL. Can you tell me one reason to choose the 540EZ instead of the Metz 40 MZ-3 ?

Klaus
kschroiff@metronet.de

Q: Could some of you give me your opinion on the 500n model? I am interested in 500N.

A: I bought one at the beginning of the year together with a good range of lenses. The body was about 10% of my total kit cost. I guess I would have naturally bought a 5 or a 50E but there were things I didn't like about these and with all the rumors about 5 replacement then flying around I decided on a wait and see strategy and bought the 500N with the intention that this would become my second/backup body at some point. Previously I had Canon FD bodies and was used to fully manual operation. There are quite a few things I don't like about it but you get an awful lot of functionality for less than 300 UKP, after all my bottom of the range FTb cost more than 100 UKP in 1973 and I am well satisfied with my purchase (in fact I am probably going to buy another!)

I have found,

1) learning to use (and getting old fingers to learn to use) an automatic camera was quite difficult - things kept happening I didn't expect. This would probably be true whatever you buy.

2) the camera interface is confusing as the same buttons are used for different things. I was particularly confused by getting different meter readings between manual and P modes until I re-read the manual and discovered that P, AV & TV use evaluative whilst M uses center weighted. There is no logic in this, you just have to know.

3) the evaluative metering seems to work well where the shot doesn't include much sky but with a typical half sky scene it seems to overexpose by about half a stop - I think this has been discussed on this list before - I frequently check exposures with partial metering before committing myself. I usually take slides so this is important - if you do prints you wouldn't need to worry. It is long winded but I often use evaluative & partial to decide on the exposure but then take in manual mode because if you take your finger of the button all your corrective inputs are lost! I really miss having a needle in the in the viewfinder which goes up and down as you point the camera at different bits of your scene - it is very difficult to compare EVs when both your aperture and shutter speed are varying in half stops and you have to keep pushing that wretched little button also as it doesn't vary continuously.

4) I find the main control wheel (i.e. the one behind the shutter release) easy to push but not to pull, when pulling I often
jump a couple of positions which I then have to correct

5) biggest bugbear for me is the viewfinder. It is only 90% coverage so with slides you have to continually remember to frame very tightly (and check what is out of view!). Also the quality is very poor so you can only focus manually using the center. (All my lenses have FTM so it is often easier to adjust manually than change the focus point selection) Off axis there is a lot of lateral color and you have no idea what your lens is doing.

6) I have a 300 IS. It is a nuisance that the exposure program does not recognize that this is an IS lens and always selects a shutter speed higher than one (me anyway!) would naturally choose. On the other hand the camera works properly with this lens and the converters which some of the older designs do not.

7) The light weight is great and the finish seems very durable. I do not have a case and yet the body is virtually unmarked. I guess I would be more comfortable with a metal lens mount though.

8) What about the 1N, 5 & 50E? Well the 1N was too expensive for me. The 5 has lots of features, including spot metering which I would like, and a good metering system, but it doesn't have partial metering and I find the body very bulky for my not particularly big hands. Also it is as heavy as my old FD bodies. The 50e doesn't have the sophisticated metering of the 5 and doesn't have spot and it is still fairly heavy - so I'm not particularly attracted to it.

I should add that I use flash very little so flash considerations have not entered into my decisions.

In conclusion I think the 500n offers excellent value for money. It is light, compact and durable. The price for this is some significant drawbacks which are not all addressed by any one camera in the range. My expectation is that it is engineered down to a price and I don't expect it to actually last for very long without breaking. You just don't get 100,000 guaranteed shutter operations in all sorts of weathers without paying for it.

HTH (and generates some controversy!),
Richard Stephenson

ZLSIIRJ@fs1.mcc.ac.uk

Q: Can I stack up EF1.4x and EF2.0x teleconverter?

Is this a big no-no? Is it physically possible? What about the optical quality? Thank in advance.

I haven't got an extension tube yet so I can't try it but I would be a little hesitant. Comments?

A: Well I did try it and it was a fairly pointless exercise. I used a 200mm f1.8, which gives you a 560mm f4.5 (or there abouts). This would be great if it worked.

However the AF became very erratic and prone to wind straight past the correct focus point. In fact next to useless.
The nearest lens I have for comparison is a Tamron 500 mm f8 mirror. In a very non-scientific test (@ f8, on a monopod 1/500 sec Fujichrome 100), the Tamron produced pictures that were sharper and with better contrast, but only just. The hideous combination was optically better than expected.

With just the 2x converter, the 200mm is only about half a stop slower than the monster 400mm f2.8 and optically very good. So it's a bargain!

Colin
cedwards@pavilion.co.uk