Discussion Forum for various Lenses of different major labels in a shared environment at Photography In Malaysia

1. From : Terry Carraway (TCarraway@compuserve.com)
Url : http://
Date : 01:24 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001

Gary - Well, you just managed to prove that you lab uses an enlarging lenss that is at least as bad as the Albinar. Shoot some slide film and check with a loupe on a light box. Make sure that you properly focus each shot and use a tripod. Also shoot some shots in the direction of the sun. When I compared a friend's Albinar with my Canon lenses I would that shooting anywhere close to the sun caused enough flare in the Albinar to seriously reduce contrast and color saturation. Down sun the Albinar worked well in those two regards. I couldn't compare sharpness as it was print film and the shots were air to air so a lot of vibration.

2. From : Rhue Lovelaw (dustbunny@hotmail.com)
Url : http://
Date : 01:24 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001

Gary, I don't always argue with people that aint relatives,hah, but in your case I am going to do it Gary ,luv. You tested an Albinar lens and found it to be almost as sharp as a Canon. You tested it by looking at prints with a magnifying glass? Take your magnifying glass with you when you buy diamonds too... Everybody,just everybody knows that Canon lenses are superior mechanically and optically to Albinar. And if I learned anything here on this forum it is to stick with Canon lenses. Only a couple of the new EOS lenses are less than Great. Only a couple of third party companies like Vivitar and maybe Tamron did a half decent job with FD lenses. And we are not just talking optics. Mechanical construction, smoothness, play in the zoom, lubtrication, rear element focusing, stuff like that. Zooms are complex. Ron, ignore Gary on this one. He is drinking eggnog and brandy or brandy laced with nog :-). I mean you well. Get your son the Canon lens pl-e-a-se.Good tidings to all, - Rhue - ------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. From : gary (garysargent@compuserve.com)
Url : http://
Date : 01:23 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001

Ron: Last summer I bought a Canon 70-210mm for about $140 on ebay and it turned out to be in excellent condition as advertised. I just had to have a Canon lens even though I already had an Albinar 80-200mm. I then decided to do a head to head test of the two lenses by taking pictures of the same subjects at various zooms making sure all the exposures were the same using the same Canon A-1. The results were surprising similar, although the Canon lens performed better as expected, it generally took a magnifying glass to see an obvious difference in the prints (the color rendition was slightly better to the naked eye). So if I were buying a zoom for some general all-purpose use or to hike around with in the field, I'd would not pay the extra money for a Canon lens.

4. From : kaipin (kaipinc@tm.net.my)
Url : http://
Date : 01:23 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001

TO CHARLES: To solve your problem of when your current T90 will expire, just get a second Canon T90 body from any of the dealers specialized in used equipment. The FD-EOS mount converter only works with New FD lenses of 200mm (f/2.8; with Rear-group focusing) and longer. Sigma still a limited number of Manual Focus lenses but whether there are any with FD-mount, remains to be seen. EOS can be pronounced as a single word or via its initials, either way, it is perfectly alright.

5. From : Apostolos (apostolosrokkas@ath.forthnet.gr)
Url : http://
Date : 01:22 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001

###TO PAT## The Noct Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 has been discontinued since 1998, and, as it seems, there are no more pieces in stock. I visited B&H's web pages, and the Noct was not in their list. The only way to find it is by thorough search in the used stuff. But anyway, why this lens? When purchased new, this lens used to cost over $1,000 thanks to its fabled hand-polished aspherical element. Given that AIS Nikkors hold their value very well in the used market, you should not expect to find it at an affordable price. If you think your night shots are worth of such an expense, ok, go for it. Personally, I would never buy it. ###TO CHARLES### About your question on how EOS is pronounced: I think that the letters E-O-S stand for "Electronically Operated System", so it seems that the name EOS is meant to be pronounced Eee-Oh-Ess. But everyone I know calls it Eeoss. Funny thing: In Greek, "eos", when pronounced as one word, means "untill". I'm Greek, that's how I know that...

6. From : Charles (battleax@swbell.net)
Url : http://
Date : 01:21 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001

Sorry if this is posted on the wrong list, but I have several questions covering different topics... I have several Canon FD lenses and I’m painfully aware that one day my T-90 will finally give up the ghost. Is there any way to mount FD lenses on an EOS body, and still retain the automatic aperture control? I have seen the FD to EOS mount connectors in used camera store advertisements, but I know nothing about them. Have they ever been manufactured by companies other than Canon? What are their limitations? I doubt that Canon would build into their EOS line an easy route to backward compatibility, but are there alternatives so I can prevent my much loved FD lenses from becoming expensive paperweights? As a separate question, does anyone still produce Canon FD-compatible lenses? If so, are they any good? I'm pretty sure that Canon quit production nearly a decade ago. Lastly, does anyone know if EOS is pronounced as a single word ("Eeoss") or as initials ("Eee-Oh-Ess")? This has been bugging me for a while.

7. From : Mubeen Mughal (mubeen@iconnect.co.ke)
Url : http://
Date : 01:21 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001

Yellow cast Non-AI Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 lens. A friend has shown me his Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 Non-AI and the glass has a very strong yellow colour cast when you look though it. Is the yellow colouration normal ? What is the cause for the colour cast ? Could it have been manufactured that way, Is it a factory fault, or has the lens aged causing the colouration ? I would also like to add that This lens was probably manufactured around 1970-1973. The lens was boxed hadn't been used, and was lying in a shop that cleared out old Nikon stuff. It was stored in in a case called a bubble case (more of a plastic capsule). The 35mm f/1.4 were the first Nikkor lenses to leave the Nikon factory already multi-coated. I am doubtful whether the multi-coating of that era is similar to the Nikon Integrated Coating (NIC) which was introduced sometime in 1977. There is no fungus in the lens. I have seen a Nikkor 15mm f/5.6 Q-DC, of probably the same era, and it too has the yellow colouration (though to a lesser extent). Thanks in advance for your help. Best regards,

8. From : PAT (ptapplegate@netscape.net)
Url : http://
Date : 01:20 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001

I am looking for a Nikkor-Noct 58mm f/1.2 lens. These seem to be extremely difficult to locate. Does anyone have one to sell or know of anyone/anyplace to pursue my search?

9. From : Terry Carraway (TCarraway@compuserve.com)
Url : http://
Date : 01:20 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001

Michael Hui - There are no new Canon FD lenses beign made by Canon at this time, and haven't for many years (close to 10 years). They are available on the used market, but they are not cheap. Terry Carraway

10. From : Michael Hui (myhui@thlayli.los-gatos.ca.us)
Url : http://
Date : 01:19 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001

I see that the best Canon 50mm lens is the 1.2L. Is this model still manufactured by Canon right now? Or are only used ones available? If it is available new, does anyone know where I can get it? It may be marketed in certain countries only, not worldwide.

PAGE | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216