Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Charles Gast on May 02, 2007, 05:31:34 pm
-
I am looking into the Canon 200mm f1.8 lens and of course all of them are used since they quit making them. I noticed on ebay that sellers like to tout high serial numbers. Is that just to say they are newer or is it known that later models had improved optics?
Thanks!
-
Just make sure you get the glass filter holder with the clear glass filter. The difference wide open between filter and no filter is huge.
-
Just make sure you get the glass filter holder with the clear glass filter. The difference wide open between filter and no filter is huge.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115410\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Does not having the filter in place throw the focus off?
-
When I got mine there was a gelatin filter holder with no filter. The filter, be it glass or gelatin, is supposed to be in the optical path. It really made a big difference wide open. It was sharp without it, but on another planet with it. I picked up the glass filter holder with a filter used at Samy's. If your lens doesn't come with that, it's not an expensive item.
-
I am looking into the Canon 200mm f1.8 lens and of course all of them are used since they quit making them. I noticed on ebay that sellers like to tout high serial numbers. Is that just to say they are newer or is it known that later models had improved optics?
Thanks!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115403\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I recommend you stay with negative numbers, the provide the best value. I have also heard that real numbers are to be preferred to complex (which might indicate feature creep and a potential failure).
dmg
-
I recommend you stay with negative numbers, the provide the best value. I have also heard that real numbers are to be preferred to complex (which might indicate feature creep and a potential failure).
dmg
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120861\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lenses with pure imaginary numbers are cheaper.
Edmund
-
Lenses with pure imaginary numbers are cheaper.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120962\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
How true! Just now I imagined that I had a 200 f/1.8 (serial # -5i) and it was much cheaper than actually buying one! Tack sharp too.
-
Numbers in the 15000 plus range are the newer lenses. I was going to buy one a while back but Canon no longer has the focusing motors to repair any auto focus problems-you will be stuck with a manual focus lens. So I decided against buying one and went with the 300 f/2.8 L IS. If you ever wonder why they are so beat up looking-watch any pro sporting event-you will see the guys drop them as they pick up another camera with a wide angle lens to get the close up shot. Hope this helps.
Bill