back alley
IMAGES
after more than a month in transit it is here.
i'm guessing most of that was in customs and for which i was dinged the princely sum of 32 bucks for the pleasure of waiting.
the good news is fits so well on the canon lll, it has a finder and with hyperfocal distancing i can get most everything in focus from 3 feet to infinity at f11 or so.
so the hazy camera finder is no problem now!
the bad news is the finder arrived with 2 deep parallel scratches across the front glass. this was NOT described in the ebay ad.
the lens itself is a mixed bag. cosmetically it was dirty but cleaned up nicely. what looked like worn chrome in the ad turned out to be a bit of black goo and goo gone had that gone (whew) in a second, so it looks good.
what was described as light cleaning marks are not so light, not deep or gauged but not light. the front glass is clean as all the marks seem to be on the back glass.
time will tell what this lens will do, photo wise.
i have sent off an email to the seller in oz describing my concerns and asking what he might be prepared to do as, after a month in transit i am not prepared to ship it back for a refund.
oh, and my last hood is here. looks just like the ebay pic but was so poorly packed it was funny. i sent them an email also.
joe
i'm guessing most of that was in customs and for which i was dinged the princely sum of 32 bucks for the pleasure of waiting.
the good news is fits so well on the canon lll, it has a finder and with hyperfocal distancing i can get most everything in focus from 3 feet to infinity at f11 or so.
so the hazy camera finder is no problem now!
the bad news is the finder arrived with 2 deep parallel scratches across the front glass. this was NOT described in the ebay ad.
the lens itself is a mixed bag. cosmetically it was dirty but cleaned up nicely. what looked like worn chrome in the ad turned out to be a bit of black goo and goo gone had that gone (whew) in a second, so it looks good.
what was described as light cleaning marks are not so light, not deep or gauged but not light. the front glass is clean as all the marks seem to be on the back glass.
time will tell what this lens will do, photo wise.
i have sent off an email to the seller in oz describing my concerns and asking what he might be prepared to do as, after a month in transit i am not prepared to ship it back for a refund.
oh, and my last hood is here. looks just like the ebay pic but was so poorly packed it was funny. i sent them an email also.
joe
back alley
IMAGES
with my luck there is a fed out there with a canon fetish...
joe
joe
back alley
IMAGES
well the good news is, that the seller is offering a full refund, including shipping, upon return of the lens.
of course this was after i said i did not want to return the lens after such a lengthy wait for it.
i feel a touch burned as the description in the ebay ad was not fully the truth.
oh well, live & learn i guess. i won't be doing business with him again.
joe
of course this was after i said i did not want to return the lens after such a lengthy wait for it.
i feel a touch burned as the description in the ebay ad was not fully the truth.
oh well, live & learn i guess. i won't be doing business with him again.
joe
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
backalley photo said:
wow that's surprising.
Joe this is the CV 28/3.5?
back alley
IMAGES
no ray, sorry, it's an ancient canon 28/3.5
actually, if i read it right when i looked it up, it is a very early and a rare version.
Type: 1
Approx date issued:
10/51 to 12/51
Serial # range:
10001 (10018) to 10339
Rarity Rating: R2
Type reason: SERENAR f:3.5 28mm Canon Camera Co. No.xxxxx
and i have to admit it is a bit surprising as i have not been burned on ebay. if anything the pics have made the item look worse than it was and contributed to a lower price.
joe
actually, if i read it right when i looked it up, it is a very early and a rare version.
Type: 1
Approx date issued:
10/51 to 12/51
Serial # range:
10001 (10018) to 10339
Rarity Rating: R2
Type reason: SERENAR f:3.5 28mm Canon Camera Co. No.xxxxx
and i have to admit it is a bit surprising as i have not been burned on ebay. if anything the pics have made the item look worse than it was and contributed to a lower price.
joe
Last edited:
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
backalley photo said:
Sorry, that was my eBay cynicism showing. I've been disappointed more often with camera purchases off of eBay than any other item. Thanks for the clarification on the lens. I was searching the archives for user reports on the CV 28/3.5, and saw this thread and thought "voila!"
Can't wait to see your results with this one. I shot fairly extensively with my Canon 135/3.5 last weekend for the first time, and was pleased with the results. But that's another thread...
back alley
IMAGES
no doubt my better buys have been from people here or places on the net other than ebay, but i really can't complain.
as for that cv 28/3.5 it gets very good write ups normally.
i may have to wait a bit to use my 28 though. i have tomorrow off but it looks like heavy rain and then showers all weekend.
joe
as for that cv 28/3.5 it gets very good write ups normally.
i may have to wait a bit to use my 28 though. i have tomorrow off but it looks like heavy rain and then showers all weekend.
joe
You must have just about everything now. We will know you in NY becasue you will be the guy with the 5 cameras dangling around your neck.
taffer
void
Joe give it a try, if you end liking it a lot and somewhat dislike the big finder, you can always sell that one and get the CV mini.
Or with such a big DOF and a bit of force, you can always go out there finderless
In any way, congrats, I'm happy to hear it finally got to you.
Or with such a big DOF and a bit of force, you can always go out there finderless
In any way, congrats, I'm happy to hear it finally got to you.
back alley
IMAGES
rover said:
pretty close rover. when the 100/3.5 shows up i will be done, at least with this phase.
after that i intend on woking to 'improve' my photography, whatever that might look like.
joe
back alley
IMAGES
taffer said:Joe give it a try, if you end liking it a lot and somewhat dislike the big finder, you can always sell that one and get the CV mini.
Or with such a big DOF and a bit of force, you can always go out there finderless
In any way, congrats, I'm happy to hear it finally got to you.
for sure gonna try it out!
i have a small case that i used to use for extra film, it fits on my belt and the lll w/28 fits into it perfectly. the finder will stay in a pocket.
i may be a 28 guy for awhile, leave the 35 at home till i'm comfortable with this set up.
and oscar, i do intend to try it without the finder for a roll or 2 also.
i'm getting kinda excited about all that dof out there on the streets.
joe
What do you think about the magnified viewfinder? It really makes you feel that using a 135mm lens is possible on a RF.
back alley
IMAGES
it's very cool indeed, but i never really had a problem with the 135 on the p or 7.
at least not with focussing it.
i do think it helps to be a sloppy worker and not get too absorbed with the details...
joe
at least not with focussing it.
i do think it helps to be a sloppy worker and not get too absorbed with the details...
joe
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
rover said:
It is very possible. I did a very SLR-type thing with my 135 and M: I shot about three rolls of a my daughters' soccer match, and managed to squeeze off a few family shots utilizing all that DOF (see below).
I'm not a very good sports photographer, but it was very easy and a lot of fun. Also, I rather enjoyed roaming the touchline with my retro-looking lens scooting past the pro shooter with his gigantic lens on a monopod. Granted HIS shots were probably sell-able (and presentable), but a 135 on a RF is no problem.
[I went off the camera meter and forgot to compensate so my action shots ended about a 1/2-1 stops under exposed]
back alley
IMAGES
all nice shots ray!
i too am not really into sports shots but the light was great on that last shot.
my fave is the first shot, great little boy portrait.
joe
i too am not really into sports shots but the light was great on that last shot.
my fave is the first shot, great little boy portrait.
joe
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Thanks guys! Joe, the light changed some throughout the day, they played primarily all their games before 2PM, and most in very contrasty (film-wise) situations. I used D23 in an attempt to control the contrast, and I think the lens helped on that end too. That's my son in the tree. He spent the whole match up there (typical boy!)