EOS300 with Canon 22-55 lens. Tobermory trip.

[Ko.Fe.]

Tobermory, Ontario is at the top of Bruce Peninsula. This is where Niagara Escarpment ends into deep waters. It is my favourite summer destination.
We swim and hike where, camping and eating local fish and chips.
I have tried different cameras here. But Canon EOS 300 with 22-55 Canon lens is best kit so far.

It is low cost, good results, lightweight and quick in use kit.
I don't want to bring expensive gear to this place, because we go on the swim and it just doesn't feel right to leave expensive gear and go for long swim.

Camera does it all and lens gives my most used focal lengths.

Films are Kodak 400 UltraMax and Ilford FP4+, developed and scanned at home.

I printed some BW family pictures from this trip on inkjet and they are very good. Will try to print in darkroom later.

The lens is not prime quality, but I would not hesitate to use it on EOS 300. Camera and lens have plastic mounts, both are very cheap. Yet, it is one of the best film kit I ever used. I have tried plastic fixed focus, one aperture and one shutter speed camera in Tobermory and Zorki with I-22 as well.

 

[capitalK]

Nice.

I really wanted to take the kids to the Grotto this summer, but the weather never participated on the days I had off.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Nice.

I really wanted to take the kids to the Grotto this summer, but the weather never participated on the days I had off.

Thank you. It it is this week trip and water is warm.

 

[capitalK]

It's interesting to see the strange zoom configurations that Canon toyed with. I was unfamiliar with the 22-55mm until this thread.

Recently my mother bought me a similar Canon SLR at a thrift store. I asked over the phone what lens it came with and she said '38-76'. That made no sense to me so I waited until I saw her next and picked it up... sure enough, it came with a 38-76mm lens.

 

[Doug]

Strange focal lengths, settled on perhaps by the way the computations worked out... Reminded of the original 35mm-format zoom, the 1959 Voigtlander Zoomar which had a 36-72mm focal length IIRC.

 

[Swift1]

Nice work, Konstantin!
Is that lens an EF fullframe lens, or one the EF-S lenses made for the IX cameras?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Thanks to all of you for comments about photography.
Yes, the lens was in use on this strange, dead end film format. "Modern" one.

But if you look from RFF, LUF perspective... It is all in 99% about 21, 28, 35 and 50 lenses.
On and on and on. How many thousands they are ready to pay for cumbersome 28-35-50mm f4 just because it has Leica label... Yet, this next to nothing lens covers most covered by gearheads' salva focal lengths.
Honestly, if film speed is right and here is comfort temperatures, I don't need Leica with with this lens on this EOS camera.
It has its limits for sure, but I'm ditching my RF gear with this kit more and more.

Wait for my Elan IIe and no grearheads status Tamron zoom lens thread. 🙂

 

[Swift1]

Wait for my Elan IIe and no grearheads status Tamron zoom lens thread. 🙂

I had a Elan II and a Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 USM, and that was an excellent kit and gave me some superb images. 😀

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I had a Elan II and a Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 USM, and that was an excellent kit and gave me some superb images. 😀

This is how my family entered in fine, just point and shoot photography.
EOS 300 and 28-90 plastic fantastic zoom. https://photos.google.com/album/AF1...o/AF1QipNiop11ID9eMjfF0Km79XwdovZyKQ6FV3IdHGE
I sold the lens in 2010, but my wife was wise enough to say No for EOS 300.
22-55 suits me a lot more on EOS 300 than 28-90.

 

[Huss]

Tobermory, Ontario is at the top of Bruce Peninsula.

Anyone else instantly think of The Wombles?

 

[lynnb]

Nice thread Kostya. I agree about the EOS300 - no worries taking it anywhere and the kit lenses are good enough.. I have the 28-80 and 28-90. The 22-55 sounds much more useful.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Thank you, Lynn!
I started to look for wider, but small lens, because (our daughter's) 16-35 2.8 II is too heavy for EOS 300, but I like it at 20mm end. And Google search found some forums threads from 2003, 2004 where 22-55 was mentioned. It seems to be forgotten lens.

 

[Oren Grad]

Is that lens an EF fullframe lens, or one the EF-S lenses made for the IX cameras?

It was a kit zoom for the EOS IX SLR cameras; that's what accounts for the seemingly odd focal length range. On the APS-C "classic" frame size it's your basic mdoerately-wide-to-moderately-long kit zoom. But it mounts on full-frame EOS (D)SLRs without restriction and covers full frame. EF-S was introduced later, for Canon's APS-C DSLRs.

I was curious about it so a good while back I bought one of the IX SLR cameras just to get one. I've used it a bit on my EOS 6D. For sure, optical performance doesn't approach even that of low-end kit zooms computed for digital cameras. But stop it down to middle apertures and you can get some quite usable pictures. Better still, for my purposes the focal length range is ideal for a full-frame camera - I generally shoot wide-to-normal, rarely anything beyond 55 - and getting that range in such a tiny and light-weight package is a delight.

It's cool to see it being used on full-frame 35mm film, too!

 

[Barry Kirsten]

I bought an EOS300 with 28-90mm lens years ago for some colour shots I needed to do for publishing. It's light weight, plasticy, but so nice to use. Excellent auto exposure and focusing, and as others have said, the lens is not bad either. I've thought of selling it several times, but couldn't bring myself to do it. So I keep it and run a roll through it when I just want to go out and have some fun.

 

[Oren Grad]

Here's one made with the 22-55 on my 6D. Lens was at 55mm, aperture was f/8. The far corners are a bit smeary, and the capture was fairly low contrast overall, but it perks up nicely with a bit of work in Photoshop.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

This lens on Canon 500D.

 

[Oren Grad]

And some bubbles! 6D, 22-55@34mm, f/8.

 

[lynnb]

Oren, thanks for the samples on 6D.