So, esteemed moderator...

[Stephanie Brim]

300 is actually less than I thought. If I do decide to keep the camera, which I'll probably lean towards (as a heads up to you-know-who), I'm trying to figure out what lens to get first. The CV 35/1.7 is also a choice, but I hear that it's sharp all the way through the aperture range and I've seen more of a soft effect wide open on the Canon lens. I like that. 😉

But yeah, now I'm broke. I'm pondering trying to find a Jupiter-12 or something to tide me over.

 

[Pherdinand]

Hey - the canon 7 was bought finally by frendakfurnari, the seller that showed up here a few weeks ago🙂

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Damn...oh well. I'll just have to wait then. Not a problem. I'm kind of wanting something other than a 50mm focal length, though, to experiment with. :x

The one complaint I have is the one complaint that anyone with eyeglasses would have...I would have to buy an external finder for a 100mm lens because I can't see the framelines well enough with my glasses. The Viewfinder is EXCELLENT for the 50, though, and so easy to focus. It won't be too much of a pain.

 

[back alley]

the vf should be fine for the 100 steph, i have no probs and i wear specs.

i agre about the 35, go for the 2.8 it is a great lens.
oscar didn't even want the 35/2 after using the 2.8
it's sharp tiny and feels great on the camera. it's my (closet) favourite lens.

get some diafine and shoot tri-x at 1250 and you'll never need a faster lens.

joe

 

[back alley]

Guys, what do you think of this one:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-P-Rangefi...ryZ15234QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
It looks like a well used but working horse... How's that lens performing?

Sorry stephanie, to hijack your thread 🙂 But you put the bug in my head.

the curtain looks beat up but the rest is ok.
for under 200 i would get it.

joe

 

[ScottS]

the curtain looks beat up but the rest is ok.
for under 200 i would get it.

joe

Under 200? It's got a 50/1.4 attached to it.

Scott

 

[Pherdinand]

200 USD i guess not pounds...?
Curtain is beat-up, but still useable like that you mean, or will need a repair?
The whole body looks beat-up a bit, but that's fine, i love used cameras🙂

 

[back alley]

oops!

i was thinking about the body only, sorry.

from what i have read the wrinkles will be fine as long as you don't try to strighten them out as that is when they are likely to crack.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Stephanie, congratulations on your Canonization!

Joe started the trend, then Oscar went for it... now you. Who else?

Gonna check them cameras... 😀

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Mmm...50/1.4

 

[back alley]

use the 1.8 young lady!

now it's time to concentrate on photos not more gear!

got it?

ok, that was my stern voice.
but really the 1.8 is a great lens and in fact, it handles nice than the 1.4!

joe

 

[djon]

True about wide lenses and slower speed hand-holding...justifying 2.8 Vs faster....BUT I just shot a B&W wedding and I SURE wish I had a LOT faster than my 35 3.5 summaron BECAUSE I had way too much depth of field at f4 @ 1/60 (ie nearly full aperture). 2.8 would have been a lot better, which is why I bought f2 🙂 How's that for justifying blowing f2 $$$$-s ?

Same exposure, different body with 50mm: f4 was just about right for defocused background but I probably should have used 2.8 (1.5 Nokton).

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Don't worry, focusing on shooting until November...by which time I hope to have saved enough money to at least get the 35/2.8. 😉

 

[back alley]

here's the url for the canon manuals... photobooksonline

joe

 

[VictorM.]

Congrats on the P, but don't waste time and money on the manual-it's not worth it-buy film and get familiar with the camera.

 

[ChrisN]

I'm really excited. And I know I'll suffer a GAS attack for lenses...starting with that damn Russian 35.

That does work with the P, right?

😀

Congratulations Stephanie - you have arrived!

Not sure about that Russian 35mm lense - I think I've read that the Jupiter 35mm will hit the baffles - anyone?

 

[Stephanie Brim]

That's what someone else said. I suppose I'll keep on the lookout for a cheap Canon 35/2.8 then.

 

[ChrisN]

Don't write-off the Cosina-Voigtlander 35/2.5, either. Not "kosher" perhaps, but for $200 (Cameraquest) its a very pleasant lens to use (new, clean, smooth controls, 1/2-stop click-stops) and it makes nice photos too.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

The Canon, in good shape, should go for less than the CV lens...though that Pancake would be nice.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Beware. People with soft hearts have hard fists.

Pherdinand, oh, so true. But, like another saying goes, in closed mouth no flies enter.