I just knocked my Canon 10D off my coffee table and broke the lens mount on the lens :nuts: :nuts: 
:mumble:
:mumble:Nooooo!!!!!!
- Thread starter BigMike
- Start date
Nice job, numbnuts. 
SkaredShtles said:Nice job, numbnuts.
Hey, this is a very traumatic time for me! Its a cheap lens, but its the only one I have.
Thanks for the sympathy here!
What lens?
And, most importantly, is the camera okay?
And, most importantly, is the camera okay?
His photo taking device is useless without a lensChangleen said:
Suck it up, Princess.BigMike said:
are you sure that one of the fine ladies in your avatar didn't sit on it??
I thought this was a Darth Vader thread about when he heard he "accidentally" killed Pad mei.
I thought it was a Redskins thread.
50mm 1.8 with plastic lens mount?
My bad, I appologize for stupidifying the thread and blowing your joke.Changleen said:
binary visions said:
Its a Quantaray 19-35 1:3.5-4.5. Its cheap, but its the only lens I have
The Camera seems OK, I took the lens off, and it fired, the mirror actuated, and the screen worked.
The Lens has a metal mount, but the 3 screws that hold the lens mount to the lens thread into plastic threads. One of those plastic thread things broke off, so the screw is useless. When mounted, the lens hangs out a little bit, and the contacts dont work. Theoretically I can glue the piece back in, but getting it in the right place would be nearly impossible.
I'm gonna take it to a camera shop tomorrow and see if there is anything they can do
CHOP said:
I'm not upset about the Skins at all. They had a great run this season. People didn't think that they could make the playoffs, and they made it to the second round. Its the best they have done in a loooong time, so i'm happy about it
I was just picking at you, because I know you are a big Skins fan. Anyways, Good Luck with the camera.BigMike said:
CHOP said:
Yeah, I got that
Thanks..... I hope its fixable. Its one of those things thats really simple, but really complicated to fix. The little thing has to be glued back in place exactly. It may not even be worth it. If they charge me $75 to fix a $200 lens, I may as well put that $75 toward another lens and try and jerry rig this one to work by myself.
I hear for $75 you can get a really nice prime lens for your Cannon.BigMike said:Yeah, I got that
Thanks..... I hope its fixable. Its one of those things thats really simple, but really complicated to fix. The little thing has to be glued back in place exactly. It may not even be worth it. If they charge me $75 to fix a $200 lens, I may as well put that $75 toward another lens and try and jerry rig this one to work by myself.
Prime lens. You know - no zoomie. Ask Narlus. It looks to take very nice pictures.BigMike said:
bigmike, what's the lower lens? the Sigma 100-300 f/4? BV shot me some info re: that lens today as a cheaper but still quality competitor to the L lens you've shown.
btw, i got the Canon 50mm f/1.8 for ~$80 shipped.
narlus said:
The Sigma 70-200 2.8. Sorry, I typed in the link URL wrong, but I fixed it
SkaredShtles said:
Right, duh, I should have known that
I have a fixed 50mm 1.8 on my 35mm Canon, too bad They are different lens mounts! I also have a nice 70-200 for it!
?!BigMike said:
Do you have an old 35mm Canon? I didn't think Canon had changed lens mounts in 10+ years...
You should just get a 70-200 f/4. Comperable image quality, at a lot less weight and price.
But as Narlus said, I did a lot of looking into the Sigma 100-300 f/4 and generally, reviews are glowing about it. Nice range, constant aperture, and a nice price.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!Changleen said:
Sorry for your loss BTW....
I can vouch for the 70-200 F4/L, great lens, great value. If you can spend ~$350-400, look into the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 XR/DI/IF, its a great walk-around lens and pretty sharp. Some people say it is about as sharp as the 24-70 F2.8L, I wouldn't go that far, but at 1/4 of the price it can't be beat.
-James.
-James.
Most importantly, would you hit it?binary visions said:
I already did :evil:johnbryanpeters said:
binary visions said:
I have an old AE1 which is an FD mount. No auto focus, fully manual. The 10D is an EF mount.
I want the 2.8 because I do a lot of low light shooting. Besides shooting sports, I shoot a LOT of Theatre and Dance. I have been looking at a new lens, because the aperature on the now broken one was pretty high.
When they say constant aperature, that means the lens can use any aperature througout the range, right? I can shoot at 70mm 2.8 or 200mm 2.8. Thats how I understand it at least.
that sucks man...just getting my new lense in the mail today that ISNT BROKE, im sorry...
You got itBigMike said:
I really like constant aperture lenses - even if I have to sacrifice a tiny amount at the wide end, or only gain a small amount at the telephoto end (a lot of nice lenses are, say, f/3.5-4.5 so you only gain 0.5 at the tele end and sacrifice 0.5 at the wide end if you have a constant f/4), I appreciate not having to be conscious of where I am in the zoom range when considering my aperture.
f/2.8 is awesome, but you pay a big penalty in weight and price
To me though, its worth it, becuause in the theatre I can shoot at 2.8, and my most crisp aperature will be around 3.5-4 instead of 5+binary visions said:f/2.8 is awesome, but you pay a big penalty in weight and price
I thought it was a Thread about Mr. Bill coming out of the closetCHOP said:
I would get a Nikon, if I didn't already have the body and accessories for a Canon, and Canon wasn't better
I went to the camera store today, they said they would have to send it off to get repaired. I asked the guy how much it was and he said since they have to send it off it would be way over $100. Thats almost half the price of the lens, so I won't be doing that. Tweezers and Super Glue it is! (and I guess i'll just have to get that Sigma lens too )
I went to the camera store today, they said they would have to send it off to get repaired. I asked the guy how much it was and he said since they have to send it off it would be way over $100. Thats almost half the price of the lens, so I won't be doing that. Tweezers and Super Glue it is! (and I guess i'll just have to get that Sigma lens too
)
Sounds to me like you need camera inssurance, especialy if your going to upgrade to top notch lenses. When my 1D Mk2 with the 70-200 f2.8 IS got stolen with one of my 4gig cards in it, cost me a mere $50 deductable to replace the whole shebang. It was still $50 I'd rather have in my pocket (for beer) but it saved my arss for sure.
maxyedor said:
Holy crap! thats like 15 grand worth of stuff!
Where do you get this camera insurance, and how much does it cost
I'm an APA member and am insured through them. It's about $100 for the membership and I have to pay another $300 per year for the insurance but that covers 50k worth of gear (my cameras, lenses, media, strobes) plus 25k worth of rental equipment. But I've also had a leaky underwater housing, a broken 400f 2.8 front element and foscus ring/motor, and my repote cameras get trashed every once in a while. I try not claim it unless it's big but over the past few years with digital stuff, racking up a large bill is pretty easy.