Canon EOS 1000F-N + zoom EF 35-80 mm: any good??

[TheToadMen]

I was given a Canon EOS 1000 F-N today. It has a Canon zoom lens EF 35-80 mm 1:4-5.6. I need to get a new battery for it. I never used Canon before (always Nikon) but it will be nice to try. So I bought a new battery ($16) for it.


Since I know nothing about Canon cameras, I would like to ask you guys if this camera and lens is any good?

I recently also bought a Canon AE1 with a 28 mm and a 50 mm lens for testing ($25), but I believe these lenses don't fit on the EOS system.
So - if this EOS is any good - I might get me one prime lens like 28, 35 or 50 mm for this camera 2nd hand. I heard something before about a cheap but good "plastic" 50 mm lens (plastic-fantastic it was called?). Can anyone tell what that is?

I don't want to spend much money on this camera since my main system is Nikon or Leica for 35 mm, but I think it is fun to use different "old" cameras now and then, especially cameras that are not used anymore by people who otherwise might trow it away...
Thanks,
Bert

 

[flatulent1]

You're in luck, sort of. The 1000F-N was known in North America as the Rebel S II, a consumer grade camera. On the plus side, it is one of very few Rebels (according to the Canon Camera Museum) to have a true pentaprism in the viewfinder; most of the rest of the Rebel series had darker pentamirrors. It might be a fine camera to add to an already established accumulation of EOS gear, but I would choose something else to use as the foundation of a new kit, say an EOS 3 or an Elan 7N.

The lens, on the other hand... (cough)

You are correct, lenses that fit the AE-1 don't fit EOS. Any adapter to do so would have to have glass in it, reducing optical performance.

The so-called 'plastic fantistic' is an EF 50mm f/1.8 II, currently sells in the neighborhood of $125. Said to have excellent sharpness. Amazingly cheap build.

 

[TheToadMen]

You're in luck, sort of. (...)
The lens, on the other hand... (cough)
(...)
The so-called 'plastic fantistic' is an EF 50mm f/1.8 II, currently sells in the neighborhood of $125. Said to have excellent sharpness. Amazingly cheap build.

I thought so about the zoom lens. But is was a gift, so I don't mind. I think I'll go looking for a 2nd hand 'plastic fantastic' for experimenting.

One other good thing: I have a converter ring for Leira-R lenses to EOS mount. So I've put in the the fresh battery, an outdated Kodak Elite 200 slide film and fixed my Leica Elmarit - R 2.8/35 lens for testing tomorrow.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

It doesnt aıtofocus in dim light , 35-80 is fastest autofocus lens in eos lenses , Camera bosy requires a strap or after one hour , your hands would pain , I dont think any difference with that and digital camera. When it took blue trees at dim light , I sold it. When you load film , take it to the green , big sign on the wheel , it will wind the film until it finish and whenever you shot a frame , film will return to its roll , reverse of Leica.

Glass is the cheapest grade and japanese engineering is still at the precision level at lens grinding back to the Leicas 1940s even today. Dont shot a frame and waste it when you have a Leica. This is disneyland camera.

 

[Vonder]

Ever take a picture that was slightly out of focus? Sometimes that matters, sometimes it doesn't. If it's a picture of your mom and aunt Judy just before one or both of them died, it simply doesn't matter. Or, it shouldn't. Seeing the extra odd wrinkle on aunt Judy's face isn't going to make the image any more or less treasured. If you're a pro who demands sharp images (who knows, maybe you do ariel reconnaissance) then the Rebel kit lens will be a disaster. If you take pics of family and friends you'll be plenty happy. Set it at f8 and shoot away. You *may* be pleasantly surprised.

 

[mweintraub]

I'm not the one to talk sometimes*, but why not limit yourself to fewer systems. This makes things easier (and cheaper) when wanting to use lenses.

Since you're a Nikon user, why not get an N80 or F100 and use your existing lenses (of course if you have FF lenses or DX lenses that fill most of the film). Of course the manual bodies and lenses are very different than their counterpart, so maybe keeping that AE-1 would be fun. But then again, you could always get a Nikon FM2n, FE2, etc that could use Non G Nikon lenses.

* I say this because I sometimes have 2 different systems in the same format. For example, I have numerious Nikon and Minolta MD lenses for the bodies I have. But I'm keeping it to these two. (ok, the Mamiya NC1000S w/ one lens doesn't count and also I'm temped to buy a friends Canon F-1n.)

 

[TheToadMen]

I'm not the one to talk sometimes*, but why not limit yourself to fewer systems. This makes things easier (and cheaper) when wanting to use lenses.

Since you're a Nikon user, why not get an N80 or F100 and use your existing lenses (of course if you have FF lenses or DX lenses that fill most of the film). Of course the manual bodies and lenses are very different than their counterpart, so maybe keeping that AE-1 would be fun. But then again, you could always get a Nikon FM2n, FE2, etc that could use Non G Nikon lenses.

* I say this because I sometimes have 2 different systems in the same format. For example, I have numerious Nikon and Minolta MD lenses for the bodies I have. But I'm keeping it to these two. (ok, the Mamiya NC1000S w/ one lens doesn't count and also I'm temped to buy a friends Canon F-1n.)

You're absolutely right off course, but why not indulge my CBS (*) when the camera is free? Especially when I have the Leica-R to Eos adapter? (and don't you dare to ask why I bought this ring in the first place !!).

About Nikon: I already have a F, F2as, F3, FM3a, EL2, FM10 (recent present), F90x (=N90s in USA), and also a F4s and a F5 but these two died on me (maybe I'll get them repaired?). And several good old and new Nikon lenses. So that is good enough for one system and no need to get into an other system like Canon, I know.
But, you know, severe CBS sometimes ....
I have only one DSLR: a Nikon D200.

(Did I forget to mention my Leica, Bronica, Canonet, Clack, Gevabox, Rolleiflex, Kowa Kallo and ...? Welcome to my Camera Orphanage)

(*) CBS = camera buyers syndrome

 

[MattKing]

I've recently bought into a few Canon EOS bodies, because:
1) My main 35mm system is Olympus OM, which essentially doesn't offer auto-focus;
2) The film bodies are incredibly cheap, unless you buy the pro level equipment, and even that is very inexpensive;
3) Some of the models offer eye controlled focus - two of my bodies do, and it works for me;
4) I can use my OM lenses on the EOS bodies with an adapter, if I can put up with stop down metering;
5) A couple of the bodies (Rebel 2000) are incredibly cheap and incredibly light with a kit lens - and I get a built in power winder, auto-focus and a built in flash - can you say "high quality snapshot camera"?

 

[agnosticnikon]

It doesnt aıtofocus in dim light , 35-80 is fastest autofocus lens in eos lenses , Camera bosy requires a strap or after one hour , your hands would pain , I dont think any difference with that and digital camera. When it took blue trees at dim light , I sold it. When you load film , take it to the green , big sign on the wheel , it will wind the film until it finish and whenever you shot a frame , film will return to its roll , reverse of Leica.

Glass is the cheapest grade and japanese engineering is still at the precision level at lens grinding back to the Leicas 1940s even today. Dont shot a frame and waste it when you have a Leica. This is disneyland camera.

Yeah, this kinda bothers me a little. I don't personally believe that the type of camera and lenses you use make you a good photographer or necessarily produce better photos. I have over many years bought and used cameras from all the major manufacturers and many of the minor and forgotten manufacturers too. I've found that I've been able to get some kind of image that was pleasing to me using all of them. Are some cameras and lenses manufactured better than others? Of course, but that doesn't mean lesser costing products can't produce interesting images. I don't find that every picture I make has to be razor sharp to be a good photo. And there are plenty of famous photos, past and present to prove it. So whether you're using high quality glass on a large format camera, or a plastic camera like a Holga, the only criteria about the image should be, do YOU like it? Unless you're a pro working for someone else, with specific needs that only certain kinds of equipment can produce, the final judge should be you.
Oh, and I have a Canon EOS 1n, a Rebel XS, and an old RT, along with the plastic 50mm 1.8 II. I like them for what they do, and will keep on using them.
Have fun with the Canon camera and lens, they're just a different tools.

 

[mweintraub]

You're absolutely right off course, but why not indulge my CBS (*) when the camera is free? Especially when I have the Leica-R to Eos adapter? (and don't you dare to ask why I bought this ring in the first place !!).

About Nikon: I already have a F, F2as, F3, FM3a, EL2, FM10 (recent present), F90x (=N90s in USA), and also a F4s and a F5 but these two died on me (maybe I'll get them repaired?). And several good old and new Nikon lenses. So that is good enough for one system and no need to get into an other system like Canon, I know.
But, you know, severe CBS sometimes ....
I have only one DSLR: a Nikon D200.

(Did I forget to mention my Leica, Bronica, Canonet, Clack, Gevabox, Rolleiflex, Kowa Kallo and ...? Welcome to my Camera Orphanage)

(*) CBS = camera buyers syndrome

Well, I think you've things covered.

*slow walks away*

 

[TheToadMen]

Well, I think you've things covered.

*slow walks away*

Okay, I need help ....:munch:

 

[blockend]

A couple of the bodies (Rebel 2000) are incredibly cheap and incredibly light with a kit lens - and I get a built in power winder, auto-focus and a built in flash - can you say "high quality snapshot camera"?

Consumer SLRs were incredibly sophisticated and generally light, if a little bulky. That can be forgiven as they pack a lot of extras into a small space. If you view them as a fancy point and shoot rather than a low rent professional camera they make a lot of sense. AF can be slow on kit zooms in low light, but no worse than P&S cameras.

 

[kitanikon]

Just a bit of fyi....
Canon's 3.5-4.5 lenses are better than the F4-5.6 series....(e.g. 35-70mm vs 35-80)
They're built better....they typically have metal mounts whereas the slower lens mounts are plastic.
The faster series are sharper, focus faster....