Leaderboard

Out of curiosity I purchased one of these to measure the computers/electronics around me: http://www.amazon.com/Trifield-100XE-EMF-Meter/dp/B00050WQ1G/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398562001&sr=8-1&keywords=radiation+meter . I ended up moving some equipment around so that I would only be exposed to 2-3mGauss (some UPSs were outputting 100+mG). About a year later I purchased a new MBP and got the meter out to check it. I turned the meter on and the meter was pegged (100+mG, perhaps over 200mG based on the increasing scale). I thought, wow Apple, that's not cool. Then figured perhaps the batteries were low or the meter was bad, since as I walked away from the laptop, the meter didn't drop. I put a new battery in it- same issue. I tried another meter (had also purchased a directional meter)- same issue. I noticed as I walked away from the window the meter dropped a little. So I left the apartment, and walked down the hall. The meter slowly dropped. I left the building until out in the middle of the street- finally back down to 2-3mG. Then a lightbulb went on- about 6 months after I purchased the meter, SoCal Edison had upgraded the power lines by my window. I had measured right at the window when I got the meter to check the power lines- it was 3mG. I returned to the same window position and the meter was pegged- 100+mG (guessing over 200mG from increasing scale). I had developed this weird shoulder issue where the muscles always stayed contracted- it was my right shoulder and figured was due to mouse/computer use. However every time I left the apartment for a few days or more, my shoulder got better. I never put 2+2 together regarding the upgraded power line. So, I moved everything out of those rooms away from the power line as much as possible (new locations were about 15-30mG, still too high but much lower). My shoulder got better in about a week. I asked my MD if this could be psychosomatic- he said, probably not, he's heard from plenty of patients whose issue(s) got better after reducing EMF exposure. I took the meter with me when looking for a new place to live. I was surprised how bad other places were, but none as high as the old place (top floor, right by power line). Surprisingly, landlords and real estate agents said other people did this practice as well (brought meters with them). The new place I moved to reads less than 2mG in most areas. High EMF is linked to brain cancer, ALS, Alzheimer's, and leukemia, however the evidence is not yet strong enough for the EPA to regulate it and/or politics and influence from the power companies: http://www.epa.gov/radtown/power-lines.html. They suggest moving away from the source of EMF, which I did. Another weird symptom was strange allergies- was it something in that apartment other than EMF? I don't know, but I brought all my equipment and furniture from the old place- so far no more allergies. Regarding ionizing radiation. What does it do? It damages your cells and DNA over time. The good news is if you're eating healthy, exercising, and getting plenty of antioxidants, your body can repair the damage (including DNA) if the doses aren't too high. The problem with studying the health risks is the wide level of variables. Cancer from low-dose long exposure radiation is hard to prove a source of the cause. Smoking won't kill you right away, but it may lead to lung cancer, heart disease, and other diseases. Some folks won't get cancer because their bodies can handle the toxic smoke. Others who only got second hand smoke will get cancer. It took a long time to overcome politics, etc., for the truth to get out and for warning labels to be required. That said, people smoke anyways, some still smoking after getting cancer/emphysema, as nicotine is so addictive. Many people think they are immortal or don't think they care about living a long healthy life. However after getting sick some decide they want to live and radically change their behavior. I used to snicker a bit about the 'tin foil hat people'. Now, if there is a known risk and it's easy to avoid, I don't think twice about avoiding the risk. The only issue about the new Faraday cage-like place is I can't get OTA digital TV signals and Verizon coverage is poor (I'm using ATT, some friends use Verizon and their phones don't work very well) :) I could go on about heavy metals, but that's further off topic and a story for another day (short summary- avoid mercury and aluminum in vaccines, don't drink tap water (use RO or distillation and add trace minerals), remove amalgam fillings, skip gadolinium contrast if you ever do an MRI, limit large fish consumption (except perhaps wild salmon), don't drink bismuth (Pepto Bismol etc.)). Two books which can be very helpful: http://www.amazon.com/Amalgam-Illness-Diagnosis-Treatment-Better/dp/0967616808/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398564805&sr=8-1&keywords=heavy+metal+cutler http://www.amazon.com/Hair-Test-Interpretation-Finding-Toxicities/dp/0967616816/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1398564805&sr=8-3&keywords=heavy+metal+cutler

Come on man. You seriously think I was being serious when I joke about the skills involved in fire safety?

On a serious note. Iscorama's, iscorama 36, 43's centavisions and 54's made between 1960-1989 are rated at the highest radioactivity of all lenses ever produced. Dangerous levels thought to lead to impotence in men. According to a bloke at my local fire station he is recommending owners send all iscorama lenses manufactured between these dates to the Dog Schidt Optiks radioactivity decommissioning outpost where they will be carefully disposed of.

Now, if only we can get a fear-monger campaign going that convinces people the Iscoramas are radioactive...

Hi! It's one of my first posts here but not the funniest I guess… I'm not especially talking about a magic C-lens in particular here but about a very underestimated question: radioactive lenses! One of my friends is a fireman captain and introduced me yesterday to one of his colleagues specialized in technological risks and chemical dangers (at Poissy, France : they're known to have very great equipments.) We made 3 different tests on all my Russian lenses which are all OK excepted the Mamiya Sekor 55mm f1.4 (M42). Here are the results: From 5 to 10 µSV per hour (by direct touch), and 1720 shocks per second. Element involved is Thorium 232. They told I really shouldn't keep it. Work with it more than one hour is dangerous. It must be gifted to specialized services and absolutely not be destroyed! Or thrashed! The most dangerous exposure isn't even radiations but dusts to inhalate or ingerate (when a lens gets old it disaggregates - it's something you can't always clearly see). I'm lucky cause until today I kept it in my basement. So, say it please to your friends and all potential Mamiya/Takumar users that you know via websites etc, it's a strong matter of health.

If the viewfinder isn't made of thorium glass, which it won't be, everything bolded is not correct about what you actually are getting. Why? Because alpha particles aren't penetrating the lens barrel to radiate you through the side of the lens and they aren't penetrating through the camera and coming out the back or through the camera and through the eyepiece optics. It's not happening. If alpha particles can't penetrate a piece of paper they aren't passing through multiple layers of metal, plastic and glass.

Plastic fantastic? Do yourself a favour and check out the lenses of the new Sigma Art series. Their build quality is as good as it can get. I only got to check out the fantastic 18-35mm f/1.8 Sigma Art lens but the 35mm f/1.4 is very similar. The build quality is fantastic. Compared to the Canon 35mm f/1.4L, the Sigma is supposed to be better in almost any regard and it's cheaper, too. There are tons of reviews of the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4, you should check them out. Bottom line of almost any review is that the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is as good, if not better than the Canon at a better price point. If you can live without AF, you should definitely check out the Walimex / Samyang / Rokinon (different brands but they're all the same lenses) 35mm f/1.4. It is fully manual, focus ring feels great and it also has an aperture ring. It also comes in a cine version with built in gears for a follow focus. And it's less than half the price of the Canon. Covers full frame, too, and the build quality is very solid as well. Optically it's supposed to be on par with the Canon. Build quality of the Canon is a bit better, and of course the Walimex lacks autofocus or any electronic connection to your camera. But for around 350€ used, this is the 35mm lens you should get when you're on a budget.

Really! All this for a few piddling lenses? There have been a few Nuclear Reactor accidents & we don't seem too concerned about clouds of radioactive shit falling all over us. Get real, we live in a nuclear age & we're already fucked, because our planet has already been turned into a toxic waste dump!

I eat Thorium for breakfast.

yes I was in the sun but only ran like 2 to 3 minute clips for over a hour period doing some testing. I'm no colorist or anything but here is a example of images straight out the camera and another version I graded. I feel with this camera if limitations are kept in mind you can capture some great images. frame rate 24P creative style portrait -3,-3,-3, shutter 50 iso 100 post-curves,color corrector filter-neewer variable nd glass-sony 35mm 1.8 OSS editor-Vegas Pro 12

Hi everyone, I've got a new site up and running to try to help indie filmmakers, students, and anyone who needs original royalty free production music for their youtube videos, student films, games, presentations, home videos, etc. The cost of licensing music today is truly outragous, so I'm trying to do what I can to help people express their ideas and visions. www.soundimage.org Any feedback, suggestions, etc., are welcome (and greatly appreciated!) Thanks, Eric

If a lens is good for photography, it will be more than good enough for video. Photography places much higher demands on lenses than video. Especially a Canon DSLR, which resolves way less detail than other DSLR's. Your footage is always determined by the weakest link in the chain, and in the case of a Canon DSLR for video, that is the sensor (followed by the codec). I've migrated from Canon to Panasonic and the sensor on those cameras make my vintage M42 glass look like it's a completely different lens. There's very little use in putting very expensive lenses on a Canon DSLR, since the qualities of the glass will be compromised by the sensor and codec Canon uses. Even if you might move to another platform in the future, it makes very little sense to invest your money in Canon glass, since it's hard to adapt to other camera mounts. I work with a professional fashion photographer regularly and he swears by Canon's regular's EF lenses (not the red L series) for his photography. This is someone who has the means to buy L series glass and is a pixelpeeper by nature. But if you have money to burn, go ahead.

Canon FD 24mm f1.4 - anywhere from £500-800 on ebay (you could be lucky & it has the red ring you're after!) The Lens Doctor rates it, but his price for having converted it is £995 - interesting info on his website about the lens (scroll down) http://www.thelensdoctor.co.uk/page13.html This is an interesting/extensive list about M42 lenses & whether they hit the mirror on a 5D - but forget that as its quite list of lenses on offer! http://www.panoramaplanet.de/comp/

boils down to 2 choices imo - want cinema housing on your lens, better suited for video, at the expense of losing autofocus for photography : samyang 35mm cine lens - want excellent price/performance, no cinema housing, with autofocus for your canon camera when taking pictures: sigma 35mm 1.4

I assume when you say you've got a Canon FF, you're talking about a 5D & they are pretty damn good in low light. But it all depends on how low light you want/need to go. As you already know a v.good fast 35mm will cost you an arm & a leg. So you either bite the bullet & spend the cash or buy something cheaper/slower (f2/2.8) & get Neat Video to clean up your footage (NV really is that good & its sharpening tool is the best). The problem with a lot of the lenses mentioned is that they aren't great wide open, hence why they're cheaper. The Nikon 35mm f1.4 ain't great wide open, but the f2 is much better. I've got the Zeiss ZE f1.4 & have gone Russain @ f2 across the board for video, except the Helios 40-2 85mm f1.5 - i really like my Mir-24M f2.

Very happy with the recent EF 35mm f2 IS, it recently dropped in price too.

Since you're looking for a lens that does video, and all video shooting on Canon is MANUAL, look at good old manual lenses in your focal length/f-stop range for options. Lots of glass to consider. Anything from Pentax to Hasselblad could be used. Nikon lenses, especially the famous 35 1.4 from the 70's/80's (and still made today), looks good insomuch that it has the visual traits of that era of lenses, for better or worse depending on your subjective opinion. And since you're in the market for a lens with character as well as affordable... Think about it, borrow one and try it. It's around $500 used. Otherwise, the Sigma or the Samyang/Rokinon is probably the best bet for a new lens in the budget cost/performance range.

What about the Samyang 1.4/35?

Yeah, I know that old trick :) Next door neighbour uses a six litre pack to clean her driveway.... Interestingly, some years back I watched a tv programme where three saucers where placed in front of cats and dogs in turn. The saucers contained milk, water and coke. Many pets were tested in choice and not one touched the coke, preferring either the milk or water. Hmmm

One great alternative is the Canon EF 28 1.8. It only costs 1/3rd of the 35 1.4, is just a little bit wider and almost as sensitive. It's a great lens for video too (I shoot weddings too during summertime). Not the best test I could find, but gives you an idea :

have you ever put a lens is a glass of Coke ! it's amazing after 3 hours it has eaten all the coating off the lens , after 5 hours it has removed all the paint from the casing , and after 6 hours you have a superb very clean shiny lens!! try it..........

Well there is no need for that because the variable diopters in some Iscoramas are radioactive. Isco Göttingen has a tradition of using contaminated glass, or even glass with thorium for their cinema projection lenses. The pre 36 iscoramas and the cinegon versions are affected, I definitly wouldn't want to use one. Anyway, developing chemicals are dangerous too and nobody cares.

We have to get these realistic professionals off this forum :) :) Fun suckerers ;)

I've been taking apart a Super Multi Coated Takumar 50mm 1.4 to clean the fungus and I've touched the radioactive elements with my fingers! How many extra heads am I going to grow??

In certain areas in Finland you receive around 25-30 microsieverts a day from natural background radiation. People live there, 24/7 all year round. Touch a lens that gives 5-10 microsieverts an hour now and then... It's a piss in the sea.

Very interesting thread.   And I am reading it very fast with my three eyes.

Silly question I asked... didn't realize an extra battery was $12! :) I'm accustomed to portable power always being an issue, which is not the case with this camera.