Comments on: LP-E8 Battery MSDS

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 02:19:28 +0000

I’ve noticed that most replacement batteries for the T2i (550D) are 7.4v and not 7.2v supplied by Canon, is this a concern?
Thanks
Brian

By: B. R. Ravi Shankar

B. R. Ravi Shankar — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 07:56:06 +0000

I have used this battery. On first charge I got about 520 photos only. Now I am on 2nd charge

By: idesignstuff

idesignstuff — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:05:24 +0000

The Material Safety Data Sheet doesn’t say if it’s chipped.

What’s funny to me is the address of the business on it. Ohta-ku. Otaku means pervert or geek/addict. Figures.

By: Robert Green Photography

Robert Green Photography — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:53:59 +0000

Bringing out all these new batteries is a nice little money earner for Canon: new batteries, chargers, battery grip etc.. What’s wrong with simple AA batteries! :-)

By: Grummbeerbauer

Grummbeerbauer — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:06:29 +0000

I also probably would not have bought the 17-55 at its normal asking price, but I came across one in a local electronics store while they had a special discount (buy 4 items over 200€ and you get the cheapest one for free). I teamed up with some colleagues and in the end, I payed about 650€ instead of the 850€++ the lens normally costs.
While I like the extra f-stop over my 24-105, it didn’t replace the latter as my favorite lens. I like the 24-105′s added reach for across the room portraits, and most of the time I would use bounce flash anyway indoors. And for true AL the 2.8 is still not enough. I now use it mainly when on vacation and when doing city tours, or when 24mm are just not wide enough.

By: EF mount

EF mount — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 10:42:05 +0000

You’re right. The only thing I don’t like on 17-55/2.8 is the mechanical build (for the price, if that lens would have cost 650-750$, it would be appropriate). It’s just not simply what would you expect from such high price tag. That’s what bothers me. 17-40/4L is cheaper (for obvious reasons, slower aperture and no IS, but it’s FF so glass amount should be about same), yet much better built. Look at 24-105/4L IS USM, the price is basically the same. Now this is not any general opinion or recommendation, it’s simply that I care about mechanical build, not just optical. I want stuff that I don’t have to be too careful, call me brute, but it’s just that :)

By: Grummbeerbauer

Grummbeerbauer — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 07:19:14 +0000

While I agree that an EF-S 50-150 would have a hard time against the existing 70-200s, I find the 17-55 much more competitive. I have always been wondering why people were going for the 17-40. Its not only slower, with 40mm its already so short that it is no longer useful for portraits. It also lacks IS. And even the usual justification “if I ever go full-frame, I can keep it” does not really apply here, given the rather mediocre reviews this lens gets on FF (corner sharpness!).

By: Grummbeerbauer

Grummbeerbauer — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 07:15:44 +0000

I two doubt that the price point of such an EF-S 50-150 2.8 would be too attractive compared to the 70-200 f4 IS and non IS.
While the 17-55 compares favorably to the 24-70 or 24-105 due to the latter two missing wide angle on APS-C, the difference between 50 and 70 at the wide end is much less pronounced and I think most people would prefer the 200 on the long end over having 2.8.

Well, if such a lens was introduced, if it was less than 1000€, and if it were a REALLY great performer in particular regarding wide open sharpness and bokeh quality, then I might consider getting one, despite already having the 700-200 f4 IS.

But these are some considerable IFs here, and I guess in particular the one about the desired price point would not be met.

By: Grummbeerbauer

Grummbeerbauer — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 07:09:53 +0000

I am also very happy with the endurance of the LP-E6. While I was never disappointed by the endurance of the LP-E5 in my 450D, the 1800mAh vs. 1080mAh really make a difference.
But, as you mentioned, I guess the most significant difference comes from the rear display being lit much less often (unless one enables Q menu), so that the durability is more than doubled.

When I go for a walk I do not hesitate to leave the spare battery at home even if the one in the camera is at less than 50%.
I have not really used video so far, I guess then the larger capacity will be really needed.

By: EF mount

EF mount — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:21:52 +0000

Yes, I know. The problem is, that Canon would probably never make EF-S lens as much mechanical quality as L, yet the price tag would be among L class. I hate this about 17-55/2.8 IS USM. Optically, it’s an amazing lens, but it’s no match for L class, even 70-200/4L USM employs magnesium-alloy shell and it’s priced 60% of 17-55/2.8 IS USM. I’d like to get some sturdiness as well, for this kind of money. That’s why I chose 17-40/4L USM over 17-55/2.8 IS USM. Optically it’s mostly on par with each other, but EF-S is left in the dust in the mechanical side of things. That’s my worry about lens as such abovementioned.

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:40:06 +0000

I would like to see a price under $1200, but an initial price <$1500 may still work. You need to consider what they are asking for the new 70-200 2.8 IS II, it isnt cheap.

By: hey

hey — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:30:38 +0000

lol, excellent response.

By: facks

facks — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:24:30 +0000

SINGLE cell = 3.6V!
look at sheet for eos7D battery LP-E6, same single cell voltage of 3.6 is mentioned, take 2 would lead to 7.2V and 3 = 10.8V
http://support-ph.canon-asia.com/fuseaction/support/safetyinformation/pdf/digitalcamera/LP-E6.pdf

By: TLS

TLS — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:15:29 +0000

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:0y4PRjH37ecJ:www.amazon.com/Power-LP-E5-replacement-Battery-Canon/dp/B0027UYZXE+LP-E8&cd=20&hl=en&ct=clnk
The above is a cached link to Amazon’s LP-E5 listing that offers this little insight – Compatible Battery: Canon LP-E8