Canon FD lenses not as sharp as Nikon?

[MattKing]

Try using a tripod when you have a 14mm 3" away from a classic car.

If the camera is hand-held 3" from a subject that isn't flat, it truly won't matter what very wide lens you use. They will all give you similarly mediocre results.

 

[chip j]

Speak for yourself.

 

[benveniste]

A long-time local camera dealer told me recently that Canon FDs weren't as "critically sharp" as their Nikkor counterparts. ???

I had a smith make a knife for me using a lens from the Pentax 110 system as a pommel just so I could claim to have the "sharpest" lens. While it didn't come out as well as I might have liked, I can literally shave with it. In fact, I have!

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Thank you. I want the FD lenses to $uck...

Oh, yes, they're not worth more than $5. Terrible, really.

Other very bad lenses that people should get rid of immediately:

Hasselblad 100/3.5 CF
Olympus OM 35/2
Canon EF 100/2.8 L Macro

 

[Chan Tran]

Oh, yes, they're not worth more than $5. Terrible, really.

Other very bad lenses that people should get rid of immediately:

Hasselblad 100/3.5 CF
Olympus OM 35/2
Canon EF 100/2.8 L Macro

Like I said the EF lenses are not cheap. But talking about FD lenses let see although I don't have many of them.
I bought a Canon AE-1 with the 50mm f/1.8 and the 28mm f/2.8 for $5. Bought the A-1 with the 50mm f/1.8 for $17. Bought the AE-1p with the 50mm f/1.8 for $25 (that's a rip off). My brother 2 weeks ago gave me a 135mm f/2.5 and the 200mm f/2.8. But I never used them.
I actually using the Canonflex with its R mount 50mm f/1.8.

 

[Cholentpot]

Oh, yes, they're not worth more than $5. Terrible, really.

Other very bad lenses that people should get rid of immediately:

Hasselblad 100/3.5 CF
Olympus OM 35/2
Canon EF 100/2.8 L Macro

You should know, the lower the number the less it's worth. Like 24 2.8 is worth waaaaay less than a 35-85 4.5-5.6 and if it doesn't zoom it's worthless and send it to me. I'll use it for a doorstop or something.