Canon fd on Film

[WilmarcoImaging]

David, those are nice images, both of them. In the landscape there may be some flare coming from the specular highlights in the grass. I have found in all cases that a tripod improves my results, in a big way. I have never been real satisfied with any of my handheld work, in any format, at any shutter speed. So if lenses are not judged on a tripod, the major camera manufacturers' lenses overlap in performance. Here is one from an AE-1 Program with an FD 28/2.8, handheld, on Portra 800.


Brügge

 

[David Jones]

I did use a good tripod on the landscape so I don't know what was going on there. Maybe it just looks a bit harsh. the area on the right looks sharp, I suppose.

Your pic is v. good. I have never tried that film.
Dave

 

[MattKing]

I have found in my photography that for no apparent reason the results seem a bit random. That pic of the engine cleaner seems completely different to most of the other pics on the roll. I suppose that because it is in the portrait format it is enlarged on this site less than the landscape pic. making it look sharper.

The randomness is both inherent in the types of photography you (and most of us) do, and caused by factors other than the lenses.
If you take a look at the two shots (the cleaner and the landscape) referenced, note how different in character and quantity the light is. The cleaner is in soft, shadowless light, while the landscape is harshly lit. The tones in the two scenes are also predominantly very different. It would be surprising to have similar results from two such different scenes.
In addition, the procedures you have used are very different. Scanning alone adds a huge amount of control, but also adds a huge amount of often unwanted variability. Just try to scan negatives that you have already had lab scanned, and see how different the results can be.
Assuming that the equipment you have is in working condition, the variability you see doesn't come from that.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I've been using Canon FD prime lenses for over 30 years and I don't have any complaints. Can't say much about Canon FD zoom lenses.

 

[cooltouch]

Canon's first wide to tele zoom, the FD 35-70mm f/2.8-3.5 SSC was released only after Canon was satisfied that it rivaled primes in terms of image quality. It was a very expensive lens when new. Canon's nFD 2-ring 35-105mm f/3.5 is an excellent optic, I've found. Probably my favorite zoom in that focal range. The 2-ring Canon FD 80-200mm f/4 zoom is also quite good. When new, it sold for substantially more than the push-pull Canon FD 70-210mm f/4. It can be bought for silly low prices on eBay now, though. And the Canon nFD 80--200mm f/4 L is widely recognized as Canon's best zoom lens. Also, the Canon nFD 50-300mm f/4.5 L still commands lofty prices on the used market, and I can only assume that it does so because it is a great lens (I've never had the opportunity to shoot with one). And then, of course, there's the grand-daddy, the 150-600mm f/5.6 L, which is in a class by itself. Lots of Hollywood movie houses have converted this big lens to work on their 35mm motion picture cameras.

 

[BrianVS]

> Canon's nFD 2-ring 35-105mm f/3.5 is an excellent optic, I've found.

Thankyou for that information, picked one up at a camera show insanely cheap. So cheap- figured it could not be any good...

 

[cb1]

> Canon's nFD 2-ring 35-105mm f/3.5 is an excellent optic, I've found.

Thankyou for that information, picked one up at a camera show insanely cheap. So cheap- figured it could not be any good...

That is a great lens! I love mine.