Canon lenses

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I think I'm getting GAS. Yes I know aspherical FD glass fetch top dollar too. Aspherical and florite glass. Yikes! I call it the one percenter's glass.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

The 100/f4 macro is another good choice.

Jeff

 

[darinwc]

You could get the 50mm f1.8, 28mm f2.8, and 135mm but those are booring.

Try these three canon FD lenses for not too much:

#1: 50mm f1.4 - an abolute must have. Better than the f1.8, 50mm f1.2*, and 55mm f1.2. *Note the 50mm f1.2 FDn non-L version is pretty poor.
#2: 24mm f2.8 - A little bit wider than 28mm and very sharp.
#3: 70-210mm f4 - More versitile that the 135mm, surprisingly sharp.

 

[Mackinaw]

I don't think in the final analysis of ones work the viewer gives a shit if the image was shot with a Fluorite,aspheric lens, or a bottle bottom, they care more about if your pictures "say" anything to them, the worship of equipment for it's own sake is futile, photography is about pictures.

You care if the lens allows you to take a picture you couldn't take otherwise. If not, everybody would be happy with pinhole cameras.

Jim B.

 

[benjiboy]

You care if the lens allows you to take a picture you couldn't take otherwise. If not, everybody would be happy with pinhole cameras.

Jim B.

The reason that people want huge aperture lenses is more about acquisition and their image (in the mistaken belief that bigger is better) than if they need them for practical low light photography, it's overkill like buying a Ferrari to do your shopping at the local supermarket.
I've been using Canon FD lenses for 35years and never needed a bigger standard lens than my 50mm f1.4 which aperture for aperture the best of them. Gear freaks, and obsessive lens testers rarely in my almost fifty years experience as a photographer rarely take worthwhile pictures with their equipment because their raison d'être is acquisition and testing of gear not creating pictures, when I consider claims that people I meet are photographers I don't ask them about their equipment only to see their work, because anyone with money can buy cameras and lenses.

 

[benjiboy]

You could get the 50mm f1.8, 28mm f2.8, and 135mm but those are booring.

Try these three canon FD lenses for not too much:

#1: 50mm f1.4 - an abolute must have. Better than the f1.8, 50mm f1.2*, and 55mm f1.2. *Note the 50mm f1.2 FDn non-L version is pretty poor.
#2: 24mm f2.8 - A little bit wider than 28mm and very sharp.
#3: 70-210mm f4 - More versitile that the 135mm, surprisingly sharp.

I own all these lenses Darin and I agree with this entirely, especially your remarks about the FD 50mm f1.4.

 

[AgX]

The reason that people want huge aperture lenses is more about acquisition and their image (in the mistaken belief that bigger is better) than if they need them for practical low light photography,..

And even then the difference beetween f1.4 and f1.2 is just 1/2 stop.

(I know you know, but in many low-light discussions this fact seems to be overlooked.)

 

[benjiboy]

And even then the difference beetween f1.4 and f1.2 is just 1/2 stop.

(I know you know, but in many low-light discussions this fact seems to be overlooked.)

That's a very good point AgX, and the Canon FD 50mm f1.4 was the systems reference lens that government agencys other official bodies and the military chose to use when they could have used any lens.

 

[Vonder]

A few years ago, when I was just getting into the Canon FD System, I acquired a 50mm f1.4 and shot this photo of my daughter. I don't recall the camera, nor the f-stop, although I guarantee the shutter speed (flash pic) was 1/60th sec. I don't care if anyone else thinks it's a great photo but for me, it's the best and most precious photo I've ever taken. In my mind there's no finer glass than Canon FD.

 

[SamSpade1941]

You want the 100mm f/2.8 FD lens its awesome.

 

[benjiboy]

You want the 100mm f/2.8 FD lens its awesome.

The 100mm f2.8 is indeed an excellent lens, but the FD 100mm f2 is better if you can find one, and afford one.