FD Zoom for beginner?

Hamster · Aug 4, 2010

I have a friend in her early 20's who would like to start using an AE-1 that she inherited from her father.

She has the excellent SSC 50/1.4, however being the generation who grew with with digi-zooms she really wanted a zoom.

When I tried to explain HCB and 50mm fov etc, she tells me about her friend who tae excellent cell phone photos with no zoom. However she also played with my Oly Trip 35 with Tri-x, developed and printed herself and she is so happy with the result.

Can APUG suggest a light weight zoom in FD mount that can be carried around?

It should be something that is versatile enough for her to explore her photographic vision but not too heavy so she won't be carrying it around.

LowriderS10 · Aug 4, 2010

I got a Tamron 28-80 with my AE-1P when I bought it...never shot with it, but seemed like a nice, solid lens...

I ended up trading it for a Canon 35-70 f4 (I don't use zooms for film, so I figured if I don't use it anyways, I might as well have something that matches the rest of my kit haha...it's very compact and lightweight, much smaller/lighter than the Tamron and no Adaptall to mess with)...

Both lenses are pretty cheap and from what I've heard decent enough performers for what they are (non-primes). They also made a 35-105 or something that would be an awesome all-arounder, but they're a bit more money.

frobozz · Aug 4, 2010

Here's a vote for the Canon 35-105 - very useful all around lens, and available for not-outrageous money if you stalk That Auction Site for a while.

Duncan

David A. Goldfarb · Aug 4, 2010

The Tamron Adaptall-II SP 35-105/2.8 ASL is a great lens that isn't too expensive these days, though it was originally one of their top line lenses, with a wide constant aperture and aspherical elements. It's very sharp, but like all tele-wide zooms, shows a little barrel/pincushion distortion at the extremes of the range. So it's not ideal for architecture, but it's perfect for photographing people at events, where you need to move quickly from portrait to group-shot and can't always stand in the ideal position without other people getting into the frame. Constant aperture will also give more consistent exposures with non-TTL auto flash or an external light meter.

andrewc · Aug 4, 2010

I vote for the FD 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5. I have this lens as well as the f/3.5 version, both of which are outstanding performers in my opinion. The 3.5-4.5 is much lighter though, which might be more appealing to someone just starting out with the FD system.

2F/2F · Aug 4, 2010

Argue with her until she embraces fixed-length lenses!!!

Jeff Kubach · Aug 4, 2010

Inexpensive - 35-70. 35-105 not a bad choice either. Look up KEH.

Jeff

Andrew K · Aug 4, 2010

I used to repair these lenses when I worked as a camera tech at Canon, so got to use most of them at one time or another...

the best lens in terms of size vs quality is the little 35-70 f3.5/4.5, as it is sharp and offers very good macro across it's entire zoom range (and being plastic is very light)

the little 28-55 was also a pretty good performer, but not as good as the 35-70..

If weight is not an issue I would get a 35-105/3.5. I always found the 2 touch zoom (seperate focus and zoom rings) to be sharper than the one touch version, and if it is adjusted correctly then it will not focus shift through it's entire zoom range....

Or better still the FD 28-85 - these lenses are hard to find, but are a great general purpose lens.....

But considering she has the sharpest standard 50mm lens Canon made why would she want something less sharp? I'd recommend a NFD 35/2 or NFD 24/2.8 as her next wide angle lens, and a NFD 85/1.8 or NFD 100/2 as her next tele - these are all fantastic lenses

LowriderS10 · Aug 4, 2010

I have a 35-70 f4 and I'm looking into buying a batch of gear from a local guy for ONE lens (he won't part it out)...one of the lenses in there is the 35-105...let me know if she'd be interested in either one

Fotoguy20d · Aug 4, 2010

I'll second (3rd, 4th, whatever) the 35-105 f3.5. I used a Canon A-1 from around 1990-2005 with that lens as my main walk around lens. Add a 24mm f2.8 (now dirt cheap, I paid $250 for mine) to cover the wide end, combined with the 50 f1.4 for low light, and you have quite a kit.

Dan

LowriderS10 · Aug 5, 2010

Sadly the 24 2.8 is far from dirt cheap...I've been looking for one for MONTHS and haven't seen a single one under $100...

DWThomas · Aug 5, 2010

I have both the 35-105 f3.5 and the 35-70 f3.5-4.5 mentioned above. For serious work, I would go to the 35-105 (or the 50mm f1.4 ), but it is a fairly significant handful size and weight-wise. For traveling light -- vacation and casual shooting -- the 35-70 is quite nice. If you start doing tests with grids and such, it does have more distortion, but it is small and light, about the same bulk as the 50 mm 1.4.

And we are spoiled today -- 2:1 zoom range is plenty for minor compositional adjustments (he says with a curmudgeonly wink).

holmburgers · Aug 5, 2010

I'll also recommend the Canon 35-70mm zoom. Nice range, SCC, small enough. But man, I never use that lens compared to my 50mm 1.4.

frobozz · Aug 5, 2010

LowriderS10 said:
Sadly the 24 2.8 is far from dirt cheap...I've been looking for one for MONTHS and haven't seen a single one under $100...

Here's another vote for the 24/2.8.... for years it was my "standard lens" as I didn't even own the 50! And they are definitely available for $100 or less if you're patient. But absolutely we wary of (or even outright avoid) the older ones with the circle emblem instead of the "A" at the auto position on the aperture ring. Many of those suffered from element separation on the rear element. If you see one advertised as "smudge on rear element" or whatever, RUN AWAY! Unfixable unless you have another rear element from a later lens to swap in.

Duncan

LowriderS10 · Aug 5, 2010

frobozz said:
Here's another vote for the 24/2.8.... for years it was my "standard lens" as I didn't even own the 50! And they are definitely available for $100 or less if you're patient. But absolutely we wary of (or even outright avoid) the older ones with the circle emblem instead of the "A" at the auto position on the aperture ring. Many of those suffered from element separation on the rear element. If you see one advertised as "smudge on rear element" or whatever, RUN AWAY! Unfixable unless you have another rear element from a later lens to swap in.

Duncan

Would you mind letting me know when you see one cheap (send a PM with the link, if you don't mind)? I've been looking forever and can't find one I saw one two or three months ago for around 90 with the original hood and to this day am kicking myself for not picking it up. As much as I love my AE-1P/FD stuff, I can't justify spending $100 for that lens...

frobozz · Aug 5, 2010

I just went and searched "Completed listings" on That Auction Site for

Canon FD 24*

And they look to have all sold for under $100. $60-something seems to be the rough average... And there are a bunch currently for sale with starting prices well under $100.

Duncan

Fotoguy20d · Aug 5, 2010

Pity - I was hoping I was going to get to sell mine for $100.

Dan

LowriderS10 · Aug 6, 2010

frobozz said:
I just went and searched "Completed listings" on That Auction Site for

Canon FD 24*

And they look to have all sold for under $100. $60-something seems to be the rough average... And there are a bunch currently for sale with starting prices well under $100.

Duncan

Have you factored in shipping, though? A lot of people on there sell things cheap, but charge you $30 on shipping for an item that's $5 to ship. For combined shipping and sale price (the only number that should be looked at), I can't seem to see anything under $100...as for starting prices...they're pretty pointless, most things that sell on there get no action for the first 6 days and 22 hours and the last 2 hrs they skyrocket (I know, I've sold a few things and bought many more on there).

frobozz · Aug 6, 2010

LowriderS10 said:
Have you factored in shipping, though? A lot of people on there sell things cheap, but charge you $30 on shipping for an item that's $5 to ship. For combined shipping and sale price (the only number that should be looked at), I can't seem to see anything under $100...as for starting prices...they're pretty pointless, most things that sell on there get no action for the first 6 days and 22 hours and the last 2 hrs they skyrocket (I know, I've sold a few things and bought many more on there).

Go do the search for yourself. Looking at them from most recent to oldest, I see:

60.00 + 9.95
63.00 + 10.95
36.56 + 5.00
46.00 + 10.00
99.00 + unspecified
68.17 + 13.50
39.59 + 14.50
61.11 + 7.95

You don't say where you're located. If it's outside the US, then shipping is simply going to be higher, there is no avoiding that...but clearly you should be able to still get one for under $100 total. In mentioning starting prices, I am pointing out that those are all potentially lenses that would end up selling for under $100... since the ones that start out over $100 don't even get any bids. Like I originally said "if you're patient" you'll eventually snag one for a reasonable price. I had a small pile of them at one point that I had gotten for $30-$40 each, and when I sold them off again they all went for $60-$75. (I ditched my spares because I finally snagged a 24/1.4 Aspherical for a good price, and mainly use that now instead of the 2.8's)

Duncan

LowriderS10 · Aug 6, 2010

I'm in Canada, so that bumps the price a bit, but not by much...I can't seem to find the option to search for expired ones...

But a quick search of finished auctions on my items I'm watching list confirms that most of them are around/over the $100 mark...but I have a feeling we Canadians are getting hosed on shipping...I often see free shipping to the States and outrageous to Canada...

frobozz · Aug 6, 2010

Do the search like normal, then under "Preferences - Show only" on the left side, click the box for "Completed Listings" - you have to be logged in to see them.

Duncan

danegermouse · Aug 7, 2010

35-105mm f/3. is easily the best for versatility and overall utility. at the wide angle range the 20-35mm is up there with the best but expect to pay for it. i got a 24-35mm for $60 and it is great. a little bit more distortion than the 24mm f/2.8 but very sharp for a zoom. although the 35-70 is nice enough to start, a 50mm plus two legs does the same thing. imo a zoom needs to add something a little extra to be worth it so the wide L series or the slightl longer 35-105 would be my only recommendations. otherwise just stick with the 50

Pumal · Aug 9, 2010

How about the Soligor 35-140mm Auto Zoom f/3.5 Macro?

JBrunner · Aug 9, 2010

My favorite zoom lens in FD is the 85mm f/1.2, modified to zoom.

benjiboy · Aug 9, 2010

I own the FD 35-105 f3.5 and it's a good lens but a hell of a weight to lug about for it's limited zoom range and it takes 72mm filters, I would recommend the FD 35-70 f3.5-f4.5 together with the FD 70-150 zoom I find this a very versatile walk around kit and they both take 52mm filters

FD Zoom for beginner?

Hamster

LowriderS10

frobozz

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

andrewc

2F/2F

Jeff Kubach

Andrew K

LowriderS10

Fotoguy20d

LowriderS10

DWThomas

holmburgers

frobozz

LowriderS10

frobozz

Fotoguy20d

LowriderS10

frobozz

LowriderS10

frobozz

danegermouse

Pumal

JBrunner

Moderator

benjiboy

FD Zoom for beginner?

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency