gnashings said:What I would like explained is why the Canon EF 85mm f1.8 is generally regarded as an excellent lens (and I have seen first hand evidence to that end), while the FD version is by all accounts a complete dog...
df cardwell said:Sometimes judgement is a little harsh. Back in the '70s BOTH the Canon and Nikon were regarded as soft-as-a-grape by camera clubbers, but as indespensible by journalists and fashion shooters. Today, the outlook is a little different on the Nikon. It would be interesting to shoot the FD again today to compare with my memory, I bet it would be pretty good.
No doubt though, the EF 85 is just a brilliant lens.
d
I have owned and used the Canon F.D.n 85mm f1.8 lens for many years and am more than happy with it, I used to have the 85mm f1.8 Ai Nikkor I found both to be good portrait lenses, I don't know if the EF 85 is the same lens design as the FD, but I think some of the EF range are.df cardwell said:Sometimes judgement is a little harsh. Back in the '70s BOTH the Canon and Nikon were regarded as soft-as-a-grape by camera clubbers, but as indespensible by journalists and fashion shooters. Today, the outlook is a little different on the Nikon. It would be interesting to shoot the FD again today to compare with my memory, I bet it would be pretty good.
No doubt though, the EF 85 is just a brilliant lens.
d
df cardwell said:Sometimes judgement is a little harsh. Back in the '70s BOTH the Canon and Nikon were regarded as soft-as-a-grape by camera clubbers, but as indespensible by journalists and fashion shooters. Today, the outlook is a little different on the Nikon. It would be interesting to shoot the FD again today to compare with my memory, I bet it would be pretty good.
No doubt though, the EF 85 is just a brilliant lens.
d
gnashings said:Are the optical designs that very much different, I wonder?
MattKing said:...snip....
I wonder if the reason for the high prices and large aperatures for the 85mm lenses can be attributed to the fact that the 85mm lenses are relatively close to the focal length of the 50mm "standard" lenses, so it was necessary to make them "special", in order to attract the interest of the dedicated photographer, as compared to the casual snapshooter.
.....snip
Matt
df cardwell said:Look at the Canon Museum !
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/f_lens.html
You can look at all of Canon's 85's from 1948 on.
gnashings said:I might have been a little inspecific in my initial posts - I am not personally condemning the FD 85mm - I was just wondering what the contributing factors may be in its percieved inferiority to the EF version. Perhaps its just a function of reputation with not much in the way of actual reasons?
Don,
Thanks for the canonmuseum address - but I am familiar with it. What I was really after is some "critique", as frankly, the actual technical specs don't tell me enough to judge a lens. What I mean is, nothing jumps out at me with a "ah! that's why!" (I am not nearly well-versed enough in lens design) - I was more looking to hear some "user testimony". Sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough.
Peter.
df cardwell said:Gosh, I have no idea. Back in my youth, the Canon and Nikkor 85 were simply seen as fine, premium lenses. So to, all the other makers ! As to why a particular lens gets a bad rap, or a mixed, defies understanding. Short of rounding up a large sample and shooting some film, the best things I can think of is to find some evidence of it being a poor design, or assuming it maybe wasn't so bad !
In the early '70s I sometimes got to assist a wonderful photographer ( I think my only skill was being able to find good places for dinner ) and he was a passionate Canon shooter. Hated Nikon. And he had the 2 good reasons I think one could use to make a rational choice between the two back then.
First, he was left eyed and he invariably stuck his thumb in his right eye whenever he used a Nikon f2. No problem with the layout of a Canon F1.
Second, he shot Leica as well. The Nikon aperture scales and shutter speed ran in opposite directions than the Leica, but Canon were the same.
That's it. Most pros made the choice on similar basis, but too many photographers sought some mystical reason for one or the other brand, and justified their choices however they could. At one time or another, I've heard every good lens described as a loser.
As for the 2 versions of the Canon FD, and the EF, evolution, I'm sure it was something like this:
Version 1, the big pretty 1974 version was probably an update of the FL lens, evolved from the R lens before it. I would expect the FD 85/1.8 to display every good lens trait today.
Version 2, the new FD lens of 1979, was basically the same lens in a smaller package. I would expect new glass availability may have made it possible to make the lens a little smaller.
EF, a 1992 redesign probably necessary to allow for the internal focus for the EOS system, and as good a time as any to improve the lens as they could. It was far more complex than the prior lens, but Canon had learned a few things since making their first SLR 85mm in 1961 !
Bentley Boyd said:Peter, the FD 85 is such a crap lens that although I have had one more than fifteen years I have very recently bought a second one, my original one is still perfect but because I like it so much if anything happened to it I would be lost without it, and I figured that at £38 ($ 75 Canadian) from a big downtown photo shop complete with a 12 month warranty it was cheaper than getting my existing one repaired if it ever needed it. Someone must have made a mistake at the shop I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the price in the window, so I " made them an offer they couldn't refuse " (who needs Ebay at these prices) and scurried home with it in my hot little hands.
Uncle Bill said:I am keeping my eye out for 85 primes after getting a Jupiter 9 for my Kiev. I would love to get a non AI 85/2 Nikkor but they are thin on the ground and not cheap, same goes for an OM 85.
Bentley Boyd said:I just think we worry too much about the hardware, and our time and effort would be better employed in studying, and practicing our craft,
I don't think that anyone ever asked Shakespeare what sort of pen, or Rembrandt what brush he used.
gnashings said:- I am not personally condemning the FD 85mm - I was just wondering what the contributing factors may be in its percieved inferiority to the EF version. Perhaps its just a function of reputation with not much in the way of actual reasons?
Possibly it's just 40+ years of technology advances. One of my co-workers here at the store recently bought the new EF 85 1.2 and it is absolutely stunning in its resolution and quality, you can literaly get a depth of field shallower than your subjects nose while shooting portrait. I have used it on my A2E a few times now. I just get all drooly over it and keep asking him why he would waste such a nice peice of glass on a digicam
Cooki
I think it's economics it's the economy of manufacturing scale, the more they make and sell the cheaper they get explains the discrepancy in the prices IMHO, they must sell a hell of a lot more 100mm lenses and 135mm lenses than 85mm, this also applies to other less popular optics.mhv said:Can anyone illuminate me as to why the lenses of 85mm focal length reach such extravagant prices nowadays? I was checking prices around, and for the Takumars in M42 mounts, the 85 reach at least twice the price of 105 ones. Is it just a question of rarity or were they already expensive to produce?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?