Question for Canon nFD users: Opinion on 85/1.8 vs 100/2.8

[EarlJam]

I recently picked up a Canon New F1 and need to build a small lens set. I'm interested in opinions on two short tele's: 85mm f1.8 and 100 mm f2.8.

There's about a 3x price differential between the two, so the question is: is the 85mm three times better than the 100mm for general photography?

For reference, I have other camera/lens systems and have 85/1.8, 90/2.8. and 100/2.8 covered elsewhere. All of the cameras and lenses will eventually be handed down to grandchildren (assuming 35mm film's still available over the next decade or two, and they're interested . . .)

Thanks in advance for your opinions and advice.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

3x difference from same seller or different sellers?

Maybe a premium on the 85/1.8 because it's faster or has improved lens coating, but 3x difference seems a lot unless the 85 is mint and 100 is rough condition. Maybe check eBay sold-prices as a guide.

But FD 85 and 100 are top performers, with slightly different usage applications or personal usage preferences.

 

[AgX]

I am a bit puzzled as you write "Question for Canon new FD users". As both lenses were also made in a breech-lock model. And I am not sure whether the new versions are optically different from the old ones, would have to look that up.

 

[Mackinaw]

I use an old, breechlock, chrome nose, FD 100/2.8. Great lens, totally happy with it. I passed on the 85/1.8 though the extra speed would probably come in handy at times. And, if you believe Canon literature from the era, the 85/1.8 has been deliberately designed to produce soft edges at full aperture. But 3X more than the 100mm is a lot. Up to you if it's worth it or not.

Jim B.

 

[Bill Burk]

EarlJam,

I don't have a series of FD Canon lenses to compare to, but I have had similar focal length lenses for Olympus OM and Pentax M42.

I just picked up a Super Takumar 135mm f/2.5 and had the SMCT 105mm f/2.8 in the past. For OM I have the 85mm f/2

Short telephotos with maximum apertures near f/2 are very useful for portraiture in available light because they allow you to handhold. You can get away with 1/60th second sometimes with the 85mm lenses and 1/125 with the 100mm lenses.

You are looking at being able to take a portrait handheld with two f/stops less available light... that's why you may find it more valuable in practical terms and you might be willing to pay more for the 85mm f/1.8 because it solves a problem... when you're running out of light.

 

[narsuitus]

There's about a 3x price differential between the two, so the question is: is the 85mm three times better than the 100mm for general photography?

In my opinion, a 3x price differential is too high. When I purchased my 85mm f/1.8 and my 100mm f/2.8, there was only a 0.6x price differential.

 

[EarlJam]

Thanks, all! Re the price differential noted, I used KEH as a reference point. They currently list both lenses, 85/1.8 at $349 and 100/2.8 at $119, both rated EX. I've also heard that the 85mm is purposely soft wide open, as Mackinaw notes, but sharpens up at f2.8. I'll look around a bit more for other 85's, but since I also need to get a wide angle of some flavor to round out the set and the Canon is a secondary (if not tertiary) system for me, the 100/2.8 is the best bang for the buck in the category.

 

[tomkatf]

New FD 100/2... a great lens esp. for shooting people!

 

[Toyo]

I recently picked up a Canon New F1 and need to build a small lens set. I'm interested in opinions on two short tele's: 85mm f1.8 and 100 mm f2.8.

There's about a 3x price differential between the two, so the question is: is the 85mm three times better than the 100mm for general photography?

.

No.
Both lenses produce very good results and are great portrait length lenses.
There is fashionable demand for fast lenses in the marketplace at the moment and this is what is likely driving the market price
T

 

[dynachrome]

I have one 85/1.8 New FD and a number of 100/2.8 FD and New FD lenses. I agree that they are both very good. I do not agree that the 85/1.8 is unsharp or purposely unsharp wide open. This is the impression when a lens of this focal length and speed is used at its closest focusing distance wide open. There is very little depth of field. If the shot is taken hand held and there is shake then all bets are off. Would I use the 85/1.8 wide open for flat copy work? No I wouldn't. For that I would use a 50/3.5 Macro.

 

[benjiboy]

I have had both these lenses, for about thirty years, the 85mm is an excellent lens for purely portrait work, the 100mm is a versatile short telephoto that is more IMO more generally useful for both portraits and general use.
P.S. The price of lenses depends to a large extent how many they manufacture, (the economy of scale of manufacture) ie. the more you make the cheaper they become.

 

[benjiboy]

I am a bit puzzled as you write "Question for Canon new FD users". As both lenses were also made in a breech-lock model. And I am not sure whether the new versions are optically different from the old ones, would have to look that up.

They were optically identical AgX, however, some of the earlier breech lock versions like the "chrome nosed " breach lock ones were not super- multicoated only single coated. I prefer personally the new type with the polymer barrels because they are considerably lighter if you have to carry a bag full of them around, even though the breech lock versions in good condition seem to sell for a higher price.
P.S.None of the Canon FD 50mm f1.8 lenses whether they are the new type or breechlock are multicoated.

 

[EarlJam]

Thanks again, all! This thread has become far more informational than I had anticipated, above the normal high standards I've come to expect on the site. I grew up in a family of photographers and shot with the New F1 professionally in the early-mid 80s. Oddly, I don't recall the 85mm focal length ever having been discussed, either by my dad and his brother or any of the other photogs with whom I worked. 135mm lenses were cheap and plentiful back in the day, but somewhat disparaged as being too long for portraiture and too short for typical tele needs. Most of my colleagues seemed to think that 100 - 105mm was a good compromise. Lots to think about, now.

 

[benjiboy]

Thanks again, all! This thread has become far more informational than I had anticipated, above the normal high standards I've come to expect on the site. I grew up in a family of photographers and shot with the New F1 professionally in the early-mid 80s. Oddly, I don't recall the 85mm focal length ever having been discussed, either by my dad and his brother or any of the other photogs with whom I worked. 135mm lenses were cheap and plentiful back in the day, but somewhat disparaged as being too long for portraiture and too short for typical tele needs. Most of my colleagues seemed to think that 100 - 105mm was a good compromise. Lots to think about, now.

I learned recently that plastic surgeons who do facial reconstructive surgery take the before and after pictures with 100 or 105mm lenses. to retain the right perspective.

 

[cooltouch]

I own a nFD 85/1.8 and I used to own a nFD 100/2.8. I agree with benjiboy. He wrote exactly what I was thinking and it also coincides with the way I have used the two lenses over the years. And, while I don't own the nFD 100/2.8 anymore, I do own a Nikon 105/2.5, which fills the same requirements. So, my recommendation? Get one of each. Problem solved.

I just checked prices on eBay on these two optics. The 85/1.8 can be found for about $190, maybe less, undoubtedly more. And the 100/2.8 can be found for $70, maybe less, undoubtedly more. So this is indeed about a 3x difference in prices, but we're not talking about huge amounts here.

Also, I must disagree with your dad and uncle and friends. I have found the 135mm focal length to be excellent for portraiture. Some of my best portrait shots were done with a 135mm lens. Some people prefer the compression which can be had with the additional focal length. I guess I'm one of them. I've even used 200mm with very good results. Anyway, before condemning a focal length before trying it, I recommend that you give it a try and see for yourself.

 

[EarlJam]

Thanks, Michael. As I mentioned at the top, I've had a 100/2.8 for my Pentax system since the mid-70s and recently added an 85/1.8. I agree with you and Ben - though close in focal length, they each cover a different set of needs with enough overlap that it's not always necessary to change from one to the other. I'm really enjoying shooting with the 85mm.

My initial plan for the Canon was to build a parallel system with FD lenses, to make similar sets for each pair of grandchildren. I'm starting to rethink that, as I don't have any wide lenses or long tele's for the Pentax and the kids are getting active in sports now. The Canon 200/2.8 strikes me as a good choice on the long end, and either a couple of wide primes or a 20-35 / 24-35/3.5 zoom on the other end. I shot with the 20-35/3.5 when I used an F1 in the early 80s and it was an outstanding lens. I think that will cover my needs while I wait for the kids to get old enough to handle an SLR, and then figure out what they need once they're old enough to take over the cameras.

 

[cooltouch]

The Canon 200/2.8 is an excellent optic, but it is not without its quirks. It contains no ED glass so it is prone to chromatic aberrations. Especially in strong light with hard lines in the photo -- they tend to show very distinct green and red fringing, which can probably be eliminated in post processing but it might be a chore in some cases. I owned a nFD 200/2.8 back in the 80s and I loved that lens in situations where CA was not prone to appear. But in other situations -- like hard lighting, I learned from experience just to keep it in the bag and use something else, like a good zoom. BTW, the nFD 200/4, which can be had for a small fraction of what the 200/2.8 sells for is an excellent performer and well worth picking one up. It's much more useful in bright lighting, and since you'll most likely have the lens stopped down beyond f/4, the additional speed of the 200/2.8 is not even needed. Incidentally, I've found that an excellent alternative to the 200/2.8 is the Tamron Adaptall SP 80-200/2.8 LD. It has low-dispersion glass so it handles CA very well, plus it is exceptionally sharp and contrasty, even at 200mm. Typically the Tamron sells for more than the Canon, but not always.I own a copy of both these days, and I think I paid close to the same price for each.