So who were these for?

blockend · Nov 16, 2020

RLangham said:
I mean we've established ITT that these FD optics were computer corrected... no surprise really. I dislike them in comparison to Minolta, Pentax and Nikon lenses just on the basis of those having artistically useful flaws, but I'm not one to deny the sharpness of 70's Canon lenses.

Rendering is a personal choice. Lenses tend to fall into the flawed-but-characterful or sharp-and-resolved categories. From my collection only one lens bridges both camps, the 50mm Helios 103, although the pre-AI Nikkor 50mm f2 comes close. As the Helios was only built for the non-helicoid Contax-Kiev, adapting to anything else is a pain.

People increasingly judge lenses exclusively on their wide open rendering, which prioritises quirkiness. I'm more interested in how they perform at optimum apertures, except for portraiture obviously.

Donald Qualls · Nov 16, 2020

@Chan Tran You should put some film in it. I've got one, as well as a Canonet 28; they're both excellent lenses (the quick-load and f/1.7 are clear wins, though). I'd call the QL17 G3 one of the best street cameras going, if you don't need interchanging lenses.

Chan Tran · Nov 16, 2020

Donald Qualls said:
@Chan Tran You should put some film in it. I've got one, as well as a Canonet 28; they're both excellent lenses (the quick-load and f/1.7 are clear wins, though). I'd call the QL17 G3 one of the best street cameras going, if you don't need interchanging lenses.

I think I should! The meter even works reasonably accurate with alkaline battery.

flavio81 · Nov 16, 2020

BradS said:
I thought that Nikon solved the ring resistor issue(s) back in the early 1970's with the DP-1 finders. I've never heard of anybody having issues with ring resistors on the FM, FE, FA bodies....not saying it didn't happen just seems like it wasn't a major issue.
I never had a Nikon FM but I did have three Nikon FE and a Nikon FA...none of these ever had ring resistor issues. I traveled quite a bit with two of the Nikon FE..one of them literally fell apart in the Peruvian jungle...I managed to hold it together with packaging tape until I got back to Lima and found somebody who could put the pieces back together.

As a Peruvian, wow... amazing trip !

As for the Nikon ring resistor, check out Sover Wong (reputed Nikon technician) website. He says the ring resistor was finally made durable in the DP-11 (not DP-1). In any case, I agree that in the FE it isn't a major issue anymore.

Amazing about the FE falling apart, yes it isn't as tough a camera as a Nikkormat or an EL/EL2. But still looks ok to me ( i own one too.)

flavio81 · Nov 16, 2020

RLangham said:
I mean we've established ITT that these FD optics were computer corrected... no surprise really. I dislike them in comparison to Minolta, Pentax and Nikon lenses just on the basis of those having artistically useful flaws, but I'm not one to deny the sharpness of 70's Canon lenses.

Agree, as I wrote above. For characterful rendering I have some choice, specific Nikkor lenses that have wonderful rendering and that I've found after years of owning many lenses. One of them is the Nikkor-H 85/1.8, another the 35/2.0, the other is a Nikkor-N 28/2.0; the third one i won't disclose because i don't want it to rise in price.

However there are Canon FD lenses with wonderful rendering, one of my latest discoveries is the 100/2.8 (any version), just beautiful. The FD/FL 55/1.2 also has very nice rendering and I use this lens since the last 15 years or so; have made many portraits with it, some of them ended up illustrating CDs or on the press. I'm also experimenting with the FD 50/1.8, it's very little known that there are more than one optical version of this lens, and apparently rendering is very different between versions.

RLangham · Nov 16, 2020

Chan Tran said:
I have the Canonet QL17 GIII. Bought for $3 in good condition. Shot a lot of blank with it but never with film.

I encourage you to run some film through it. I'm not the biggest shutter priority guy but it is quite a performer. It's fast quiet and accurate even with an alkaline battery (compensating about a stop and a half at first and then checking it and reducing the compensation as time goes on.) But I suppose that goes without saying.

blockend · Nov 16, 2020

flavio81 said:
I'm also experimenting with the FD 50/1.8, it's very little known that there are more than one optical version of this lens, and apparently rendering is very different between versions.

The FDn 50/1.8 gives a very good account of itself. With traditional film and dev like Fomapan 100 and Rodinal, the lens offers Barnack era rendering and "glow". Definitely vintage in feel and not at all sterile.

Donald Qualls · Nov 16, 2020

RLangham said:
I encourage you to run some film through it. I'm not the biggest shutter priority guy but it is quite a performer. It's fast quiet and accurate even with an alkaline battery (compensating about a stop and a half at first and then checking it and reducing the compensation as time goes on.) But I suppose that goes without saying.

Dead accurate with a zinc-air hearing aid battery, though.

RLangham · Nov 16, 2020

Donald Qualls said:
Dead accurate with a zinc-air hearing aid battery, though.

Really? My experience of those has not been better than alkali

Donald Qualls · Nov 16, 2020

RLangham said:
Really? My experience of those has not been better than alkali

Alkaline cells run 1.5V or a hair higher, no load, while zinc-air are virtually the same as the original mercury cells -- zinc-air is 1.35V, while mercury cells were 1.33, as I recall. Discharge curves are very different, and the zinc-air cells need air (a sealed battery compartment will "suffocate" the cell, only to have it come back to life half an hour after you open the compartment), dry out in a matter of weeks and quit working, but they're cheap (especially if you can get them on a card of 10 or more), and they're the right voltage.

The best solution, of course, is to install a regulator in the camera, but I'm not an elecronics person to know what components to need, and there's the issue of space under the bottom plate, too....

Chan Tran · Nov 16, 2020

Donald Qualls said:
Alkaline cells run 1.5V or a hair higher, no load, while zinc-air are virtually the same as the original mercury cells -- zinc-air is 1.35V, while mercury cells were 1.33, as I recall. Discharge curves are very different, and the zinc-air cells need air (a sealed battery compartment will "suffocate" the cell, only to have it come back to life half an hour after you open the compartment), dry out in a matter of weeks and quit working, but they're cheap (especially if you can get them on a card of 10 or more), and they're the right voltage.

The best solution, of course, is to install a regulator in the camera, but I'm not an elecronics person to know what components to need, and there's the issue of space under the bottom plate, too....

I would use the camera in manual and although the meter is less than 1/3 stop off as compared to my hand held meter I would use it as meterless.

Donald Qualls · Nov 16, 2020

Chan Tran said:
I would use the camera in manual and although the meter is less than 1/3 stop off as compared to my hand held meter I would use it as meterless.

That's a perfectly valid approach.

George Mann · Nov 16, 2020

flavio81 said:
In any case, I agree that in the FE it isn't a major issue anymore.

You may not ever see the issue, but it still exists regardless.

AgX · Nov 16, 2020

Chan Tran said:
You said weighted you meant center weighted? Most cameras of the time including the A series had center weighted metering system. As for spot metering only the Olympus OM 3 and 4 had it but it was later than the A series. Spot metering didn't become the norm until much later.

The Canon FTb had spot metering, in the meaning that only a small patch of the screenn represents the metering area.

MattKing · Nov 16, 2020

Chan Tran said:
As for spot metering only the Olympus OM 3 and 4 had it but it was later than the A series.

The OM-2s as well.

woodlandSerenade · Nov 16, 2020

Donald Qualls said:
The best solution, of course, is to install a regulator in the camera

Not sure if we're allowed to mention specific brand names, but there is a Kanto Camera voltage adapter that will bring an SR43 battery down to 1.33V. I use one for my F-1n and the meter is dead accurate.

flavio81 · Nov 16, 2020

Donald Qualls said:
e zinc-air cells need air (a sealed battery compartment will "suffocate" the cell, only to have it come back to life half an hour after you open the compartment), dry out in a matter of weeks and quit working

This is not my experience. I've had great success with 675 air-zinc cells. There's one in my Canon F-1 right now, it already has at least 2 months sitting there and is just fine, working perfectly.

I think the best solution is using zinc-air cells.

RLangham · Nov 16, 2020

Chan Tran said:
I would use the camera in manual and although the meter is less than 1/3 stop off as compared to my hand held meter I would use it as meterless.

Then of course it's completely mechanical.
If you do want to use a battery you can wad up tin foil and use a common alkali or zinc air in sr44 size instead of the more expensive ones in px625 size (same battery in a different shell!)

As a manual camera I do find the aperture ring annoying, as it is clickless and mine seems to need lubrication as there's a faint scraping when I turn the ring.

At any rate the flash automation is fantastic and that to me is the main argument for using it in automatic mode.

AgX · Nov 17, 2020

RLangham said:
As a manual camera I do find the aperture ring annoying, as it is clickless and mine seems to need lubrication as there's a faint scraping when I turn the ring.

At any rate the flash automation is fantastic and that to me is the main argument for using it in automatic mode.

Of which camera are you speaking?

Chan Tran · Nov 17, 2020

RLangham said:
Then of course it's completely mechanical.
If you do want to use a battery you can wad up tin foil and use a common alkali or zinc air in sr44 size instead of the more expensive ones in px625 size (same battery in a different shell!)

As a manual camera I do find the aperture ring annoying, as it is clickless and mine seems to need lubrication as there's a faint scraping when I turn the ring.

At any rate the flash automation is fantastic and that to me is the main argument for using it in automatic mode.

I have to check but I believe the flash automation still work without the battery. As you focus the aperture will change.

RLangham · Nov 17, 2020

AgX said:
Of which camera are you speaking?

Canonet QL17 GIII

flavio81 · Nov 18, 2020

blockend said:
Rendering is a personal choice. Lenses tend to fall into the flawed-but-characterful or sharp-and-resolved categories. From my collection only one lens bridges both camps, the 50mm Helios 103,.

This is very valuable information for me, thank you very much ! Which contax-mount camera do you use?

blockend · Nov 19, 2020

flavio81 said:
Which contax-mount camera do you use?

The splendidly terrible Kiev 4.

RLangham · Nov 19, 2020

blockend said:
The splendidly terrible Kiev 4.

Oh, I've nearly bought a 4a on many occasions. Should I not?

flavio81 · Nov 19, 2020

blockend said:
The FDn 50/1.8 gives a very good account of itself. With traditional film and dev like Fomapan 100 and Rodinal, the lens offers Barnack era rendering and "glow". Definitely vintage in feel and not at all sterile.

Hi,

Thanks to your post i've searching the internet for more images from the 50/1.8 FD New that showcase its bokeh/rendering. I think you're right -- very good rendering, better than the 50 1.4 SSC which has "double-line" bokeh; i think I'll use mine more. I have the FDn version and I also have the Chrome Nose version which I'm completely convinced it's not exactly same optics (despite the optical configuration being identical).

So who were these for?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency