Telephoto Lens Recommendations Needed

[3 Olives]

My son is starting a nine month long photography class in August. They require manual focus 35 mm cameras and we bought him a Canon A1 with a "standard" 50mm lens. They also strongly suggest that the students have a Telephoto lens. Any suggestions you might have would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Something like the Tamron SP 90/2.5 or 90/2.8 is a nice short tele for portraits and macros.

The Canon FD 200/2.8 internal focusing lens is a nice moderate tele. I used to have one and liked to carry it sometimes with the Canon extenders 1.4X-A and 2x-B when I wanted to travel light and have the option of going longer, even though I also had a 300/4L and 400/4.5 SSC, which are also fine lenses, if you are looking for a longer tele. There are many excellent values right now among Canon FD lenses.

 

[film_guy]

Get the Canon EF 135mm 2.8 soft-focus lens; it's slightly slower than the venerable Canon 135mm F2 L lens but costs 1/3 of the price. Or if he wants a telephoto zoom lens, get the Canon 70-200 F4 IS lens; great for outdoors.

 

[bob100684]

Get the Canon EF 135mm 2.8 soft-focus lens; it's slightly slower than the venerable Canon 135mm F2 L lens but costs 1/3 of the price. Or if he wants a telephoto zoom lens, get the Canon 70-200 F4 IS lens; great for outdoors.

that lens won't work on an A1 as the A1 is an FD mount camera, not EF

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

In fact all the lenses that film_guy listed are EF (EOS) mount lenses that won't work on an FD mount camera. On the other hand the FD 135/2.0 is an outstanding lens, and so is the FD 80-200/4.0L, but for learning purposes, it's probably better to use single focal length lenses. Zooms are useful for specific tasks, like event photography where you want to be able to shoot quickly and can't always be standing where you want to use the full 35mm frame, but they can make beginning photographers lazy.

 

[kunihiko]

I'm not sure what focal length is required. 135mm ? 200mm ? or more ?
As David said, NFD 135/2 is quite a good lens. But I think it's little bit heavy for a kid. If your son was a little kid, I mean. And it could cost you more than A-1 and 50mm kit.
In my limited experience, old FD 135/2.5 S.C. was not that bad and reasonably priced.
If the standard lens you've got was so called New FD lens, same style of mounting system would be better. Then you may consider NFD135/2.8 or NFD100/2 for little shorter. You can't go wrong with any FD lenses of those generation anyway. They are all good or at least decent.

 

[film_guy]

Sorry, I misread your question; I thought you asked about the A2 for your son, instead of the A1.

 

[tony lockerbie]

Basically, Canon does not make a crook short tele lens, and I presume that they require him to use a short ( or portrait) lens. It really depends on the budget of course but a 100mm lens is a great first choice in this bracket. Canon has a quite inexpensive but really good, 100 F2.8 and if you are well healed there is the 100mm F2 which is truly superb. In the 135's you can get the older 135 F2.5 or the 135mm F2 as mentioned above. The F2 is a very big and heavy optic, not to mention expensive, but is one of Canon's finest lenses.
I think if I were setting up a young person I would opt for the 100mm F2.8 as it quite inexpensive and not much larger than the 50mm.
Tony

 

[Vonder]

I recommend Tamron's 70-210 Adaptall lens. I recently picked one up off eBay with FD mount for $20 and have been stunned by the image quality. Then if you want, there are lots of Adaptall lenses out there to buy, cheap, and many are quite good.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What does the instructor want the students to have??

85 to 135 mm is good for portraits and as a moderate telephoto
200 mm is good for sports - car and motorcycle racing
300 mm also good for sports and wildlife
400 mm to 600 mm good for wildlife, but hard to hand hold, really requires a tripod, fast film ...

I hope that helps,
Steve

 

[waynecrider]

Canon's 70-150, which emulates (and supposedly just beats) the impressive optics of the Nikon 70-150, is quite cheap.

 

[PhotoJim]

A 135/2.8 was my first lens. Very cheap, very useful. (In fact I got one for my Nikons a few weeks ago and finally put some film behind it a couple of weeks ago - and the shots are beautiful.) The 135/2.5 Canon equivalent would be a fine substitute.

If Canon has a 100/105 mm lens that's also great. Nikon's 105/2.5 is a beautiful lens. Some above have mentioned the 100/2.8 and it would be just fine.

I'd stay away from the zooms for now. They are more flexible but harder to learn with, in my opinion. If your son can learn to use a 50 and 100/135 effectively, he'll be a much better user of a zoom later.

 

[polaski]

Long lens recommendation

135mm, by all means. It is a classic, and should be part of a yound photographer's education. A bit long for just head shots, it can still be used with a little finesse, and it's a great street and landscape lens.

Landscape lens? Absolutely. It's a fine way to control what's in the frame, and teaches focus control and perspective.

Pentax Spotmatic, Takumar 135mm, Verona, Italy 1970

 

[AgX]

As David said, NFD 135/2 is quite a good lens. But I think it's little bit heavy for a kid.
In my limited experience, old FD 135/2.5 S.C. was not that bad and reasonably priced.

As the new type FD lenses were generally lighter constructed the FDn 135/2 is only 5% heavier than the FD 135/2.5.
(got the weights from the net)

 

[kunihiko]

Oh, I must have got weaken. 135/2.5 was not that much heavy when I was younger and I feel 135/2 quite heavy now
I listed 135/2.5 right after 135/2 because of its price. Could you please quote like this ?

And it could cost you more than A-1 and 50mm kit.
In my limited experience, old FD 135/2.5 S.C. was not that bad and reasonably priced.

Thank you for pointing out. I've been thinking weight difference was much more in my mind anyway. Now I'm corrected

 

[AgX]

I have got the old one myself and find it quite a weight. Looking at photos of the new one (2.0) I thought oooh. And was surpriced about the weights too. But as indicated before Canon exchanged a lot of brass against plastic, amoungst other measures.

Especially for `longer´ lenses the right kind of friction is important, I guess I would put this above weight.

 

[alex66]

I cant recomend the`100mm high enough I had a 1.8 till my cam bag was stolen in he early 90s, I loved that lens