Trying to decide on FD Lenses

[agphotography]

Found a 50 f/1.4! Sold the 60-120mm and waiting on sales for the 50 f/1.8 and the 35-105mm

 

[Markster]

I would say the 35-105mm is a good zoom range to own, whether you like that particular lens or not. It gives you that ability to NOT change the lens out and that's proven quite nice for me lately.

You'll want the 50mm just 'cuase, and a good fast wide angle is a must! (by that I mean keep one of the 28mm lenses, and if you want to find a faster one later so be it, but for now you've got one).

Ditch the 100mm, unless you absolutely adore it. It's almost a useless magnification IMO. Also the 60-120 is useless as well. You'll want a zoom up to around 200mm for any decent zoom work.

I, personally, have a 70-200mm f/4.5 that I use for all my outdoors zooming action when I want something close-up. It's not really the best, and it's slow at times, but it's what I have so I use it. I wish I had a faster one, and maybe one that's a bit sharper. Although, I don't use filters so maybe they would help a bit.

Overall I suppose it boils down to what you want, but I would say of that kit you would want:
50mm prime (just because)
28mm prime (just in case)
wide-to-moderate zoom (i.e. 35-100 range, anything like that) for maximum efficiency
Some zoom for distant objects or landscapes, etc (200mm or so?)

My unprofessional, amateur, uneducated opinion

 

[NormG]

I own a 50/1.4 and find it a very good lens. I also own a 24/2.8 and find it very good. I use these on my AE-1, love this camera. All manual and i find it easier and quicker to use the the DSLR i own....this might explain why I am in the process of building a Hassy 500cm...

 

[2F/2F]

BTW, now that I think about it, I can sell my older model 200mm f/2.8. No, this isn't the one that got dropped. Let me know if you are interested.

 

[Andrew K]

Hi

I can't resist adding my 2 cents worth, as a former FD shooter (5 X NF1 bodies, AE1P,T90 + lenses from 14mm to 300mm - mostly f2.8 or faster, plus a few zooms and a mirror lens or two... I was also a Canon Camera Tech at the time FD was finishing and EOS was taking over) who was lucky enough to own, borrow and use most of the FD lenses Canon made....

Wide angle - 28/2.8 was a good lens - so was the 24/2.8 - both small and light.

The Old FD (Chrome mount) 50/1.4 was sharper than the New FD 50/1.4, but either lens is fine...

The 100/2.8 was ok, but the 100/f2 was amazing - should have been classed as a L lens. It was my favorite portrait lens among the several lenses around that focal length I had (85/1.2 & 1.8, 100 Macro, 135/2.8).

I would agree with the people who have suggested a 200/2.8. They are a smallish, very light lens. I've used both the helicoid (in Old FD) and internal focus (new FD mount). Both were as sharp as each other, but the internal focus was far quicker to focus (and much easier to repair).

I also agree that the 35-105/3.5 was a great lens - a bugger to adjust to get the focus correct so that it wouldn't shift when zoomed from one end to the other, but really nice. Took one of my all time favorite photos with one of these...

I was never a regular FD zoom user even though I owned several of them (NFD 20-35L, NFD 28-50/3.5 - the big all metal one not the little plastic 28-55, NFD35-105, NFD 28-85, NFD75-200 & 70-210 (the better of the two) and the 80-400/4 two touch zoom plus the cheap little plastic NFD35-70/3.5-4.5 which optically was a very good lens despite its habbit of not holding focus through it's zoom range - had nice macro too..

If you are looking for a compact kit I would suggest the following lenses:

A) 28/2.8, 50/1.4 and 135/2.8. That way you get a wide, standard and short tele.

B) 24/2.8, 50/1.4 and 200/2.8. This kit is better, as it eliminates any indecisiveness - you need a wide, a standard or a tele lens.

C) 35/2...thats it. Has anyone mentioned one of these? They are a fantastic lens - sharp at all apertures, small - a great carry around lens....

D) NFD 28-50/3.5 and 80-200/4 zooms...

I don't use FD gear any more - when I shoot film I tend to shoot 120, but I'm putting a kit together for old times sake..I got a near mint New F1 with AE/FN finder + powerwinder and motor drives, and have a 55/1.2 Old Fd and 50/1.4 old Fd lenses (the 55/1.2 is not sharp till f4, but it looks great on the camera..), a 24/2.8 which was my "standard" wide lens, plus a 70-210/4 (funny-regardless of what others have said, in my own testing this was far sharper than the plastic 75-200) - that is, until I can find a NFD 80-200/4.

I'm not going to bother getting anything longer unless a 500L comes my way. I've used all the 300mm lenses Canon made - f5.6, f4, f4L, and f2.8L..and yes - they got better as you got a better lens. I shot the same subject with each of them, and compared the prints. All shots were at f5.6, so the f5.6 lens was at a disadvantage not being stopped down. The differences between the f4 and f4L were noticable in fine detail, but the f2.8 blew them away....

Nice lens, but getting too old to be reliable...I mean, they must be 20 years old..no I was repairing them in the mid 90's, so closer to 25/28 years old....

Wish I hadn't started thinking about all this...that means my EOS 300/2.8L is over 20 years old!!!

Cheers

Andrew

 

[2F/2F]

Andrew, thanks for the post.

With your background, I am curious about your thoughts on the 135's. 2.0 vs. 2.5 vs. 2.8 vs. 3.5.

Also curious what you think of the 55mm f/1.2 S.S.C. (not Aspheric model). It is one of my favorites regardless, but I would like to hear what you have got to say about it on a technical level, especially in comparison to the other f/1.2 offerings.

Thank you.

 

[hpulley]

I have the older FL 55mm f/1.2 and I quite like it. It is not sharp wide open but I use it that way, between the narrow DOF and the softness it yields a nice effect.

 

[Andrew K]

Andrew, thanks for the post.

With your background, I am curious about your thoughts on the 135's. 2.0 vs. 2.5 vs. 2.8 vs. 3.5.

Also curious what you think of the 55mm f/1.2 S.S.C. (not Aspheric model). It is one of my favorites regardless, but I would like to hear what you have got to say about it on a technical level, especially in comparison to the other f/1.2 offerings.

Thank you.

with the 135mm lenses - the f2 is the sharpest, but in my opinion there is not enough difference to warrant the extra weight over a f2.8. Plus with all the weight in the glass of the f2 lens they are not that quick to focus...

The f2.5 is an interesting lens - optically about the same as a f2.8. I like them because they are an odd aperture and feel very balanced....I haven't used a f3.5 version, mainly because the f2.8's were common and cheap enough....

With the 50/55 mm f1.2 lenses I totally agree with hpulley - the FL 55/1.2 has a lovely quality to it, especially when used wide open. Not soft, not sharp, and yes - a little dreamy. I took one of my favorite photos of my wife with one mounted on a pellix..

If I wanted a f1.2 lens to use I would buy a NFD 50mm/1.2L - it is the sharpest wide open of all the "standard" F1.2 lenses I got to use (which Is most of them - 55/1.2 FL and SSC (I never did get to use the 55/1.2 ASPH - I wish I had but they only made around 360 of them..), the 50 1.2L and 50/1.2 standard. Oh, I forgot I also had a S 50/1.2 on the VT Rangefinder..).

I kept my 55/1.2 because it is a very early example (it has a chrome filter ring), and is in very nice condition, and as I said, looks great on a camera. Optically I've found it is not that sharp wide open - a little less sharp than the FL 55/1.2 I have wide open, but because of the SSC coating it is higher in contrast. At f4 it becomes a brilliant lens - but thats not why you buy a high speed lens...

Personally I would buy a Old FD (chrome mount) 50/1.4 SSC lens - for the slight loss of light you get an amazing lens that is sharp wide open, and just that little bit sharper stopped down. I've owned 5 or 6 different ones, and all have been amazingly sharp..

Of all the 1.2 lenses I used the NFD 85/1.2L was the best. Sharp wide open (you got the eyes in focus, but the eye lashes were just out of focus on a big print...), exceptionally sharp at f2.8.

And I'll never forget the first time I looked through one mounted on a New F1. I was sitting in my bosses office, and when I looked through the camera the image in the viewfinder was brighter than daylight - that is - brighter than looking at the subject directly..

It's the only lens/camera combination that this ever happened to me with.....

 

[2F/2F]

Thanks, Andrew.

I have the 50mm 1.4 S.S.C. It is my most-used lens out of all my lenses in any format. Even with some light fungus, it is sharp. Someone wanted to clean it out for $45, but I said forget it! It is sharp as it is, and I don't want someone monkeying with the elements if I like what I am getting.

I have the FDn one as well, just because it came in a kit. I use it as a backup or a loaner. No hood, though.

I also have the 55 f/1.2 S.S.C. with the proper hood. It is one of my favorite lenses aesthetically speaking, as both you and hpulley describe. As you also said, I mount it when "dreamy" or "no-light shooting" are the words.

The 55 does have the most major barrel distortion I have ever seen in a fixed-focal-length lens, though. So I gave up on shooting brick walls with it.

I use the 55 with the Canon low light screen. I think it might be called the F screen (old F-1). Still only seems to show the D of F of about f/2.0, even wide open.

 

[agphotography]

Andrew thank you so much for your valuable insight! I truly appreciate all the wonderful feedback.

I'm selling the zooms because I decided that it's just not what I want for this FD setup. I wan't compact and light weight. (Thus choosing the FDn 50 f/1.4 over the SSC version) I also like the 100 f/2.8 because its very small and light as well.

I think I'm going to be happy with this kit for now but I definitely will be on the lookout for some of these lenses. I also hope to have an F-1 someday as well.

 

[frobozz]

This is always the picture I post when someone asks about the 55/1.2 Aspherical

Duncan

 

[agphotography]

What are your collective thoughts on the Vivitar 28mm f/2.5 I hear it's made by Kiron, and thats a good thing.

 

[agphotography]

Well I guess the 200mm is coming back. Is pretty beat up but still usable. I sold it with a full description and appropriate images on eBay and I just got a claim filed against me for a refund. Lol people can be so rude when selling things online. I'm often reminded how much I hate dealing with eBay.

 

[agphotography]

Digging up my own thread here but I want to ask a specific question.

Presently I have the 28 f/2.8, 50 f/1.4, 100 f/2.8 and 35-105 f/3.5. All "New" FD mount. I'm looking to buy the 35 f/2 right now and I have a chance to get the New FD version at a really good price. Is there any reason to prefer the older versions over the latest one? It will be used on a T90 as that will be my only FD body.

In the future I will look to replace the 28 f/2.8 with the f/2 version and potentially the 100 with the f/2 version as well.

 

[hpulley]

I like the old 35/2 concave lens SSC II version I have. It is really, really sharp though it has a slight yellow cast. I hear the new ones are just as sharp but without the yellow cast but I've never tried one.

As I've mentioned before I much prefer my 28/2 to the old 28/2.8 that I had, both new FD mount.

I use a 100/2.8 (new FD) and while I yearned for a time for the 100/2 I never got it, I got an FL 85/1.8 instead. In fact I use the 100/2.8 more however, including a whole roll I recently shot with it using Delta 100 in my Canon TX. My copy isn't even in that great a condition but I still like the images it produces, go figure. Not sure why but the 85mm focal length has never appealed to me on 35mm cameras though I use 80mm on 6x6 and 90mm on 6x7 all the time as they're more normal lengths there.

 

[agphotography]

Well for the asking price I don't think I could say no to the FDn 35 f/2.

It'll work nicely on my GF1 as well

 

[agphotography]

I have one more question (for today )

Who has any opinions on the 85-300 f/4.5? I was looking at an SSC version and I tHought it would be fun to use on the T90 and really cool on the m4/3 system.

Thoughts?

 

[benjiboy]

I have the FDn 100-300 zoom, the new type, and it's a very good lens but I haven't used it for a long time, the only FD zoom lenses I know that are reputed to be a poor performers are the FD 100-200 and the FD SSC 100-300.

Stop Press I just found this http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005Uvj

On balance I think it might be a good lens to avoid, it's when you start lugging the older FD SSC long lenses about either zoom or prime that you realize that that the newer bayonet type with the polymer barrels were not such a bad idea after all because a bag full of the metal barrelled ones weighs nearly twice as much as the new type, however I can recommend the FDn 100-300 Zoom, and no I'm not wanting to sell mine.

 

[agphotography]

Very interesting. That's really the first negative feedback I've seen on the lens. The weight doesn't really bother me much.

I have a chance to pick one up for $125 it almost seems too good to pass up. The thought of having a 600mm lens for micro 4/3 is rather tempting.

 

[Excalibur2]

****I have the FDn 100-300 zoom, the new type, and it's a very good lens but I haven't used it for a long time, the only FD zoom lenses I know that are reputed to be a poor performers are the FD 100-200 and the FD SSC 100-300.***

You forgot the cheap kit lens 35-70mm and 70-210 f4 FDNs and the common FDn 200mm f4 is just average (well my copy is).

 

[benjiboy]

****I have the FDn 100-300 zoom, the new type, and it's a very good lens but I haven't used it for a long time, the only FD zoom lenses I know that are reputed to be a poor performers are the FD 100-200 and the FD SSC 100-300.***

You forgot the cheap kit lens 35-70mm and 70-210 f4 FDNs and the common FDn 200mm f4 is just average (well my copy is).

The popular perception of the "cheap kit lens" FDn 35-70 f3.5-f4.5 is like most peoples who because it's light weight and the barrel is made out of plastic assume as I did incorrectly when I used to sell them for a living at the time they came out that optically they were crap, I have since changed my mind since I reluctantly acquired one as part of a Canon T90 deal a few years ago I since found to be a very sharp and light weight walkabout lens http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdzooms/3570.htm#compact. I also have the FDn 200mm f4 you mention and that too I find after using it for more than twenty years is a very good sharp and contrasty performer.

I can't comment on the FDn 70-210 f4 lens because I have never used one, but the moral of the story is don't believe all you hear, and there are Monday morning lenses and Friday afternoon ones,, and who knows after over twenty years use and abuse, if my lenses are the same as yours

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I also have the 35-70 f3.5-f4.5 of course it is light but I think it is underrated.

Jeff

 

[agphotography]

One reason I wasn't looking at the 100-300 was because it's a push pull zoom. Personally I'm not a big fan of lenses like that and I prefer the more modern design "2-touch" zoom lenses. (thus - my interest in the 85-300)

 

[Excalibur2]

The popular perception of the "cheap kit lens" FDn 35-70 f3.5-f4.5 is like most peoples who because it's light weight and the barrel is made out of plastic assume as I did incorrectly when I used to sell them for a living at the time they came out that optically they were crap, I have since changed my mind since I reluctantly acquired one as part of a Canon T90 deal a few years ago I since found to be a very sharp and light weight walkabout lens http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdzooms/3570.htm#compact. I also have the FDn 200mm f4 you mention and that too I find after using it for more than twenty years is a very good sharp and contrasty performer.

I can't comment on the FDn 70-210 f4 lens because I have never used one, but the moral of the story is don't believe all you hear, and there are Monday morning lenses and Friday afternoon ones,, and who knows after over twenty years use and abuse, if my lenses are the same as yours

Well if you compared the Canon zoom lenses mentioned to equivalent Tamron SP or certain Kiron/Vivitar (esp series 1) zooms you might change your mind.

 

[Andrew K]

I have to say the best of the tele zooms I used was either the 100-300L - which was noticably sharper than the standard 100-300, or the 80-200/4 - 2 touch lens..and funnily enough I always found the 70-210 to be much sharper than the 75-200..and I owned a couple of versions of each lens...

And yes - the cheap platic 35-70 that everyone dismisses is a surprisingly good lens - I used to use one as a macro lens when I was repairing cameras to photograph the insides of cameras