Canon FD glass
I'm interested in a Canon FD system:
Here are the lenses that I am interested in,
I'll probably pick a 3 lens kit from these focal lengths: 28/50/100 or 24/35/85. Or something like that. Ideally I would go by focal length, but I'm not familiar of the reputation of FD lenses. Is it safe to assume that all of these lenses are "good" or are any of them notorious for being duds. I do not care for superspeed and I'd prefer to keep things at the 52mm focal length. I like fast glass because i shoot in low-light often, but I do not feel that I would need a 50mm f1.2 over a 50mm f1.4, etc.
My cousin is an architect and shot all the Istanbul's Old Wooden Houses with Canon FD Glass Collection. He produced thousands of slides on Ektachrome and I am sorry to say I disliked canon.
If you can , buy a Leica Mini Zoom with 35-70 Elmar glass , it comes from Keh 60 dollars and it beats all of the Canon FD.
If you can , invest in Nikon if you disliked my idea.
All the lenses you picked are excellent. Make sure to get the 35mm with the concave front element and min. aperture of f16, it is thoriated and extremely sharp.
If I were you, I'd leave out the 28mm and 85mm, because they are so close to the other focal lengths.
A personal preference would be 24-35-50-85 and 135. But if I were limited to 3 lenses they would have to be 24 - 50 - 100mm
Canon did make a special glass back in the 70's which used something 'extra' in the elements of their better lenses, but I seem to remember that this glass was prone to deteriorate if it was allowed to be exposed ton the elements but when they were new their resolving power was better than anything else that other manufacturers could get close to. Does anyone else remember this. I seem to remember it was used in their 85mm F1.8 FD (with breech lock) lens
Leica used that thorium glass 40 years before Canon. Dont believe the myths , rent a Leica and Canon , shoot head to head and you will understand. For me , Canon is a tourist camera , no more and not every tourist uses it , if they dont want to have chromatic aberration , ugly colors , terrible bokeh and a body like an shoebox in your hands. I bought an EOS and when the trees comes blue , I sold it. Long story about an tard.
I own all these lenses and I can assure you none of them are "duds", they are all stellar performers and much better lenses than I'm a photographer, which of them to choose I.M.O depends on what type of photograph you do. but for for general work I find the three most useful lightweight carry round ones 28 mm f2, 50 mm f1.4, and 100mm f2.
Have you been looking in my camera bag by any chance? :p
Originally Posted by BMbikerider
To that list I also have the 200/2.8. They are all stunning and whatever the OP chooses will serve him well.
Add to that FD lenses seem to be a bargin since they can't be used on the later EOS bodies.
I'd imagine that the possible deterioration in the 35mm is due to the thorium yellowing the glass. It's also a problem with some Pentax screw mount lenses. It can apparently be fixed with exposure to strong UV light - your best bet is probably to build a lightbox with a UV light as that'll be much more reliable than trying to keep it in direct sunlight (a lot of the UV in sunlight is blocked by window glass anyway).
The major problem with the "buy a Leica" mindset is cost and availability. A Leica M series worth owning seems to go for anything between £300 and £1000 here, some of those don't include a lens. I refuse to believe for one moment that they're six times as good as my Pentax MX and 50mm f1.7 despite being six times the price (at least!)
Every time I read your posts, I wonder about the traumas that affected your childhood.
Originally Posted by Mustafa Umut Sarac
By the way, if you want to save some money, substitute the 24mm f2 for the f2.8, they're both excellent. I don't know the current price of the 100mm f2, but the 135mm f2.8 is likely to be cheaper.
You might consider the 100 f4 macro.