Like I said, the L glass has better CA than the Nikkor pro glass, but the nikkor's prosumer lenses are probably better than canon's prosumer lenses, that wouldn't surprise me, because anyone who only buys a $300 lens isn't really pro enough that the CA would affect them, they aren't really printing for gallery shows or anything, and the difference in CA is negligible for even 11x14 prints that you probably wouldn't even notice it unless you were using a calibrated machine to see it. Heck I'm using a shitty 24-85 lens on my 1V right now, this lens came from my EOS IX APS camera from roughly 1997 and I haven't noticed any real CA to complain about. Both systems are great, and none of our discussion is helping the OP, so, lets just say it doesn't ultimately matter, I was just describing something for the OP since he wasn't a canon user, it was info I thought he might want to know. Both Nikon and Canon and Minolta/Sony and Pentax are good systems with good glass, and everyone wants to fight about who's better, and I find most often the people who tout the most about about how perfect their lenses are *cough* Leica *cough* have the shittiest pictures ;)
Originally Posted by EASmithV
If I were to buy just one (very) good Canon FL lens in the range between 20 and 50 mm (not a zoom lens) which one should it be?
Mostly to be used in street photography or landscape.
Just for "fun" to have one old, good Canon lens - but also to use on my AE-1 (without aperture control, I know but don't mind).
And maybe to put on an old F1 (as a working set) if I can find this camera in good working order for not too much money.
I like to go out occasionally and wander around with an old camera and shoot what comes on my path (or not).
Just one manual camera with one manual lens and a few rolls of Tri-X .... and enjoying a nice camera and a good day ;-)
BTW: I don't want to spend too much money, but I'm told the old FL lenses are not much wanted thus much cheaper.
But the glass can still be very good (for me and my old manual mania).
I don't think FL are any cheaper than FDs, from what I've seen. They're scarcer, and harder to find (maybe).
Just one good lens? Depends on what you want. You said landscapes and street photography, but IMO those are 2 mutually exclusive kinds of lenses.
I'd go for a wide for the landscapes. Get anything in the 20-28mm range. Usually that's 20, 24, or 28, with 28 being the more common (IMO). For street, you often want a bit of distance. If you want to take pictures of unaware people a 100mm maybe. If you want an all-purpose and don't mind being closer to your subject, a fast 50mm will suit you in almost all environments.
Yea I'd agree I think the FL's are scarcer as well.
Originally Posted by Markster
The FD system sold TONS of cameras, the AE-1 in particular was a very popular "prosumer" camera of the day. If you like Nikon, then consider Steve McCurray ... please accept my apologies if I'm wrong, but he was a Nikon shooter and his lens of preference was a 35mm ... so take a Nikon users example (since you're primarily a Nikon guy) and go with a 35mm ... you'll have the ability to shoot a wide range of images and not get stuck with the issue of not being able to get everything in the frame and also still not so wide that everything looks warped.
I'm not very well informed about Canon glass, but for a useful focal length it's hard to beat 35mm. The 35/2 and 50/2 lenses spend about an equal amount of time on my cameras. I've been known to carry two bodies - one with a 50, one with a 35.
Originally Posted by TheToadMen
Gee, I need a third body for the 85/2...:laugh:
The 85/1.2 L is good!
I don't like "just" 80mm or 100mm lenses. I know some folks swear by them and rave about them. If I'm in a room I can't take a picture of somebody in the same room. I have to back out to the door or further. They have their uses and may be great lenses overall, but if that's the ONLY lens you get you'll find it limiting. Or, at least... I would find it limiting.