Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,938   Posts: 1,557,374   Online: 985
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11
    glockman99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Aberdeen, WA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    138
    My "vote" goes for a 28mm or even a 24mm lens. Since his 135mm gets little use, it seems like he wants to go wide. Yah, I'm thinking that a 24mm lens would be best.
    Dann Fassnacht
    Aberdeen, WA USA

    glockman99@hotmail.com
    -------------------------------------
    My film cameras are all Nikons: F3HP, F4s, N90s, N8008, N8008s.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Toronto
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    10
    I just recently bought a 35mm f2.8 canon lens for my A1/AE-1 and I found that it gave superb results. Very sharp and the angle was good enough to catch what I wanted to.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    580
    Stick to primes. If you want wide; then 24mm or 28mm. If you want tele; then 85 1.8. 35mm gets little use in my arsenal. The zooms I have are great and sometimes are convenient. The 15mm is a lot of fun. If you can get a 50mm f/1.2; do it. Other than that; I use the 80-200mm zoom or a 100-200mm zoom. When you get the money; don't forget the Macros.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Montgomery, Il/USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,160
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanishing Point Ent. View Post
    The lens has interchangeable mounts,so find the lens in any mount & then change mounts. Try eBay. Dump the 135 f 2.5. It's too old to be any good, because I think it's an FL lens, not FD. This makes a big difference.
    .
    The OP said the 135/2.5 is an FD. Why should he dump it? Because you say it's too old to be any good?
    Horseshit!.Please excuse me I sneezed.
    Heavily sedated for your protection.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,024
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by John Koehrer View Post
    The OP said the 135/2.5 is an FD. Why should he dump it? Because you say it's too old to be any good?
    Horseshit!.Please excuse me I sneezed.
    Well put. And why only L glass? Yes it's nice, yes, marketing hype will tell you it's better, and maybe it is. But, there are plenty of FD lenses that are more than good enough (the 135mm f2.5 included) and far less expensive. Not everyone is looking to sink a fortune into their gear. And, before you try telling me FD L lenses aren't expensive, try remembering that expensive is in the wallet of the beholder.

    Dan

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA., U.S.A.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by John Koehrer View Post
    The OP said the 135/2.5 is an FD. Why should he dump it? Because you say it's too old to be any good?
    Horseshit!.Please excuse me I sneezed.
    I believe that an FD 135 mm is f 2.8.

    I believe that a 135 mm f 2.5 is FL.

    If this lens is an FL, then it can only be shot on an A1, in stopped down mode.

    This is simply not worth, the effort, after all, we're not talking about a Pentax Spotmatic.
    Open aperture metering is the norm here.

    If this lens, is an FD, by all means keep it, if it's an FL, DUMP IT.

    That's all I meant.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    580
    I have a 135mm 2.5 in my hands and it's an FD.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Western Australia
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    12
    I definitely throw in my vote for Canon's 35-105.

    OP referred to people, street and close range so I suggest a lens I keep permanently attached to an AL-1 body. It is a Sigma 90mm f2.8 macro. More plastic than any of my FDs but seems reasonably well-made. Mine produces sharp results. I have used it for portraits, street photography where I want the short tele and macro work (real close up - it has an adapter to take it to 1:1) when bushwalking.

    It may not satisfy a pro, but then I ain't one. The results always satisfy me.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Windhoek, Namibia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    150
    I have precisely *one* lens for my A-1, and that is a 55mm f/1.2 SSC, and I adore it. Simply stunning.

  10. #20
    DWThomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,254
    Images
    65
    I bought my A-1 (in 1981) with the 50mm f1.4, a fine package as-is. My next addition was the 35 - 105 f3.5 macro zoom that several here have recommended; it is hefty to carry, but a very satisfying handful. Those are definitely my favorites. In the mid-90s I bought a 35-70 f3.5 zoom from a friend. It's definitely not the build quality of the 35-105 (much more plastic), and has more distortion at the wide end -- but, it's about the size of the 50mm 1.4 and very light, a great walking around lens for less critical stuff; I've used it and the 50mm as a combination for traveling light. I recently picked up a one touch 70-210 and have a few others obtained via inheritance, but haven't done much with them.

    DaveT

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin