Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,880   Posts: 1,520,489   Online: 820
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31
  1. #11
    SMBooth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Melbourne, North/West
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    964
    Images
    7
    Opps
    Last edited by SMBooth; 01-10-2011 at 02:36 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Wrong person

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,733
    I have a FD 24 2.8 that takes great pictures.

    Jeff

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    northern england
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Kubach View Post
    I have a FD 24 2.8 that takes great pictures.

    Jeff
    Mine too. With medium speed B&W film it renders that classical 35mm gallery look. I also have two 28mm FDs but the 24mm is almost always used for preference. It and the 50mm f1.4 are my favourite Canon lenses.
    Sigma made a nice 28mm f1.8 apo that runs the 24 closest for sharpness and tone.

  4. #14
    Pumalite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Here & Now
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,078
    I have the 24mm f2.8 and 24mm f/2; the same; I have the 28mm f/2.8 and the 28mm f/2. All required for different situations; that's all.
    " A loving and caring heart is the beginning of all knowledge " ~ Thomas Carlyle ~

  5. #15
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,665
    I have the 35mm f2, 28mm f2, 24mm f2 and 20mm f2.8 FDs and I find them all to be good performers, but reading through this thread it makes me wonder how much variation there can be between different lenses of the same focal length and aperture and if my 24mm f2 is giving the same performance as yours, and how valid these comparisons are after about twenty five years since they were manufactured
    Ben

  6. #16
    Whiteymorange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Boston area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,264
    Images
    26
    I have a 17mm Tamron and love it.

    Just sayin'

    Whitey

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    816
    I have the Canon 17mm f4 that is great. No noticeable vignetting, sharp with good color contrast. I have not noticed flare or chromatic aberration in any of the pics I have shot with this lens so the coating must be excellent. As a point of comparison, I used the 16-35 f2.8 L for my EOS extensively for over 8 years and this FD lens has not left me wanting.

  8. #18
    darinwc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,038
    Images
    157
    I have the 28mm f2.8, 24mm f2.8, 24mm f2, and 17mm f4.

    The 28mm is good but I much prefer the 24mm focal length.

    The 24mm f2.8 is wonderfully sharp and is not lacking anything other than speed over the f2.

    The 17mm f4 I'm not impressed with but lenses this wide take skill to use properly. Hostly I just havent picked up the knak of shooting that wide yet. So my opinion is biased.
    Last edited by darinwc; 01-10-2011 at 01:21 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Mundelein, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    983
    Images
    1
    The 24/2.8 was my "normal" lens for years - I absolutely love everything about it. (The 24/1.4 is even better, if you can find one that's affordable!)

    The 20 and 17 are OK if you need an angle that wide. I've found the 17 to be a little vignette-y plus there's that awfully dim max aperture (4 ?!)

    The 14 is spectacular, though you have to work pretty hard to find something to shoot that isn't made grotesque by its effects. "rectlinear" sounds so much better than "barrel distortion" but in fact the things it does to subject matter at the edges are just weird... whereas I find the barrel distortion of the wider-view 15 lens easier to make look natural.

    The 15 and 8 take really nice pictures, if you can find subjects that work with them.

    Duncan

  10. #20
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    Quote Originally Posted by benjiboy View Post
    but reading through this thread it makes me wonder how much variation there can be between different lenses of the same focal length and aperture and if my 24mm f2 is giving the same performance as yours, and how valid these comparisons are after about twenty five years since they were manufactured
    Just reading through this thread for curiosity (very little experience with Canon FD lenses).

    But in general, nothing should be wrong with a 25 year old lens, unless it's picked up haze, fungus or has been physically damaged (or are Canon lenses so delicate that they wear out so quckly.. )

    General observation on wides: if you have and use a 50mm, a 28mm is a classic first wide.
    I prefer a 35mm as a normal, so my wides are 24mm or 19/20/21mm.

    A cheap but very good ultrawide is the Vivitar/Tokina 17mm (usually much better than the equivalent Tamron, but apparently with lots of sample variation, with the Vivitar branded ones doing better), but I'd only consider that after one of the focal lengths mentioned above.
    M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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