Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,326   Posts: 1,536,962   Online: 1204
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31
  1. #21
    darinwc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,047
    Images
    157
    Seems to me that Canon FD lenses are cheap enough that you dont have to compromise by buying a off-brand lens.
    Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.

  2. #22
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,777
    Quote Originally Posted by Rol_Lei Nut View Post
    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.
    The point I was trying to make about comparing lenses in general and particularly twenty five year old lenses is that we don't know how each example would compare with the other ones initially on test when they were manufactured , and after twenty five years of being kept and used in different manners in different parts of the World probably by several different owners my FD 24mm f2 optic might give very different results to another example of the same lens that somebody else has thousands of miles away in in a very different climate.
    Ben

  3. #23
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    Quote Originally Posted by benjiboy View Post
    The point I was trying to make about comparing lenses in general and particularly twenty five year old lenses is that we don't know how each example would compare with the other ones initially on test when they were manufactured , and after twenty five years of being kept and used in different manners in different parts of the World probably by several different owners my FD 24mm f2 optic might give very different results to another example of the same lens that somebody else has thousands of miles away in in a very different climate.
    The point I was trying to make was that a well-built lens normally shouldn't suffer after 25 years of (non-destructive) use in any part of the world.

    As I previously mentioned, with the very many brands I've used, time has little effect on lens performance, unless affected by haze, fungus or physically damaged or worn out (rare).
    M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa

  4. #24
    hpulley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,214
    Images
    75
    Old lenses or new lenses there is sample variation for sure. That's one reason not to trust many review websites as most only test 1 copy.
    Harry Pulley - Visit the BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE FORUM

    Happiness is...

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    824
    No doubt there is no accounting for previous ownership and that's why getting a money back guarantee is more important particularly with lenses.

    However, all manufacturer's superwides - from 24mm on, get even more expensive as they get wider. Even the orphaned lens mounts are that way as well. Of course the ones that can be adopted for newer bodies are even more so.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,807
    I also have the FD 17/4 and the fisheye 15/2.8 which works great for me!

    Jeff

  7. #27
    darinwc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,047
    Images
    157
    It the 15mm f2.8 a full frame fisheye?

    I have a 16mm Zykkor that I really like (the perspective) but it is on a M42->FD adapter and I dont think the registration is quite right. (very poor results)
    Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.

  8. #28
    hpulley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,214
    Images
    75
    Yes, the 15mm f/2.8 is a full frame fisheye. The 7.5mm is circular.
    Harry Pulley - Visit the BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE FORUM

    Happiness is...

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,807
    Like hpulley said the FD 15/2.8 is a full frame fisheye. I usually have good results with it.

    Jeff

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    804

    Canon Wide or Super Wide

    The 28/2.8 Canon FD SC is an excellent lens. The 28/2.8 New FD whoch replaced it does not seem as good. The 28/2 FD SSC is an excellent lens. I have never compared it to the 28/2 New FD. My only Canon 24 is a chrome front FD SSC. Once its rear element separation was repaired it worked very well. Most people who have used the 24/2 and 24/1.4 lenses seem to think the f/2 model is better. The 35/2 FD SSC (1st version) and 35/2 New FD are both excellent. The SSC lens may need the UV treatment to clear the color. It is also beter made. There was a 35/2 FD SSC with a convex front element (2nd version) which has no color problem but which does not have the reputation of the earlier FD SSC. I saw one of these last Sunday. To go wider than 24 with Canon mount I have the 19/3.8 Vivitar, 20/3.8 Vivitar (M42 with an adapter) and 21/3.8 Vivitar T4. The 19 needs to be closed down a little. The 20 and 21 are both good performers. I have a 17/3.5 Vivitar for Konica and a 17/3.5 Tokina RMC for Minolta. Both are good.

Page 3 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