Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,531   Posts: 1,572,517   Online: 1074
      
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31
  1. #1
    3 Olives's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Charlotte
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    156

    Looking for a Canon FD Wide or Super Wide Angle Lens

    I have a number of FD lens but I don't have a Wide or Super Wide Angle lens. I'm interested in buying one but prices are all over the map. Recommendations would be appreciated. Thanks!

  2. #2
    Markster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Denver area
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    307
    28mm is a good size for wide. They come higher and lower in the focal length range, but 28 is (IMO) a nice balance between the wider angle and keeping the distortion down.

    I have a vivtar 28mm 1:2.8 with 45mm diameter that I'd highly recommend.

    Other than that, I haven't had too much experience.
    -Markster

    Canon AE-1P 35mm | 50mm/f1.8 FDn | 28mm/2.8 FD | 70-200mm/f4-5 FD | 35-70mm/F2.8-3.5 Sigma FD

  3. #3
    hpulley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,214
    Images
    75
    I haven't bought FD in ages so I don't know the used prices but the 28mm is probably still the cheapest option if price is a consideration. The 24mm is the best one though.

    The 20mm f/2.8 is kind of soft especially wide open but I still like it a lot. Got lots of great shots with it when I really needed the ultra wide.

    The 24mm f/2 is a wonderful lens, so sharp even in 11x14" prints.

    The 28mm f/2 is alright but for some reason I don't use it that often, I usually go for either the 24mm f/2 or the 35mm f/2. The 35mm f/2 is another amazing lens, so sharp the detail just calls to be printed large.

    I long lusted for but never owned the FD 17mm f/4 but if the similar looking 17-40mm EF optics are anything to go by then I wasn't missing much. Stopped down my EF 17-40 does alright but wide open the corners are really squishy. The 20mm seems wide enough anyways most of the time but one day if I see one for cheap I may need to try the 17 f/4.
    Harry Pulley - Visit the BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE FORUM

    Happiness is...

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    If 28 mm is a length you like, I highly recommend the 28 mm f/2.0, based on my experience with it. The 2.8 is fine too, but I like as much low light performance as I can get. The lens is sharp even wide open. It surprised me when I made my first 8x12's shot with it wide open.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  5. #5
    hpulley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,214
    Images
    75
    Yes, somehow the way Canon did it, the f/2 versions of the 24mm, 28mm and 35mm are all sharper than the f/2.8 versions so get the f/2s if you shoot available light. For landscapes stopped down on a tripod it doesn't matter.
    Harry Pulley - Visit the BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE FORUM

    Happiness is...

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    298
    I'm interested in this too. Specifically, how do the Canon 24/2.8 and 24/2 compare to the Minolta 24/2.8? I'm debating dumping my Minolta system for a Canon FD one.

  7. #7
    Andrew K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    520
    Timmy Mac

    I've owned both systems, so feel I can make a fair comparison...which is stay with Minolta - you won't notice a difference..

    The only way you would notice any difference is if you bought a 24/1.4L - this is an impressive lens wide open, and fantastic stopped down. But it is a large lens..and still an expensive lens..

    I would generally agree with hpulley's appraisal of Canon's lenses - most of the f2 lenses were sharper than the f2.8's, although I found the 24/2.8 was every bit as sharp as the f2 version. I wasn't that impressed with any of the versions of the 28mm (f2,2.8 and 3.5) that I owned. And yes - the 35/2 is an outstanding lens - it was probably my standard lens for most applications..

    The Canon Ultrawides were all had their problems...

    The 20-35L was a fascinating design - you either got one that was sharp across the entire field of view, but vignetted terribly, or you got one that didin't vignette, but was very soft at the edges...

    I never really saw a sharp 17mm either - although the Old FD ones seemed sharper than the NFD ones..

    NFD 20mm? Again I never found them to be that sharp...

    If you want a really sharp Canon wide angle you can look at the 14mm/3.5L. Amazing lens - sharp, but so wide you can do a full length portrait of someone from 3ft away...

    Have fun with whatever lens you decide on

    Andrew

    PS - these opinions were formed based on lenses I owned, and/or got to test while I worked as a camera technician for Canon Australia in the 90's...I was lucky enough to use almost every FD lens Canon made :-)
    A camera is only a black box with a hole in it....

    my blog...some film, some digital http://andrewk1965.wordpress.com/

  8. #8
    white.elephant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew K View Post

    . . . I wasn't that impressed with any of the versions of the 28mm (f2,2.8 and 3.5) that I owned. And yes - the 35/2 is an outstanding lens - it was probably my standard lens for most applications..
    I agree about the 35 f2, and the 24 f/2, but I also agree that the 28mm isn't so good. At least, the copy I have doesn't compare at all with the 24 and the 35
    Chris Klug
    -----------
    My photo life story: http://patternsoflightndark.com/wordpress/

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    Very interesting. I love my 28 f/2 and never expected it to be so good. I just got it because I needed the speed, and I was pleasantly surprised.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  10. #10
    Andrew K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    520
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    Very interesting. I love my 28 f/2 and never expected it to be so good. I just got it because I needed the speed, and I was pleasantly surprised.
    I think you were lucky with your lens. I used a couple, and one was better than the other.

    I can remember one photographer, who used to do a bit of unofficial promo work for Canon (he was one of the few white lenses in a pack where black lenses dominated). I can remember him "borrowing" 5 versions of the same lens, testing them - and then returning 4 of them......

    If you put his prints side by side from best to wrost, and compared any one print with the one next to it you were hard pressed to notice a difference. But compare #1 and #5 - it was like chalk and cheese....
    A camera is only a black box with a hole in it....

    my blog...some film, some digital http://andrewk1965.wordpress.com/

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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