Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,556   Posts: 1,545,066   Online: 997
      
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 80
  1. #21
    agphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    634
    Images
    14
    I actually have a 200 f/2.8 from the AE-1 kit I bought that turned out to be in pretty poor shape so I sold it on eBay.
    I'm not much of a telephoto shooter, I think the 100 would be fine for my desires with this camera.
    Wide angles however, that's my game for sure. I'll look into the 24/28/35 f/2 versions if I can find one of them for a decent price. 35mm is definitely one of my favorite focal lengths as well.
    - Abram

    35mm / 120

  2. #22
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    I love my 200 2.8's. All three of them! One is the older new FD model that I got in a pawn shop for $90. A bit beat up, but great images. Then came a like-new IF model as part of a kit on which I scored on E-Bay (F-1, FTb, 55mm f/1.2, 17mm f/4, 50mm f/1.4 nFD, 200mm f/2.8 IF, motor drive MF, low light Booster for FTb, Haliburton case, and more for $350). Unfortunately, I took that one out of commission by dropping it on a rock on the west bank of the Mississippi River on my way to the inauguration of the prez a few years ago. I dropped the camera, and the lens went flying while the mount stayed on the AE-1. Ouch! Once in Washington, I bought a used replacement from a local camera shop the night before the inauguration, since I did not have time to have my old version shipped to me. I cannot tell any difference in image quality between the two lenses. The IF is smoother and faster to focus, though it looks a little goofy with its straight and skinny body and wide front end.

    I mostly got my broken one back together. Only the mount broke. The glass is fine, and the body just has a scratch or two. I think I must have lost a part in the mud, though, as I cannot get these two parts of the internals to link up the way they should.

    Anyhow, good build quality, and good image quality. I'd highly recommend one of these. I find 200mm to be an extremely useful focal length sometimes. I knew I needed one at the inauguration for some of what I wanted to shoot, so I bit the bullet and dropped an unplanned-for $200. On the plus side, I had a nice Metro ride to get to the shop!
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 02-06-2011 at 11:42 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    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)

  3. #23
    agphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    634
    Images
    14
    Wait which version is which? How do I know which one I had? It was pretty worn and had some element separation or haze or something in the front element but it sold on eBay for only $56. I hope I didn't miss out haha
    - Abram

    35mm / 120

  4. #24
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    It is easy to tell the difference, because they are shaped differently; and one uses internal focusing. The IF version has a straight barrel and a notable step outward to the larger diameter front part of the lens. The earlier one's barrel is tapered outward as you move away from the camera, and transitions smoothly into the wide front portion of the lens. Both have built-in retractable hoods, but the IF screws into place in the extended position.
    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. #25
    agphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    634
    Images
    14
    Ah ok I must have had the previous version then.
    - Abram

    35mm / 120

  6. #26
    agphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    634
    Images
    14
    Found a 50 f/1.4! Sold the 60-120mm and waiting on sales for the 50 f/1.8 and the 35-105mm
    - Abram

    35mm / 120

  7. #27
    Markster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Denver area
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    307
    I would say the 35-105mm is a good zoom range to own, whether you like that particular lens or not. It gives you that ability to NOT change the lens out and that's proven quite nice for me lately.

    You'll want the 50mm just 'cuase, and a good fast wide angle is a must! (by that I mean keep one of the 28mm lenses, and if you want to find a faster one later so be it, but for now you've got one).

    Ditch the 100mm, unless you absolutely adore it. It's almost a useless magnification IMO. Also the 60-120 is useless as well. You'll want a zoom up to around 200mm for any decent zoom work.

    I, personally, have a 70-200mm f/4.5 that I use for all my outdoors zooming action when I want something close-up. It's not really the best, and it's slow at times, but it's what I have so I use it. I wish I had a faster one, and maybe one that's a bit sharper. Although, I don't use filters so maybe they would help a bit.

    Overall I suppose it boils down to what you want, but I would say of that kit you would want:
    50mm prime (just because)
    28mm prime (just in case)
    wide-to-moderate zoom (i.e. 35-100 range, anything like that) for maximum efficiency
    Some zoom for distant objects or landscapes, etc (200mm or so?)

    My unprofessional, amateur, uneducated opinion
    -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

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    17
    I own a 50/1.4 and find it a very good lens. I also own a 24/2.8 and find it very good. I use these on my AE-1, love this camera. All manual and i find it easier and quicker to use the the DSLR i own....this might explain why I am in the process of building a Hassy 500cm...

  9. #29
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    BTW, now that I think about it, I can sell my older model 200mm f/2.8. No, this isn't the one that got dropped. Let me know if you are interested.
    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. #30
    Andrew K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    510
    Hi

    I can't resist adding my 2 cents worth, as a former FD shooter (5 X NF1 bodies, AE1P,T90 + lenses from 14mm to 300mm - mostly f2.8 or faster, plus a few zooms and a mirror lens or two... I was also a Canon Camera Tech at the time FD was finishing and EOS was taking over) who was lucky enough to own, borrow and use most of the FD lenses Canon made....

    Wide angle - 28/2.8 was a good lens - so was the 24/2.8 - both small and light.

    The Old FD (Chrome mount) 50/1.4 was sharper than the New FD 50/1.4, but either lens is fine...

    The 100/2.8 was ok, but the 100/f2 was amazing - should have been classed as a L lens. It was my favorite portrait lens among the several lenses around that focal length I had (85/1.2 & 1.8, 100 Macro, 135/2.8).

    I would agree with the people who have suggested a 200/2.8. They are a smallish, very light lens. I've used both the helicoid (in Old FD) and internal focus (new FD mount). Both were as sharp as each other, but the internal focus was far quicker to focus (and much easier to repair).

    I also agree that the 35-105/3.5 was a great lens - a bugger to adjust to get the focus correct so that it wouldn't shift when zoomed from one end to the other, but really nice. Took one of my all time favorite photos with one of these...

    I was never a regular FD zoom user even though I owned several of them (NFD 20-35L, NFD 28-50/3.5 - the big all metal one not the little plastic 28-55, NFD35-105, NFD 28-85, NFD75-200 & 70-210 (the better of the two) and the 80-400/4 two touch zoom plus the cheap little plastic NFD35-70/3.5-4.5 which optically was a very good lens despite its habbit of not holding focus through it's zoom range - had nice macro too..

    If you are looking for a compact kit I would suggest the following lenses:

    A) 28/2.8, 50/1.4 and 135/2.8. That way you get a wide, standard and short tele.

    B) 24/2.8, 50/1.4 and 200/2.8. This kit is better, as it eliminates any indecisiveness - you need a wide, a standard or a tele lens.

    C) 35/2...thats it. Has anyone mentioned one of these? They are a fantastic lens - sharp at all apertures, small - a great carry around lens....

    D) NFD 28-50/3.5 and 80-200/4 zooms...

    I don't use FD gear any more - when I shoot film I tend to shoot 120, but I'm putting a kit together for old times sake..I got a near mint New F1 with AE/FN finder + powerwinder and motor drives, and have a 55/1.2 Old Fd and 50/1.4 old Fd lenses (the 55/1.2 is not sharp till f4, but it looks great on the camera..), a 24/2.8 which was my "standard" wide lens, plus a 70-210/4 (funny-regardless of what others have said, in my own testing this was far sharper than the plastic 75-200) - that is, until I can find a NFD 80-200/4.

    I'm not going to bother getting anything longer unless a 500L comes my way. I've used all the 300mm lenses Canon made - f5.6, f4, f4L, and f2.8L..and yes - they got better as you got a better lens. I shot the same subject with each of them, and compared the prints. All shots were at f5.6, so the f5.6 lens was at a disadvantage not being stopped down. The differences between the f4 and f4L were noticable in fine detail, but the f2.8 blew them away....

    Nice lens, but getting too old to be reliable...I mean, they must be 20 years old..no I was repairing them in the mid 90's, so closer to 25/28 years old....

    Wish I hadn't started thinking about all this...that means my EOS 300/2.8L is over 20 years old!!!

    Cheers

    Andrew
    A camera is only a black box with a hole in it....

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

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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