Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,661   Posts: 1,481,594   Online: 932
      
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 80
  1. #41
    agphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    588
    Images
    14
    Well for the asking price I don't think I could say no to the FDn 35 f/2.

    It'll work nicely on my GF1 as well
    - Abram

    35mm / 120

  2. #42
    agphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    588
    Images
    14
    I have one more question (for today )

    Who has any opinions on the 85-300 f/4.5? I was looking at an SSC version and I tHought it would be fun to use on the T90 and really cool on the m4/3 system.

    Thoughts?
    - Abram

    35mm / 120

  3. #43
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,403
    I have the FDn 100-300 zoom, the new type, and it's a very good lens but I haven't used it for a long time, the only FD zoom lenses I know that are reputed to be a poor performers are the FD 100-200 and the FD SSC 100-300.

    Stop Press I just found this http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-...?msg_id=005Uvj

    On balance I think it might be a good lens to avoid, it's when you start lugging the older FD SSC long lenses about either zoom or prime that you realize that that the newer bayonet type with the polymer barrels were not such a bad idea after all because a bag full of the metal barrelled ones weighs nearly twice as much as the new type, however I can recommend the FDn 100-300 Zoom, and no I'm not wanting to sell mine.
    Last edited by benjiboy; 03-19-2011 at 07:42 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Ben

  4. #44
    agphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    588
    Images
    14
    Very interesting. That's really the first negative feedback I've seen on the lens. The weight doesn't really bother me much.

    I have a chance to pick one up for $125 it almost seems too good to pass up. The thought of having a 600mm lens for micro 4/3 is rather tempting.
    - Abram

    35mm / 120

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    405
    ****I have the FDn 100-300 zoom, the new type, and it's a very good lens but I haven't used it for a long time, the only FD zoom lenses I know that are reputed to be a poor performers are the FD 100-200 and the FD SSC 100-300.***

    You forgot the cheap kit lens 35-70mm and 70-210 f4 FDNs and the common FDn 200mm f4 is just average (well my copy is).

  6. #46
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Excalibur2 View Post
    ****I have the FDn 100-300 zoom, the new type, and it's a very good lens but I haven't used it for a long time, the only FD zoom lenses I know that are reputed to be a poor performers are the FD 100-200 and the FD SSC 100-300.***

    You forgot the cheap kit lens 35-70mm and 70-210 f4 FDNs and the common FDn 200mm f4 is just average (well my copy is).
    The popular perception of the "cheap kit lens" FDn 35-70 f3.5-f4.5 is like most peoples who because it's light weight and the barrel is made out of plastic assume as I did incorrectly when I used to sell them for a living at the time they came out that optically they were crap, I have since changed my mind since I reluctantly acquired one as part of a Canon T90 deal a few years ago I since found to be a very sharp and light weight walkabout lens http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...70.htm#compact. I also have the FDn 200mm f4 you mention and that too I find after using it for more than twenty years is a very good sharp and contrasty performer.

    I can't comment on the FDn 70-210 f4 lens because I have never used one, but the moral of the story is don't believe all you hear, and there are Monday morning lenses and Friday afternoon ones,, and who knows after over twenty years use and abuse, if my lenses are the same as yours
    Ben

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,541
    I also have the 35-70 f3.5-f4.5 of course it is light but I think it is underrated.

    Jeff

  8. #48
    agphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    588
    Images
    14
    One reason I wasn't looking at the 100-300 was because it's a push pull zoom. Personally I'm not a big fan of lenses like that and I prefer the more modern design "2-touch" zoom lenses. (thus - my interest in the 85-300)
    - Abram

    35mm / 120

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by benjiboy View Post
    The popular perception of the "cheap kit lens" FDn 35-70 f3.5-f4.5 is like most peoples who because it's light weight and the barrel is made out of plastic assume as I did incorrectly when I used to sell them for a living at the time they came out that optically they were crap, I have since changed my mind since I reluctantly acquired one as part of a Canon T90 deal a few years ago I since found to be a very sharp and light weight walkabout lens http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...70.htm#compact. I also have the FDn 200mm f4 you mention and that too I find after using it for more than twenty years is a very good sharp and contrasty performer.

    I can't comment on the FDn 70-210 f4 lens because I have never used one, but the moral of the story is don't believe all you hear, and there are Monday morning lenses and Friday afternoon ones,, and who knows after over twenty years use and abuse, if my lenses are the same as yours
    Well if you compared the Canon zoom lenses mentioned to equivalent Tamron SP or certain Kiron/Vivitar (esp series 1) zooms you might change your mind.

  10. #50
    Andrew K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    479
    I have to say the best of the tele zooms I used was either the 100-300L - which was noticably sharper than the standard 100-300, or the 80-200/4 - 2 touch lens..and funnily enough I always found the 70-210 to be much sharper than the 75-200..and I owned a couple of versions of each lens...

    And yes - the cheap platic 35-70 that everyone dismisses is a surprisingly good lens - I used to use one as a macro lens when I was repairing cameras to photograph the insides of cameras
    A camera is only a black box with a hole in it....

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

Page 5 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