Jump to content

barryreid

Members
  • Posts

    282
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

22 Excellent
  1. I actually rather like the red halos on the neon and can imagine it being quite a useful effect. Not so nice for the interior. Like the FD 24/2 on the F-1, that lens has been in the wish list for about 30 years ago, finally picked one up this year and will be trying it on my Eos R soon.
  2. I’ve seen an early FD era product brochure which lists the TS lens as a chrome-nosed lens with an aspherical element. Clearly this is not the common production version. Does anyone know the story about this lens, if any made production and why the AL element(s) was ultimately omitted?
  3. I love my T90. Got it as a 21st birthday gift and it kept me going until digital came along. Still going strong but it did have a new mirror box and shutter, done by Canon UK, in ‘97 or so.
  4. Honestly, buy a Canon and the EF 100-400L mk II. It’s a wonderful lens, and quite addictive. I’ve owned long lenses before but never one that produces such pleasing images.
  5. This weekend I’m using an OM-4Ti & 40/2, the latter being the only OM lens I currently have. Need to get it finished as I’d like to shoot Canon FD, which in my (non digital) mainstay since the early 90’s, for the summer.
  6. I'm not sure the 400/4.5 & 1.4x A combo will work, due to the projecting front element of the converter hitting rear baffles on the lens.
  7. eBay sellers are being a bit silly with quite a few things at the moment. Looking at sold prices, it doesn't seem like much is hitting anything close to those really outrageous asking prices, but £5-6k is definitely happening. I'm fed up with some of the pricing. I'm after an S-100 hood for my 50-300L and have been tracking them for over a year now. In which time only one has sold yet the sellers who have them keep raising the prices on the unsold stock. It's now as much as treble the price of the one that did sell. Ironically, given how cine is driving FD prices, a good proportion of 50-300s are known to have been cinevised from the box. So it's plausible there are less still photographers looking for original hoods than there are hoods as the modded lenses will have been / will be used with matte boxes, not circular hoods. Watch Count certainly suggests very little interest...
  8. I dug in to this as a mate of mine is a cameraman and knows I have FD stuff, so he asked me if any was for sale - a mate of his was looking for some lenses to convert. For the eye watering lay expensive high end sets the lens body doesn’t matter - as ther will be little to nothing left. Check this kit; G.L. Optics Mk V - Canon Vintage FD 7 - Lens Set - cinemaglass.com Note that there will be at least one FDn lens in there (the 135/2) and at least one FD B/L (55/1.2).
  9. Nope the cool kids don't really use digital cameras so much these days, at least in arty Urban areas like London's Hackney. Nor do most of them buy lenses they just use 50/1.8's on the AE-1 bodies which supplement their phone and/or Instax. I guess some buy UWA lenses if they are into Skateboarding. The big price rises are driven by the Cine boys looking for a less clinical look. It has been noted on some Video-centric sites that certain FD lenses have some commonality with Canon's 1970's K-35 series. It started with the Asph. lenses, but it's trickled down and FD B/L stills lenses have generally soared - basically if a lens has S.S.C. on the front it's value moves up. You'll notice that, for example, the 17mm S.S.C. breechblock lens can sell at a price multiple of FDn version, in spite of the IDENTICAL optics and coating, due to the magic letters on the bezel. There are a couple of exceptions, are good lenses like the 100/2 which are now back to what are realistic prices for the quality driven by MILC users So, for the OP, and anyone else looking at FD lenses you'll get a better deal on FDn stuff. I'm good with this as, for the most part, I prefer the FDn versions and tend to look for the newest I can find. For the particular request, prices being where they are, off-brand is good; the Tamron SP 90/2.5 can do decent portrait work, as can most 90-105 macros with 2.5-2.8 apertures.
  10. Hmm. You’re confusing mechanical with reliable, but citing expensive, pro level cameras which are engineered to last. I’d suspect most electronic camera failures are mechanical, because most of those cameras are engineered down to a price point and precision parts are expensive. it’s the same with any other product, a £250 espresso machine will have a longer spec sheet than a £4k La Marzocco Linea Mini, but the latter can be serviced and will last far longer. Back to Cameras, yup, there are a few with flaky electronics (Contax RTS, RTS III spring to mind) some of the most failure prone I know of are the OM-2SP, Contax 159 and Pentax P30. And guess what, in all three it’s predominantly because of mechanical issues. Respectively, wind-on, mirror mechanism, wind on. Wind-on also affects Minoxes, the typical electronic failures are 2 minute fixes for anyone with a steady hand, unlike the winder. Many will electronic cameras have been binned regardless problems being mechanical or electrical. My Contax RTS II can’t be reliably used right now because it needs a CLA, not new chips - (I am able to work the shutter using it’s one mechanical over-ride and get a few days life out of it). How many binned AE-1s would have been fixable? Probably quite a few but on cost-benefit, it’s (just) worth CLA-big an RTS II or T90 but an AE-1, not so much. Further, a fair proportion of Canon F-1 prisms are now losing silvering - paperweight time. I sold my F-1 which developed this problem as there are now very few viable prisms available. This equally applies to lots of fixed prism bodies like Nikkormat, K1000, OM-1 bodies and some OM-3/4s where it’s game over. Also, many cameras, regardless of shutter control, will by now have defunct cds light meters, as the early cells are dying. In short there’s plenty mechanically/ optically broken cameras out there. Whether fully mechanical or not.
  11. Back in the 90s started with Pentax and when I got more advanced went from an MX and SFX to a T90 and tried the AT-1 as a manual camera. Without wanting to encourage GAS, while the AT-1 is OK it's not anywhere near the MX. The MX has options like changeable focussing screens, Motor Drive as well as winder, which make it better and more flexible than any of the FD mount manual only bodies short of the F1 (even there the compactness of the MX closes the gap).
  12. My AE-1P, New F-1 and T90 are all black, and I’m happy with that. My Canonet QL17 is Chrome, and id really have preferred black, but id not pay a premium. Mind you, if I could justify buying a Contax T2/3 that would definitely be champagne finish…
  13. The AL-1 is arguably a better camera overall, with its manual shutter speeds. Feels a lot more fragile though.
  14. Not wanting to derail my own thread too much but, it’s not really the sun that gives me the biggest issues with the 17mm it’s street lights. These are often multiple sources of flare requiring several shades. I find the TS-E 17 pretty well behaved with single point flare, and also surprisingly flare resistant. As these examples from my other Flickr; Ciudad de las Artes y las Ciencias by Barry Reid, on Flickr Hastings Pier 3 by Barry Reid, on Flickr
×
×
  • Create New...