zoom

First; I must say thanks to you FDer?s. For several months I?ve been using this

FD forum to educate myself on several levels. I?ve been an avid amateur using

Canon Gear for forty years, always with a smile. As I?m sure many of you have, I

recently answered my own digital questions. For the near future at least, I?ll

go on using my FD gear. Other than cost, I see no immediate film issues that

would inhibit its use. The operators of my favorite lab are as crazy about film

as I am and for the foreseeable future I?ll have processing and supplies.

Question; my kit of 3 bodies only includes one zoom lens, the FD 35~70.

Everything else I own is a prime, including everything from 24mm through 400mm.

I have not experienced much luck with the 35~70, are there any FD zooms or third

party zooms in the range of 100mm or less that can give me the quality I?m used

too with say my 100 F2? Thanks,

VFG

Members of this forum rave about the 35-105/3.5 nFD lens. I have one and use it often and find it very sharp. Which 35-70 are you referring to? I also have the 35-70/3.5-4.5 nFD and think it's a sharp lens and very underrated.

Yeah, it?s the 3.5~4.5, used it many times but just can?t seem to achieve the sharpness I?m used too. At 11X14 its edges fade, at 16X20 it just doesn?t get it like I?d hoped for. I was thinking of replacing it, any suggestions? Keep in mind I?m green when it comes to digits and computers, but I do have a grip on what I like in a finished image.

Referring to photozone?s lens tests, the 35~70 f3.5 4.5 has one of the least acceptable ratings of the FD series. With the exception of the 150~600 F5.6L, (I?d love to get my hands on one of those) and the 24~35L, none of these lenses come close to the performance of primes, at least according to these tables.

At http://members.aol.com/canonfdlenstests/default.htm, they found only a few specific settings where the 35~105 was good, same with the 35~70. They also describe the problem I?m having, a breakdown of quality in the corners with both, at 16X20 they may have significant degradation.

The 35-105mm f3.5 nFD and 28-85mm f4.0 nFD are the two best Canon lenses in the range you are looking for. The 28-90mm f2.8/3.2 Vivitar Series 1 Varifocal and the Tokina 28-70mm f3.5/4.5 and the runners up in the Third party lines.

 

The best of the FD Zooms for coming close to what a Prime will do is the 80-200mm f4.0L nFD

 

But pushing to 16x20 with 35mm your going to loose with any zoom.

Not that Mark's astute intpu needs my humble backing, but I can certainly vouch for the 80-200L. I am not a zoom fan, but WOW, what a lens. It really is THAT good - and I dare say, it seems to be one of the absolute cream of the crop in how good it is in all the various focal lengths, there may be a sweet spot, but it certainly was not drastic. Still, my 100m f2.8 and the 50 f1.4 are... well, you know how good those are!

The Vivitar 28-90mm Series 1 is an f/2.8-3.5. There are other nice lenses in this range which were made in Canon FD mount. They include the 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 Tokina AT-X, the 28-85mm f/2.8-3.8 Vivitar Variable Focusing lens, the first 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 Tamron Adaptall II and the Tamron 28-80mm (I think that's right) SP zoom. I have read that the 28-85 Vivitar was a prototype for the Series 1 28-90. It isn't always possible to know which shots you will want to enlarge to 16X20. If the lighting allows for it and if your subject isn't moving then you will gain more by shooting with a tripod with fine grain film and with the lens closed down a few stops than you will from using a slightly sharper lens hand held, with faster film and wide open or near wide open. I agree that if you know in advance that you need very large prints, a medium format camera is your best bet.

 

A very nice 35-70 zoom which is not well known is the 35-70mm f/2.5-3.5 Soligor C/D. It may be the fastest zoom of its type at the 35mm end. This lens was also sold under the Access brand name. The only Canon zoom lens I have is the 70-150mm f/4.5 New FD. The rest are all primes. My favorite 35-70 is not in Canon mount. It's a 35-70mm f/3.5 Minolta MD two touch model with the button for closer focusing. Even wide open it's quite good.

 

There are two reasons that it's difficult to compare a zoom lens to a 100/2 New FD or even a 100/2.8. In the first place the fixed lens will need to make fewer compromises to accomplish its goal. Secondly, a faster fixed lens will be easier to focus. You may not use a 100/2 at f/2 all the time but even when you use it at f/4 or f/5.6 the extra speed will aid critical focusing. If I know I will be using a slower lens I prefer to use a body with interchangeable focusing screens. A grid type screen is my favorite and after that a plain matte screen. With my F-1 bodies these can be changed easily. Trying to focus with a split image or microprism screen with a slow zoom lens can be difficult.

Thank all of you very much, that?s just the kind of info I was hoping for.

Yes, pushing to 16X20 is challenging at times, but that?s one of the reasons I?m out there, the challenge. I suppose anyone of could acquire a good DSLR, from my perspective, what fun would that be?

I don?t know much about third party lenses, I?m going to try and learn now.

I still like my 35-70/3.5-4.5 but I've never had a picture larger than 5X7 made with the lens. At that size everything looks great. I never considered it being a bad lens until you told us about it at larger print sizes.

I didn?t say it was a ?bad? lens, there is no such thing as a bad FD lens. The 35-70 3.5 4.5 is simply not as great as some of the others.