Zooming along with my Canon FDs. zooms

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>Many times I read questions, posted by new and seasoned Canon FD members, about this or that FD zoom lens. I decided to shoot a roll using only my newly acquired 35-105mm f3.5 and my long forgotten 100-300mm f5.6. These lens complement one another nicely. There is a slight overlap in focal length and they provide a huge focal range. Both are constant aperture. Though many people may prefer faster f-stops these lenses provide enough speed if you shooting the right film. I was quite surprised to find how heavy the 35-105mm is. It almost feels as heavy as the 100-300mm lens. It sure has a large filter ring at 72mm in comparison to the 100-300mm`s 58mm filter ring. Anyway, enough blather. Here are some of the results.</p>

<p>The photos were taken with my Canon T90 using Kodak Tmax 400 film developed Kodak 4 to1 developer at 20C for 7 minutes or thereabouts.</p>

<p>Mike</p><div></div>

<p>Photo 2</p><div></div>

<p>Photo 3</p><div></div>

<p>Photo 4</p><div></div>

<p>Photo 5</p><div></div>

<p>Michael, nice pics! We shoot the same film/body/lens combo BUT you mentioned your 100-300/F5.6 which I DO NOT have. I was anxious to see some shots off that lens. Can you post some? (Thanks!)</p>

<p>photo 6</p><div></div>

<p>Photo 7</p><div></div>

<p>I took photos last week of this bike. It was in the same spot. I do not think it moves. The owner is sure trusting because there is no lock on it!</p><div></div>

<p>The reason for the size difference is due to the speed difference. In a lens the F stop is calculated as the focal length divided by the entrance pupil diameter. this is why the scale goes 1.4, 2, 2.8 etc.. each time you halve the light as you really need the are not the diameter so you end up with the root 2 based values. Note the entrance pupil in not the always the iris of aperture diameter but this is often the case.<br>

Thus the 300 f5.6 needs a 53.6mm entrance pupil while the 105 F3.5 needs a 30mm. On the surface this would suggest that the 35-105 should be smaller. However, in this case the wide angle end of the 35-105 is driving the size of the front element as it needs to deal with vignetting and correct distortions.</p>

<p>by the way if you get a chance to buy the 80-200 f4L then get it - Mark Pierlot suggested I should get one about 3 years ago and I do not regret the decision.</p>

<p>Really nice results. Those old zooms aren't so bad, are they?</p>

<p>THNX</p>

<p>The bicycles are fabulous, Michael- it's great seeing 'em!</p>

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>These are wonderful. I especially like the handlebars. You have captured the beautiful tones of the metal pieces.</p>

<p>I used to have the 35-105mm zoom. It is a wonderful lens. I had thought about replacing it but I wonder whether 35mm is wide enough these days. KEH had a Vivitar 28-85mm for $13. It was too good to pass up. It should come tomorrow. I will practice with it and see I really need the 28mm.</p>

 

<p>The kids are so cute. I still haven't warmed up to my 35-105mm f/3.5, but sharpness is certainly never an issue. Very nice results you've obtained with yours. The bike shots are neat too.</p>

<p>That saddle looks like the old Brooks touring seat. All leather, brass bolsters, and no padding. They look unfriendly but when broke in to your seat bones, they can be the most comfortable ride on earth. </p>

<p>Fantastic stuff, Michael. I'm now convinced that I need to acquire some OEM FD zooms.</p>