Jump to content

Best Canon "walk around lens"


patrick_mont

Recommended Posts

<p>Hi Guys- I have just re-entered the FD system after straying because I was not crazy about most of the cameras but have grown to like them. I have a couple of AE-1 P and AT-1 and an FTb. I was wondering what is a pretty high quality general (zoom not prime) lens. I was looking at the 35-105 F/3.5. Is this a high quality lens or am I better off going with prime lenses? Thanks, Patrick</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I bought an nFD 35-105/3.5 several years ago as my first fd zoom (just had primes prior to that) and what a piece of disappointment! I mostly chose it at the time because I also have (a use a lot) Pentax A 35-105/3.5 which is a spectacular lens. Of course I may just have a bad copy of Canon's product, but overall it's plasticy construction, fairy useless "macro" feature and a 5-blade diaphragmme are not particularly inspiring, it also flares a lot. So I put it away in its box and went pack to primes. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The nFD 35-105mm f/3.5 is a fine lens. Very sharp! It has a couple of issue I don't like such as a bit more distortion at the wide end than I like or the less-than-wonderful close-up function. The lens has a big front element and needs a hood. The FD hood is rather hard to find and expensive when you do. However, this mutha is SHARP! I generally prefer the Vivitar Series 1 28-90mm f/2.8 as a walk around lens, but since I picked up the Canon zoom, I've warmed up to it more. It's hard to complain when super crisp, contrasty and colorful negs show up from the lab. At today's prices there is really little reason not to grab one to knock around with. I've got mine on an old F-1 that lives in my truck full time. The nFD 80-200mm f/4 L zoom is another amazing optic and I can recommend it without reservation.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The 35-105 F3.5 is probably the best general purpose FD lens. Image quality is very high, especially by the time you get to F5.6. There is a little distortion at the wide end and the lens is large and heavy. That said the performance is near L standard and makes a great walk around lens. The Macro feature is pretty useless (the Tamron AD-2 35-70 is a much better lens if you want to shoot macro) and the Bokah is not as good as several of the primes. I disagree with Zenit on the constuction as my 1984 model is well constructed and has survived a lot.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>My definition of "walk around" photographic equipment has changed as I have aged. Spending an entire day with a heavy camera bag hanging on my shoulder makes me miserable...and therefore unable to concentrate on photography. Nowadays I would choose the AE-1p with the FD 35-70 f3.5/4.5 lens and a Canon speedlight 011A.</p>

<p>I'm sure many will scoff at the FD 35-70 lens (yes, I know it has plastic elements). I've also toted my FD 35-105 f/3.5 for a full day until it felt like an albatross around my neck. Finally, the 011A isn't going to illuminate a subject 40 ft away but it's smaller that a pack of smokes.</p>

<p>I spent an entire day with the 35-70 lens a few months ago and never once said I wished I had the 35-105 lens. Results were quite good above f5.6. The big lens weighs 1lb 7oz compared to the 35-70 at 6oz. Putting the 35-70 lens AND the 011A flash onto the AE-1p you have a neat little package weighing a hair under 2 lbs. That's something I can live with for an 8-hour stretch.</p>

<p>p.s. I have a digital postal meter accurate to 1/10 oz....so I'm not just guessing at these numbers.</p><div>00VMN4-204487584.thumb.jpg.9444bb1450239d493bbef1a57386e540.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>These last two years I've tended to avoid zooms, but if I do bring along a short zoom for my FD bodies then it's a Tamron Adaptall-2, either the 35-80 f/2.8-3.8 or 35-70 f/3.5. Both miss out on the long end of focal range compared to the FD 35-105 f/3.5, but they work better for my interests because they can get substantially closer (resp 0.4x and 0.35x max magnification) and are a lot more compact plus less weight to carry around.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Although I've a lot to choose from in the collection I've acquired in the last 4 years, I've grown really attached to the nFD 50/3.5 macro as a walk around lens...light, sharp & contrasty, and able to capture the normal as well as minute. For nature landscape stuff I really like the 28/2.0.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The three I can recomend:<br>

Canon 28-85mm f4.0 nFD Packed one around Europe shooting slides LOVED it 72mm filter<br>

Canon 35-105mm f3.5 nFD An outstanding lens in this range 72mm filter<br>

Tokina SD 28-70mm f3.5/4.5 52mm filter, about the size of a 100mm f2.8 nFD, amazing color and nice and sharp. CHEAP</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have the 35-105 lens, and have nothing bad to say about it, other than it is a long and somewhat awkward lens to use. As I carry an old F1, the combined weight it and the zoom can be somewhat tiring.<br>

As a good all-around lens, I like the FD 35/2 concave. It's not particularly small or light, but it is much smaller and lighter than any of the short/medium zoom lenses.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've had good results with the Vivitar 35-105mm/3.2-4 one-touch zoom lens for FD. It was made by Kobori (serial number begins with 77) and is light and sharp and has a close-focus, so-called "macro", capability at the 105mm focal length.<br /> At first, I was apprehensive that its rather short turn from closest distance to infinity would make accurate focusing difficult, but, for me anyway, it focuses easily.<br /> The lens body shows some Vivitar US Patent numbers.<br>

Generally I use it with my Canon AV-1 camera. The aperture priority automation adjusts for the change of aperture as the lens is zoomed.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Tamron AD2 35-70 f3.5 - as others have mentioned. But a Tokina AT-X 28-70 f3.5-4.5 has more range and better resolution (other Tokinas, like the SZ-X model, in this range are generally good).</p>

<p>What works for me as a walk-around lens (in Europe) may be less appopriate in other places and for other photographers. I find 28mm is limiting in modern 'European' cities, but 24-xx lenses are both rare and (often) of less-than-ideal quality. The only solution for me is to a) stick with two primes (say, 24mm f2.8 & 50mm) or, b) use both a 24mm and a good 28-80mm zoom - this latter approach works well for me. Also, having one lens that's faster than f3.5/4.5 is sometimes crucially more important than having a wide-range zoom.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I find that my walk around lens varies depending on the subject and how much weight I want to carry. If I'm walking around a city alone, I tend to carry the FD 80-200mm L. If I'm with friends or family I tend to carry a wide angle lens to get greater depth of field and to easily take photos that show the context of where the photo was taken. I've also found that I'm better off most of the time with just one lens rather than bothering with juggling a bag of lenses and the camera around my neck.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I dont like zooms, my best buddy on the F1 is a 85mmf1.8. My eyes are old, the extra light is easy to use, and it gives sharp photos. If I am not using that lens usually a 28mm is on the camera, great depth of field. I usually travel with these two lens if Im using 35mm.<br>

With Hasselblad the superwide is my best buddy...... or a elm with a 150mm on it.<br>

I know these are two choices, but no zooms for me, im just too old and set in my ways, I find zooms make me lazy. I do better when I have to work a little, framing etc. I also rarely use a incamera light meter.<br>

And have no use for digital.......maybe one day. Im not sure if they will catch on yet? Film took 100 years to prove itself.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For inside use, either the 35mm F2 or the 28-85mm F4 are my preferred lenses. The 50 or 55mm F1.4 or 1.2 are also fine if it's dark outside. The 35-105 F3.5's hood is not as deep as the one for the 28-85mm. If it's real tight, the 20-35mm F3.5L is very handy.<br>

Outdoors, i like the 80-200mm F4 twin ring with the built in hood. It will focus to 1 meter with no silly macro buttons and it's very sharp. Plus the front of the lens never rotates, making a polarizer easier to use.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've been using an FD 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 zoom on my EF lately. I always thought that <strong>this</strong> was the 35-105 <strong>FDn</strong> as I can't find one older than the 72mm 35-105 f/3.5, and this one is more recent and costs significantly more than the 72mm version at KEH. Not that that means anything, but at any rate it's a great lens. The construction is mostly plastic which means lightweight, but the glass is superb, really outstanding. I find myself using this in place of most of my primes because it's convenient and not at all heavy. Back in the summer when I posted my pictures of Chicago at Millennium Park as well as the Chicago skyline, those were all taken with this lens. Definitely worth considering.</p><div>00VOKE-205673584.jpg.38b14a1e14212dd8ec66f60d89f5750d.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Andy....thanks for posting those 35-105mm f3.5-4.5 FDn shots. They do look sharp. I had heard that this lens was not as good as the 35-105 f3.5 zoom, so it´s nice to hear a favourable review! The lighter weight and smaller diameter would be a benefit...does it have the same not-so-good "macro" capabilities as the fixed f3.5 or can it get a bit closer perhaps? Is the f3-5-4.5 zoom the one with the plastic aspherical element?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Actually Andy, I think that the fixed 3.5 has significantly <em><strong>better</strong> </em> macro capabilities and is probably a sturdier lens with its metal construction, but the lesser weight of the 3.5-4.5 is nicer over a long period of time. I haven't read that it has a plastic element but it does have a molded glass aspherical element. Does "molded glass" equal plastic? Perhaps it does, I don't know for sure. At any rate, the older 72mm lens is certainly a great lens and has a sturdier build quality, but the 3.5-4.5 is very lightweight and compact and, from my experience with two copies, has excellent performance.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...