Canon's Best FD Landscape Lens ?

<p>Looking for the best affordable Canon FD wide-angle landscape lens, any thoughts.<br /> Richard Garrett</p>

<p>I'll vote for the 28mm f/2. It is sharp across the range of apertures, reasonably fast, not particularly heavy. Not the easiest to find in great shape, but worth the search IMHO.</p>

<p>I always liked my FD 20mm f/2.8, but then again, we may not have the same idea as to what landscape photography is.</p>

<p>My widest FD lens is the 24/2.8 FD SSC with the chrome front. It's an old design but still a good one. The 28/2 FD SSC is very nice and even the regular 28/2.8 FD SC is very sharp. When you get wider than 24mm you can still get interesting results but even on the best lenses there is a difference in sharpness between the center and the edges. This is more of difference than you will see with stardard or medium telephoto lenses. Some people like to use a 35 or a 50 to make a series of exposures and then stitch the scanned images together.</p>

<p>For me it was the Canon FD 17mm f4, but if you can afford the Canon FD 14mm f2.8 L, that would be the one I'd get! You have to be serious about your craft to venture below 20mm though.</p>

<p>My 20mm has long been my favorite FD lens, whether for landscapes or cityscapes. JR</p>

<p>Ditto on the 24mm 2.8. It is my second favorite of the lenses in my collection. It is wide without being extremely wide, and I use it almost exclusively for open/countryside landscapes. For tighter landscapes where I just get closer, such as in the city, I'll use a 17mm or 20mm lens.</p>

<p>I know this is self-promoting, but I just used my 20mm for the global moment project. JR</p>

<p>Just my personal taste, but for landscapes as such I think the 20mm lenses may be just a little short. There is apt to be something that yells "I'm wide angle" in the pictures.</p>

<p>However, having been a Nikonian at the time when, I have to admit that I used the heck out of my 20mm f/4 Nikkor. I do not own one of the 20mm FD lenses (tho' I have a Spiratone lens in the FD mount in this focal length), but my understanding is that the Canon 20mm FD lens is a classic.</p>

<p>Affordable: 28mm f2.8 nFD<br>

Awesome: 24mm f2.0 nFD<br>

Drastic: 20mm f2.8 or 17mm f4.0 nFD's<br>

You need to tell us what focal lenght you are looking for. Cause in a short time here your going to have recomendations for every wide angle Canon made in the FD line.</p>

<p>But my two favorite landscape tools are my 200mm f2.8 IF nFD and my 35mm f2.8 T&S (tilt & shift) nFD</p>

<p>I also really like the 24/2.8 SSC--it's very sharp, but to be honest, I probably use my FDn 35/2 a lot more. It's wide enough to include quite a bit of landscape but it also lets me focus a bit more on a particular element in the scene. I guess it depends on what aspect of a landscape you're capturing; one could use a wide range of focal lengths for landscapes. For wide angles though, those are my recommendations since those are the two lenses I have that would be considered wide angle lenses.</p>

<p>I have been nothing but satisfied with the performance of my 28mm f/2.8 FDn. It has produced some great E100 slides over the years. That said I have never used another wide angle prime save the Canon 24mm f/1.4L which is nothing short of superb.. and if you can find that in the FD mount (and are willing to pay for it), I'm sure that would be your best bet.</p>

<p>Thanks guy<br /> I was looking for the broadest range of views on a wide angel lens. <br /> Richard</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was looking for the broadest range of views on a wide angle lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>:-) For tele lenses a narrower range of views would have been sufficient then?</p>

<p>17mm for landscapes is fun:<br>

<img src="http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n121/LimaZuluTango/claywaterlogdrop.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>20-35L. Not just for Landscapes, but for Architecture as well. Bought when the FD system was almost current it's both my most expensive and favourite FD lens of all.</p>

<p>I don't have a lot of FD lenses to compare...but...my 24/2.8 BL does a fine job for me.</p>

<p>Cheers! Jay</p><div></div>

<p>The 24 f2 is my favourite, I also shoot the 17 F4 and 28 F2.8 but they are not as good as the 24mm lens</p>

<p>I'll jump in here as the odd ball, just don't shoot me here......I know you said wide angle lenses but one can't rule out the normal and telephoto lenses for landscapes. I rarely do landscapes but when I do I often find that the wide angles are too much and despite having both an FD 28mm 2.8 and an FD 35mm 3.5 I find my self in preference of the FD 85mm 1.8 and FD 50mm 1.4. I've had my best results with scapes with those two lenses.</p>

<p>Taken with Canon FD 85mm on Canon EF, ASA 200<br>

<a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v371/battousaiofnphiles/Photos/Railroad/?action=view&current=126291_018_3-2.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/battousaiofnphiles/Photos/Railroad/126291_018_3-2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /> </a><br>

Taken with Canon FD 50mm 1.4 on Canon TLb, ASA ???<br>

<a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v371/battousaiofnphiles/Photos/?action=view&current=00000_002_2.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/battousaiofnphiles/Photos/00000_002_2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /> </a></p>

<p>Taken with Canon FD 50mm 1.4 on Canon EF, ASA 800<br>

<a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v371/battousaiofnphiles/Photos/Railroad/?action=view&current=Untitled1BW_2.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/battousaiofnphiles/Photos/Railroad/Untitled1BW_2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /> </a></p>

<p>I think that for many FD users, the Canon 24mm/2.8 has been the wide angle lens of choice for landscape photography. It is a "wide" lens, as compared to the 28mm lens, and it was sold at a very reasonable cost. It is light weight and it is small in size, as compared to a zoom lens. Once I had a 24mm lens, the 28mm lens became rather unused. The 17mm lens is wider, but is laso shows more distortion. The background becomes small. I recall buying my 24/2.8 brand new from NY and during the peak of SLR prices for $79 plus shipping. I suspected that the lens was a grey market lens, but it arrived in perfect condition and still is.<br>

Raid</p>

<p>I have pretty much every lens Canon has made between 17mm and 300mm (a 14mm is on it's way as I write). My wide angle lenses are the 17mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, and the 35mm. A good picture can be taken with any of these lenses, but the one I use most is the 24mm. The 17mm and 20mm are great lenses, but they are not cheap. The 28mm and 35mm are not as wide as the 24mm, but they aren't that much less expensive either. Prices on ebay for the 24mm are running between $70 and $95 right now, so it is an outstanding value.</p>

<p>Another vote for the 24mm, in either f2.8 or f2. I have both, and I dont see a difference in sharpness between the two. They are both extremely sharp. The focal length is wide enough for a sweeping view, but not so wide that you need to be right on top of something to make it prominent.<br>

Another favorite is the 50mm f1.4 for landscapes. Much easier to control what is in the frame. Bleeding sharp.<br>

I have the FD 17mm f4, a russian 16mm fisheye, FD 28mm f2.8 as well. I dont have a 20mm but will prob pick one up =]</p>

<p>I have the 24mm f/2.8 SSC, the 28mm f/2.8 FDn, 35mm f/2.8 FDn, and 50mm f/1.4 SSC and I have to admit the 24mm and the 50mm get more use than the others, but to be totally honest, the 35-105 f/3.5 zoom gets more use than any other lens I own. It just seems to cover whatever the situation may call for in most cases.</p>

<p>I may be starting down the same road Tom, as I seem to be leaving my 35-105/3.5 zoom on my F-1 more and more. It does in fact cover a lot of situations and is very sharp in addition. It's a fantastic lens!</p>

<p>I will say that the lens I always pick up for landscapes is my chrome nose 24mm f/2.8. Great lens and just wide enough.</p>

<p>Canon F-1, 24mm f/2.8, Tri-X 400<br>

<img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1097/3165258904_0f94dfa3a5_b.jpg" alt="" /><br>

T90, 24mm f/2.8, Fuji Astia 100<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3225/3148648619_168a5099bb_b.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Sure enough, the forum has suggested every lens between 17 and 85mm, unless I missed some others! And that's fine, because it does depend on what sort of wideangle landscape you want. So in response, in a way, to Mark's clarifying question about what kind of wideangle is desired, here's my take.</p>

<p>My own experience finally boiled down to a couple of approaches to this type of landscape photography, or you might say an approach that resolved into extremes of a sort. If I'm aiming for a wide view without a strong eyecatching feature, I generally don't go wider than 35mm. That's about my tolerance limit for a wide field where everything is equal within the field of view. Things quickly get boring. (This reminds me of a travel snapshot I was once shown. It was an ordinary roadside field with trees in the background, just a lot of brown winter grass. The shooter had drawn a small circle in the middle of the print with a ball-point pen. When questioned, he replied that the circle indicated where the deer was. Good thing for the circle--his point-and-shoot was too wide to image the deer at all.)</p>

<p>On the other hand, if there's something in the very near foreground that I can emphasize, or if it's sunset or the clouds are great and I want a lot of sky, I'll usually go to 17 or 20mm. With these lenses, you can position yourself inches away from a foreground object and retain a sweeping perspective behind, or you can capture a sky from horizon virtually to the zenith with the camera oriented vertically. I recall one shot I made when I first had the 17mm, a winter pasture with lovely cirrus mare's tails overhead. The frame encompasses everything from just ahead of my shoes through a good portion of sky. The grass seems to change color because it's actually being seen from straight above at the bottom of the frame, but from a more normal angle in the distance. These lenses are also great before a thunderstorm, when the threatening line squall clouds are milling overhead. Even my driveway can look pretty cool in that instance.</p>

<p>For a price premium, you can exaggerate these effects even more with the 14mm/2.8L, but distortion becomes a factor in its own right if the camera is not level. You can create some strong effects. Unfortunately, I didn't notice some of them until the slides came back!</p>

<p>That leaves 24 and 28mm. Canon wrote in Lens Work that the 50mm can seem like a standard lens, but also like a telephoto. The 24 and 28 seem to me to have a dual identity like that, capable of making a simple wide-field photo or capable of exaggerating a nearby feature. Of course, not with the power of the shorter lenses, which can be a good thing under the right circumstances.</p>

<p>Richard's original post inquired about an affordable choice. The 35/2.8, 28/2.8, and 24/2.8 are steals these days, and the 20/2.8 sometimes goes quite reasonably. The 14/2.8L is still not an inexpensive lens!</p>