SHORT TELE UNDER A BUDGET

I recently bought a canon ae-e program and this will be my second lens. My first one was the cheap Fdn 50mm f1.8.

 

Now im search for something with a little more magnification. I was thinking about 85mm - 135mm.

usually I like to take photos to static objects so I think that the aperture will not be a big problem since i can use a tripod.

I was searching for something under 80 euros.

do you think that the canon Fdn 100mm f2.8 is a good option?

 

I would like a zoom lens but as far as I know is kinda hard to find a decent one at this prices, I am wrong?

would FD 70-210mm f1.4 or even maybe FD 35-70mm f1:4 be any good?

Edited March 26, 2018 by edgarlopes

...do you think that the canon Fdn 100mm f2.8 is a good option?

 

Many years ago, I had the FD 100mm f/2.8 lens. It was FANTASTIC. I don't know if the FDn lens has the same optical formula or not.

I have a 100 f2.8 (BL) and it's great. For cheap you might try a 135 f3.5 BL or f2.8 FDn. It should be easy to find the 135 f3.5 for less than what you a budgeting.

 

A 100 - 200 zoom will be cheap, too, but it's an awkward lens

Edited March 27, 2018 by chuck909

Here's a link to evaluations of numerous FD lenses Lens Performance Survey - RAW DATA

You will need to scroll down to Canon FD lenses. This chart is a good starting point. FWIW, you really have a number of good options here within your price range. Since the lens you end up with will be a second hand FD lens, just make certain in advance of your purchase that it has no haze, lens separation, fungus, and minimal cleaning marks on the lens surfaces. Also that the diaphragm blades are free of oil and work smoothly.Now a couple of comments on acceptable lenses. If you go with a f/2.8 you will not only have a brighter image in your viewfinder, but also one that is easier to focus precisely with because of both the brighter image and narrower depth of field. In addition to the excellent Canon FD lenses, there are some excellent third party lenses out there with an FD mount which may come less expensive. I've had very good experience with Vivitar Series 1 and non Series 1 in the 135mm range (serial numbers beginning with 28 (manufactured by Komine in Japan). I've also had 2 copies of Canon's FD 135mm f/2 - which was an incredible lens, but big/heavy and relatively expensive compared to the more consumer grade 135s, and just sold their 100mm f/2, which beat the pants off the competition. If you are looking for a good zoom for your camera, I can heartily recommend the 80-200 f/4L. It is more than you want to spend, but it is so good you'll probably never want to sell it. Lastly, in the 3rd party group, another zoom (big/heavy) which is terrific and affordable is the Vivitar Series 1 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5 - I picked up mine earlier this year in almost new condition for a little under $50 USD and have been very pleased with its overall performance.

Edgar,

First, do you want a zoom or prime?

 

re: primes

You need to think out the kit, and how the lenses fit together.

Example 24+50+135, or 28+50+100+200

I would go with a f/2.8 lens over a f/3.5. Yeah it is only a half stop faster. But the price of used lenses are so low, that to me, it makes sense to get the faster f/2.8 lens, which as SCL said is eaisier to focus.

 

re: zooms

I think FD 70-210mm f1.4 you meant f/4. A f/1.4 would be cool, but huge and expensive.

I have heard good reports on some of the Vivitar Series 1 lenses, like the 70-210 f/4.

But remember that this was a long time ago, and in general, many of the zoom optics were not as good as primes. There were exceptions.

Also, a zoom is slower than a prime. And depending on what and how you shoot, lens speed can make a difference.

Example the Vivitar Series 1, 70-210 f/4. Compared to a 135 f/2.8, it is 1 stop slower. Compared to an 85 f/1.8 it is about 2-1/3 stops slower.

With film, I would take the 135 f/2.8 over the 70-210 f/4, when shooting night games.

thanks you for all the answers. I think I will go with a prime lens, most likely 135 f2.8 Fdn.

Vivitar Series 1 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5

and probably I will try out this one too, worth the risk for the price

No personal FD experience but basically speaking: I haven't encountered any bad 3rd party 135mm prime yet. So I recommend buying a random *never heard of* in sufficiently decent condition for little money while I'd stick away from generic 1980s consumer zooms.

If you can't find an FDn 135mm 2.8 for less that what you are budgeting, you're not looking very hard.

 

I see them very often for about $50 (USD) or a bit more

I did a little searching and found these three lenses at a well known US dealer. All are FDn

 

135mm f2.0 $449.00 Condition Excellent

 

135mm f2.8 $105.00 Condition Excellent +

 

135mm f3.5 $37.00 Condition Budget

 

Budget lenses might be a little dinged, but work just fine

 

Just me, but if you can tell the difference between an f3.5 and an f2.8 brightness wise when you are out-of-doors, you have a lot better eyes than I have

Edited March 27, 2018 by chuck909

It is not outdoors, it is in low light that the f/2.8 has the advantage.

OK what is a 1/2 stop? Maybe very little with film with wide exposure latitude.

 

Were this the 1970s, there was a significant cost difference between the f/2.8 and f/3.5 lenses. So those of us who could not afford the more expensive lenses settled for the f/3.5 lenses, or we went to 3rd party lenses where we could afford the f/2.8 lens.

Yes, indoors the 2.8 has a slight advantage. Out doors, no big deal.

 

For a long time I had a 28mm f3.5 which I used often shooting groups indoors. When I got an f2.0, wow, the focusing was so much easier.

Let me clarify, it is low light situations where I want the f/2.8 lens (or faster), no matter where it is; outside (night games, under deep shadow, etc.), inside (gym or home, etc.).

 

I remember the old days, it was the cheaper but still expensive Nikon f/3.5 lens or a Vivitar f/2.8 lens. And cuz us high school kids wanted speed, we went with the Vivitar f/2.8 lens. But if you wanted quality, you settled for the Nikon f/3.5 lens, rather than the even more expensive Nikon f/2.8 lens.

Today I wonder why, f/2.8 and f/3.5, 1/2 stop difference? Was the manufacturing cost so different between them just because of the aperture, or was the f/2.8 using better optics. Faster aperture was also a marketing point that got a lot of us.

But it was also practical. This was back in the late 1960s and early 1970s when pushing Tri-X to 1200 was as good as it got, so every bit of lens speed helped dig out the image from the shadows. And High Speed Ektachrome pushed to 320 was the fastest generally available color film.

 

The good old days, wasn't really so good.

Like I said, it's all what the OP plans to use it for. Sure, when I shot high school football under the lights, I wanted all the speed I could get. But heck, if he is doing still-lifes ("static objects" as he put it) using a tripod like he wrote, a half stop is not going to be a make or break. To get back to the point of his question, for what he seems to want to do, I would recommend whatever he finds at the right price, 2.8, or 3.5.

the 135mm F2.8 can easily be found under 100 euros, the point is that im in Europe and with shipment + customs duties sometimes the price can go up about 2/5 of the original... I tried to look in second hand stores and photography stores but or they are in good condition and are way more expensive or they are in a lousy state...

 

one more question: using a tripod and photographing still-lifes cannot the lack of speed of the 3.5 be overcome? I understand the advantages of the 2.8 quiet well, and probably that's the one I will buy, but still, the price diference is kinda big

Still life with a 3.5 on a tripod is not a problem. Most likely you'll be stopping the lens down anyway. About the only advantage of the faster lens in your situation is that using the faster lens at f2.8 you'll get less depth-of-field by a slight margin than using the 3.5 wide open. So if you're really into that fuzzy background effect (brocade ?), a really fast lens might be what you are after. My guess is that you'll be doing most of you shooting at 5.6 or 8.0. So the extra speed is totally useless.

My guess is that you'll be doing most of you shooting at 5.6 or 8.0. So the extra speed is totally useless.

I think in some parts I agree with you!

 

btw someone know if theres a big diferença between the old Canon FD 135mm 2.5 and the FDn 135mm 2.8??

the 135mm F2.8 can easily be found under 100 euros, the point is that im in Europe and with shipment + customs duties sometimes the price can go up about 2/5 of the original... I tried to look in second hand stores and photography stores but or they are in good condition and are way more expensive or they are in a lousy state...

 

one more question: using a tripod and photographing still-lifes cannot the lack of speed of the 3.5 be overcome? I understand the advantages of the 2.8 quiet well, and probably that's the one I will buy, but still, the price diference is kinda big

 

If there is a big price difference between the f/2.8 and f/3.5 lenses, then get the cheaper f/3.5 lens.

Your problem is no different than the problem we had, we could not afford the more expensive f/2.8 lens.

I think in some parts I agree with you!

 

btw someone know if theres a big diferença between the old Canon FD 135mm 2.5 and the FDn 135mm 2.8??

 

Difference speed wise not really. I have the older f2.5 and it has served me well. The big difference between the FD 2.5 and the FDn 2.8 is that the 2.5 is a very heavy lens. You should be able to find some very good prices for the FD

Chuck is right, the FD 135/2.5 is a large, heavy lens. I used on a long time ago and didn't like it, for that reason. I did own a chrome-nose FD 135/3.5 some years back. This was the original Sonnar-formula lens. A nice lens. I should have kept it.

using a tripod and photographing still-lifes cannot the lack of speed of the 3.5 be overcome?

It can! Open some Online DOF calculator or stare at your 50mm lens, imagining the DOF markings more than 2 times as close together as they are and let's agree that we are basically talking about "nothing", when we are imagining a 135mm's DOF for still lifes. - For my main system I usually pick 90 & 135mm f4 lenses. - I own a 90/2 too and can't be bothered to get the bulky 135/2.8 with attached RF goggles. I must have shot the f4s wide open but am hard enough pressed to nail focus to leave the 90/2 at home. For manual SLR portraiture I used 135/2.8s according to the rule of thumb that what appears in focus on screen might end within DOF on film, if you stop down 2 stops.further. i.e.: Anything below f5.6 (as the set aperture) would be too daring to risk expensive film behind it, for my taste right now.

While f2.8 might be "reasonably fast" for a 135mm, f3.5 isn't awfully slow either. - In the old days a lot of folks settled for f4 macro lenses, f3.5 zooms were pretty fast and f2.8 zooms are still the fastest you can get. Now, with digital's higher ISO or IS lenses way slower zooms seem popular and I here don't understand why manufacturers abandoned the good old portable 135/2.8s and are apparently only offering 135/2s these days.

 

The only tripod related issue I'd worry about: If you end focusing & recomposing, make sure the hinge of your tripod head isn't distant enough to mess that approach up. Better focus on your ground glass, if you are playing with narrow DOF.

 

Since you are probably going to stop down anyhow, remember "Everything shines at f8" and continue looking for 3rd party lenses.

are in good condition and are way more expensive or they are in a lousy state...

Which kind of lousy? FD glass must be 3 decades old by now? - When I look at my main "user" 135/2.8 an "Auto Revuenon" rebadged according to it's looks Raynox in k-mount, that I bought used 32 years ago, the black paint / coating is worn through on the edges of the focus and aperture ring, but the rings are still running smooth and everything is working. - A couple of years later I bought a better looking Pentax P-KA and had loose aperture blades after a while. I don't mind shooting PJ beaters in good mechanical and optical condition. - Lens cosmetics don't take pictures. - YMMV & no I am of course not trying to sell scratches & fungus...

Lens cosmetics don't take pictures

I agree with you, and im not talking about cosmetics... Some of them had fungus inside or they were a "bit" scratched...

 

one more thing,i did not understand quit well what you mean by this...

we are basically talking about "nothing", when we are imagining a 135mm's DOF for still lifes. -

distance 1.5m, f16 means 12cm of DOF, f4 would be 3cm. - Would you call that "a lot" or "plenty"?

There are some excellent-for-their-time zoom lenses. Something in the 35mm-70mm range would be the most useful, if not the sharpest tack in the box.