What FD body&lenses to buy?

I have just sold all of my EF gear and am going back to shooting FD, I know

next to nothing about what lenses to buy or a body to buy.

 

I am looking at the AE1 programme body and the following lenses.

 

24/2.8

50/1.4

70-210/F4

 

What is the best lenses in this range to buy should I be looking at SSC???

 

Whats the difference in optical quality with the SSc V non SSc, Yes I have no

idea.

 

I am looking for the sharpest lenses with excellent colours. I have just come

from 70-200/2.8 24-70/2.8 and a 600/4 so I want colours and sharpness on the

same level or better.

 

I am doing surfscapes and surf art and need top quality. Is there a different

system I should look at?? brand wise or format wise.

 

My prints will generally be poster size+

 

I am only interested in mint condition gear if you have any that you want to

sell I'd be interested aswell.

Legend has it that the best 55mm on the planet is the FD 55mm f/1.2 Asperical, better than Leitz glass.

 

e.g. see these reports

http://www.imx.nl/photo/optics_2/modern_high_speed_lenses.html

http://www.imx.nl/photo/canon/canon_fd_lens_reports_50_an.html

 

I understand any of the "L" lenses are superb.

 

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/earlyfdlenses/50mmfd.htm

 

Happy hunting.

 

Vick

If you're serious about making big prints and you want top quality, you need to be in medium format or sheet film, not 35mm. Sorry to rain on the parade.

Hello Darryn: Welcome back to FD! The gear you listed is a good beginng kit. You might consider all prime lenses for best quality. The FD 24mm f2.0 and 35mm f2.0 are quite sharp and I would recommend those for your wide angle. The 50mm f1.4 is excellent. For seascape work, generally stopped down, this is a good choice. The 135mm f2.0 and fd 200mm f2.8 are quite sharp as well on the tele side. The AE-1 body is fine but you may want to consider a top pro body like the F-1N or T-90 for ruggedness sake and spot metering options. If your set on poster size reproductions, slow films and impeccable technique will be needed. As much as I would like to steer you into FD gear, if poster-sized reproductions are your bread and butter, you may want to look into 6x7 or even 4x5 formats. Good luck in your search.

Hi Darryn. All of the New FD (FDn) lenses except the 28/2.8 and the 50/1.8 are SSC, which means they are multi-coated. (It's just that the "SSC" designation was dropped for the FDn lenses). For your purposes, the advantages of the newer (bayonet mount) lenses over the older (breech mount) lenses is that they usually have smaller maximum apertures (for greater depth of field) and they're lighter in weight. Also, I find my FDn 50/1.4 to be very slightly sharper than my FD 50/1.4, although that could just be true of my particular lenses. (Don't get me wrong, the older FD SC and SSC lenses are also excellent; some even prefer their optics and durability to the FDn's). Generally, also, the "L" series FDn pro lenses are superior to their FDn cousins, though there are exceptions (such as the FDn 24/2, which is better than the FDn 24/1.4 L). I would also generally go for the fastest lenses at each focal length (again, with a few exceptions): FDn 14/2.8 L, 17/4, 20/2.8, 24/2, 28/2, 35/2, 50/1.2 L (or 50/1.4), 85/1.2 L (a favourite of mine), 100/2, 135/2, 200/2.8, 300/4 L. Other larger "L" series telephotos are very expensive, and also very unweildy (requiring heavy tripods for use). Zooms I'd recommend include the FDn 20-35/3.5 L, the 35-105/3.5, and the marvellous 80-200/4 L. For bodies, there's no question that you should get either an F-1N, arguably the finest 35mm SLR ever made, or a T90. The advantage to the T90 is that it has a motor drive and all its metering options built-in, while with the F-1N you'd need to obtain and use many accessories to get the same functionality. On the other hand, the F-1N is so well built and reliable that it will not only outlive you, but your children will be able to pass it on to your grandchildren!

If one is serious about getting out of EOS photography, it would be strange then to adopt one of the T series, which were in many ways, EOS cameras with a FD mount. I'm not sure why you feel it necessary to cut the tie so severely.

 

I am very much committed to EOS for many reasons. However, I think highly of the FD cameras, and recently bought an AE-1 Program and a trio of lenses for it--a FDn 50mm f/1.4, and two FDn zooms (28-70 and 70-210 I think, I'm writing this away). At the time these came out, I was still a die-hard Nikonian, so I just wanted to see how they worked. I'm very pleased, and it's nice to have a body to use if I see some terrific bargain in FDn or earlier glass.

Thanks for the responses, much to think about.

 

I was afraid that I might have to go the medium format way. I know less about that than I know about building inter planetary space ships.

 

OK so how large can a 35mm slide go without losing detail. I know that with my digital gear even the IIn that going past 20'x30' was staring to push the limits.

 

I know digital geeks will say hell you can go 1mx1.5m I am sure you can but how good will the result be. I will not justify owning a 7K 1DsIII when in a few years it will be worth two big macs and a large fries.

 

I need crystal clear prints when veiwed from 1 metre at a size of 1mx1.5m. The galleries that will take my stuff have a minimun print size of 1metre wide.

 

I might just grab a FD system for the sake of it and go down the MF path.

No to argue a silly point but technically aren't EOS bodies descendants of the T series not he other way around. So you could say the EOS650 was a dumbed down T-90. and on down the line.

 

I would suggest you one ID your focal length needs. The two buy the fastest version of that focal length Canon made in FD mount. nFD or S.S.C. or Chrome Nose is not really going to matter your shooting technic is always going to be your limiting factor. ALL FD lens are good most are frecking great and a few are near legendary.

 

IN wide angles with the single exception of the 24mm f1.4L the fastest is the best. In the 50's the f1.2L f1.4 are awesome. the 55mm f1.2 ASP is truly legendary as is it's rarity and price (try Kevin Cameras in CA) in the short tele's you need to know what you are using it for as they get specialized.

 

Portraits and landscape can take to different types of lenses. Again the fastest is the sharpest.

 

The only zoom to recommend if your going to be real picky is the 80-200mm f4.0L nFD

As much as I am a lover of FD stuff, I would too recommand going to MF for big prints; You can have 6x4.5 bodies that handle very much like the average 24x36 body, and can be bought for almost nothing! However, you will be hard put to find an equivalent to the 600/4! And you might miss the autofocus feature too!

Again, if you are looking forward to test film instead of digital, why not pick an EOS1v (or 1n), it won't be very different from your current digital setup. So you can try it out and then you can decide if 24x36 film is enough or not.

Mark, I don't know about "dumbed down" but the T-series cameras mostly came before EOS, so my point was precisely that they were the test platform on which Canon worked out the details before making the Great Leap Forward. So if you don't like EOS then why go to an FD series that has so similar an "operating system"?

May I suggest that you click on this link:

 

http://rogerandfrances.com/

 

Go to the "photo school" section and read "quality in photography" and "large format"

As much as I love the AE-1 Program, it is not a professional rig.

 

It lacks various features that you may find useful such as spot-metering and an exposure compensation dial. It is also limited to a 1/60th flash synch speed. This is just a bit slow, and unless you use a cord or tape over the contacts, you can't drag the shutter as the dedicated Canon flash units will over-ride the shutter you set and will automatically set it at 1/60th.

 

Finally, it takes a small 6v battery that can be a bit hard to find. I understand that the EF takes standard AA batteries and that it was somewhat more sophisticated by way of features.

 

One thing that makes the AE-1 Program stand out though is the ability to change focusing screens. These are at times available on the 'bay relatively inexpensively.

 

Again, I love the AE-1 Program and while I suspect that I'll never give it up, you may wish to check out the F series as well as the T-90.

If shooting near water, the F1N the only body with sealed electronics.

50L, 85L & 135/2 for your enlargements shoud get you performance

close to EF lenses. 400/4.5 good long lens at an affordable price.

What is important is the clean glass of any 20 year old lens. Too many

fooled by cosmetics of lens bodies & unserviced camera bodies.

I second the F1N. I assume you are doing surf scapes (landscape type) and surf art is surf boarders, or is it things washed up on the surf?

 

F1N with a winder and some fast telephotos will work for the surf boarders.

 

For still shots, I would go medium format in film. RBs and RZs are crazy cheap now. Add in a Epson V750 scanner, and you should be able to do 24x36 inchs.

 

All depends on the subject matter and your work flow.

 

I get nice 11x17s out of the F1N with primes scanned on a Minolta Scan Dual 4 at 3200dpi. Some subject matter I can print out to 13x19 on my Epson 2200.

"My prints will generally be poster size+"

 

Then I hate to break it to you, but your "prints will generally" suck. And this has nothing to do with FD, or EOS, or any other 35mm gear out there.

 

While I am a big Mamiya RB proponent, I would suggest that any action sots would be better done with a Pentax 6x7, which handles just like an overgrown 35mm SLR. I would spend the money there and enjoy the FD gear for what it is: a system that can match ANYTHING any other _35_MM SYSTEM can offer at a fraction of the cost, even if you buy the best of the best. Actually, you will probably find that the middle of the price range primes will blow away your auto zooms from the EOS kit, red stripes or not.

 

Of course I really don't understand this scanner talk - you had a capable, digital-compatible lens set... I don't get this ass-backwards scanning business, quite frankly it just seems like the definition of redundant... or hard core avoidance of having to learn how to make actual photographic prints.

 

I assure you that a 50mm f1.4 which can be had for $25 will be sharper than any of the lenses you just got rid off, as will any of the primes suggested. As to Mr Kushner's advice of :

 

"50L, 85L & 135/2 for your enlargements shoud get you performance close to EF lenses"

 

Close to which side? They will certainly blow away the lenses you had, and be every bit as good as the EF mount 50, 85 and 135... So I have to wonder what he meant there.

Peter your advice is exactly what I have decided to do. Pentax 67 is what I am going for.

 

The scanning side of things, well. I want to do it all create the shot have it processed than have it scanned for web use and web advertising as prints will be for sale.

 

I quess I just want to go back to the old school way. I've been digital for about 7 years and there really is no art to it. Point and shoot camera does it all then download and your done. All to mechanical for me.

 

Kinda like the bloke who has a mid life crisis and buy a 1950s car and does it up not that I am having a crisis but am looking for a more hands on approach to my photography.

 

I don't need digital it was only a business choice, but that business is finished. Was a race track photographer butthe tracks closed now.

Sorry to be late to the party but my question to all is this issue of 'ass-backwards' as PG so aptly names it; i.e. beautiful analog images reduced to scans for prints? Where does one get optical prints from film without your own darkroom?