yet another lens question...sorry

[kris_h]

First let me say how much I love this forum! I can't find anyone else

who would even consider using a film camera!

 

OK I'm making a trip to a camera store next week. I'll be buying a

few lenses (thanks to the lovely IRS.) I currently have some cheaper

lenses, I have a Canon 28mm f/2.8, and canon 50mm f/1.8, a canon

200mm f/2.8 and a bunch of filters and a 3x teleconverter (not sure

how well it'll work but it was only $25 shipped.)

 

I'm looking to do macro photography, I would like to go closer then

1:1 if possible, but for now 1:1 is fine. I'm looking at a 100mm f/4

macro lens with an extender, but you need the extender to get 1:1,

but with the much more expensive and much faster 200mm macro f/2.8

you can get 1:1 with the lens alone. I figure with the 200 I'd get a

faster lens and will have less stuff between the subject and the

film. The 200 costs a lot more then the 100 so I would trade my

current 200 in to use towards it. Then I would get the 135mm f/2

instead of the 100mm, to get a faster lens. Would putting a 500D

close up make it easier to get a better ratio?

 

I'm also looking into wide angle stuff as well. I am wondering (sorry

I've never done wide angle before) the difference between the 20mm

and the 24mm. Not degrees, I know that difference. I'm wondering

picture quality. Does the 20 distort a lot more? Is the 24 close

enough to the 28 I have to make the 20 a better choice? They also

have a fish eye that says full frame image, does that mean it's not a

circle? I don't think I'd get it because it would be fun for a bit,

but not very useful.

 

I'll also be dreaming, they have a 300L in stock and a 50-300 zoom L

in stock, both WAAAAYYY out of my price range, but they'll be a ton

of fun to look at!

 

Thanks so much!!

[rog21]

The FD 200mm Macro is a f/4.0 just like the 100, so you're not getting any more speed. The 100 was sold with the FD 50-U life size adapter, so hopefully, the adapter will be with the lens when you look at it. The FD 100mm f/4.0 Macro is a highly regarded lens.

 

As for out of your price range, they look like fabulous deals to those who have switched to autofocus....

[awahlster]

Another option would be the Tokina 90mm f2.5 Macro AT-X (there is a special 1-1 tube that has glass in it you will need this for 1-1) it is sharper then the Canon 100mm and faster.

 

Uses 55mm filters

 

 

As to the 20/24 question the 24 is an excellent landscape and interior lens distortion is very acceptable. The 20mm requires some careful use to reduce distortion (you really need to keep it level) the 24mm f2.0 nFD is the best of the Canon 24's for image quality and the 20mm is well the best lens in that focal leght you can out on your FD body with full automation.

[kris_h]

Thanks so much! It does seem like the 24 would be a better choice for what I do. I'm glad to hear the 100 macro is a good lens too. Maybe I'll just go with that, and they have a few in stock, with two or three that come with the FD50 extention. Plus it'll save me money, so maybe I can get another lens!! I do see that the 200 is indead an f/4 not the 2.8 that I thought is was. using the 100 macro as a normal lens not macro do you think the f/4 will be a problem? i don't use a flash, only natural light. Maybe the money I save from buying the 100 over the 200 should go to the 135 f/2.

 

Man, once you get the FD bug you get it hard!! I took my first photo with this darn camera 25 years ago, only had the original 50mm lens until a few months ago. Now I'm hooked!

[peter_white2]

Also look at the Tamron 90mm f/2.5. It's one of the best lenses ever made. Excellent optics and build quality. The Adaptall II adapters for FD are readily available, as is the lifesize adapter.

[John Crowe]

Don't get the 24 if you have the 28 already. Go for the 20mm for a significant difference in field of view. The 17mm, 20mm, and 24mm lenses control optical distortion extremely well. Do not confuse optical distortion with exagerated perspective in these lenses. Yes, composing images with lenses wider than 20mm is a challenge but well worth it when done right.

 

 

Another vote for considering the Canon 100 macro or Tamron 90 macro.

 

 

Some retail stores still charge a ridiculous amount for FD lenses so be sure to check Adorama.com, keh.com, and bhphotovideo.com. You can save even more money by buying on eBay from sellers with good feedback.

 

 

I also have to put in a plug for the lens I was most impressed by, the Canon FD 80-200mm f4 L. Even at $250 USD it's a steal. Not as fast as your f2.8 but much sharper. Forget the superzooms, the 300/4 L would be way better.

 

 

The 15mm f2.8 is a full frame fisheye. Any straight line that does not pass through the centre of the lens is bent considerably. The 17mm is rectilinear and the extremely expensive 14mm f2.8 L is also rectilinear. Rectilinear meaning straight lines are kept straight no matter where they are in the frame. Of course if you shoot them at an angle they will converge, but they are still straight.

[mark_houlder2]

i can also vouch for the tamron 90mm/2.5; i got a mint, boxed one - with lifesize adapter, lens hood, leather case, the lot (it even had the 'tamron' brand plastic wrappers) - for less than GBP 100 just over a year ago. i've used it for macro stuff and for portraits, and am very happy with it.

[dave_s]

The 50/3.5 and 100/4 macro lenses are available now at silly prices, particularly the 50. The less common 200/4 is still quite expensive. Like others, I'd cast my vote for the 100/4.

 

If you want to go closer than 1:1, you could use the old-fashioned ways which are simple, very cheap and deliver high quality. The first way is to look for a reversing mount ring, either the Canon Macro coupler or a cheap generic version. The second way is to fasten your 28 or your 50 reversed as a supplementary on front of a telephoto prime.

[alan_swartz]

Kris,

 

This is really just another echo of the answers above, but . . .

 

100/4 Macro, great lens, just fine as a normal short telephoto and the f/4 aperture will be fine with reasonably fast film and all but low light.

 

The 200 Macro is great, but as you know, a lot more expensive and it is a good deal larger and heavier. Without running finicky tests, I cannot tell the difference between the 100 and 200 macros. I am very pleased with each.

 

There is an amazing difference between 28mm and 20mm. For me, going shorter than 24mm enters the realm of "cool, special-effect" wide angles. From 20 down to the very expensive 14mm, a level camera is the key to contolling odd effects. Tip it downward and the tree trunks lean in at the top--sometimes radically. The 15mm fisheye is a full frame lens (no circle), but it introduces CONSIDERABLE barrel distortion. It can be fun (I enjoy it) but it is definitely a special-purpose lens. The 7.5mm is the circular fisheye, also a cool toy but extremely radical.

 

The 300L lenses are of course great, and a steal compared to just a couple of years ago. The regular 300/4 is quite good. If you go for one, wait until you can get one with the tripod collar.

 

I owned the 50-300L for a week. It is big, amazingly heavy for its size, and more than a little awkward. The front element is quite exposed, and it's hard to find one with the plastic lens hood.

 

Check out the online scans of the FD Lens Work book at canonfd.com. There are many examples of all the focal lengths. You really will have the bug after you look at that.

 

Enjoy!

[User_1577653]

I would agree with Mark W. that the 24/2.0 lens is an excellent performer. I purchased mine specifically because I wanted something wider than my 28/2.8. Based on recommendations from this site: http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/ I decided that the perspective of the 20mm - which is getting into the "super wide" regime - was probably more extreme than I was looking for. In practice I have found that even though 24mm sounds pretty close to 28mm numerically, there really is a significant difference in the coverage. For me the 24 is just right for certain indoor people shots where I otherwise wouldn't be able to get everyone in the frame, and also for wide landscape shots.

 

Jeff

[vincent_jan]

I used to have the original Tamron 90mm f/2.5 (model 52B) lens and was very satisified with it. I eventually switched the 2nd version of the same lens (model 52BB) and have not noticed a difference in optical quality.

 

The reason I made the switch was 2-fold: the 2nd version was lighter (more plastic, less metal in the construction) so was just a touch easier to carry around in the camera bag. I no longer apply a lot of rough and tumble handling to my lenses, so I haven't noticed any differences in durability in the move to the lighter lens.

 

The more important reason was that the 2nd version uses a 55mm filter size (the first version uses a 49mm size). Carry the 2nd version means that I only need one set of filters when I'm carrying a set of Canon breechlock lenses. That's an important thing when you're trying to minimize weight and clutter in the camera bag.

[ari_kermaier]

There's also the old classic Vivitar Series 1 90mm f/2.5 macro lens, which came paired with a 1:1 extender that has an integral tripod mount. I think this lens was originally manufactured by Tokina to Vivitar's specs, so the Tokina-branded examples on the market may be the same -- anyone out there know?

[cjc_ing]

Ive used a 24/2.8 ,50/3.5 Macro w/FD-25U tube and a Tamron 500/8 Reflex since the early 90s on 2 F1N bodies , one Fn finder , one AE finder . Your system tho you call it cheap isnt half bad .. the only changes I'd make are :

a) Get a 50mm/3.5 and FD25U tube ... this lens is optically one of the finest ever built , its available and with macro manual focussing is preferable I feel . The bigger clumsier 100 and 200 macro are fine if youre doing butterflies or insects that'll fly off if you get too close but they also haver less depth of field and shake becomes more apparent the larger the magnification .Keep the standard 50/1.8 for rainy days .

b)I'd keep the 200/2.8 and try it out with the above FD25U tube or find a FD50U tube .. it may surprise you how close it can get .What you'll get for ap/ex isnt worth considering or Ebay it for what the going price is .

c) By keeping what you have and augmenting it with one or two items in a process of system evolution is probably best ... otherwise you'll be out shootiing and stressing out over which lens to use . The other addition Id make is undoubtedly a 20-35 FD L lens or the older 24-35 L - these Ive read are superior to the fixed focal length units of non L designation and most techies want the later 17-40 or 16 - 35 models in EF mounts now tho God knows who would need auto focus in those enormous depth of fields ... If you do get thisthe 28/2.8 would be redundant and you would be walking around with a versatile 3 lens outfit covering 20-35/50(+ macro) / 200.

d) The addition of the fast heavy (700gms!)135/2 is Ok .. a good paparazzi lens and match for the 200/2.8 but Id forgo to aquire an 80-200/4L I think to give your sytem a 'seamless ' range of focal lengths .

e)Having destroyed one later FD 50/1.4 by dropping it one time onto a carpeted floor .. cracking the PLASTIC barrel I'd also seriouslyconsider the earlier SSC lenses for longevity ... heavier metal barreled lensesc last longer and dont wear as quick as brittle plastic especialli below zero temps ( Maine ..). Apparently Nikon always used metal Im told ..Also SSC lenses were there before the later FD -L pro lenses and some of the best optically .As Ive said you can try whatever lenses you do get with cheap tubes or bellows and get incredible macro .

f?)Ive got Lens Work, The new F1 World,Canon System (84/85 47ppexcellent guide) and Canon Reflex (88) also excellent if you can find these original Canon publications .Canon System has info on all the lenses and accesories and ironically featured only one AF lens - a 35-70mm f4 zoom . Not sure if its on Canons own website but mine was sourced at David Leung of Ilford UK many years ago.Pages 34/35 "Your guide to close-up photography show what to use for 20:1 magnification .. beyond that its a microscope adapter you'll need ..From my experience I find the 50/3.5 macro just incredible to use and cant recall the last time I went 1:1 ..

g?) The 500/8 Reflex FD would be a good addition if you can find a fine one .. cheap too .If you dont like the doughnut out of focus highlights then go for Fd 400/4.5 .. depends on the application .

h)Limiting your system shouldnt limit your photography .. it just makes it a relatively uncluttered decision .. a purer method of previsualizing and shooting ,in my opinion.

i) One tip for macro .. ALWAYS meter TTL off a 18% grey card every time you move aroun d your subject .. youre huge, its small and YOu affect the amount of light on it .

j) just remember that the 50/3.5 scanned on a hi res scanner should give you the equivalent of a 35-40 MEGAPIXEL image . Digital is not there YET . Convenient yes , superior NO . Hope you find my comments helpful .. Ive only been at it since 1966 and am still learning ..ps Classic Camera of Biddeford , Maine had several brand new 50/3.5 macro for sale last year .. @$225 as I recall but may have sold them now ..

[kris_h]

Well, my trip to B&H and talk with "Bargain Bob" in the used dept sent me home much poorer! I LOVE the 100 f/4 macro! I can't wait to play around with it. I tried the 24mm and compared it to the 28, and yes it is a bit too similar, I want the faster 24 f/1.4 L (??) so I decided to wait on the 24. But when I tried the 20 I liked it a lot. I can see how it'll take a lot of practice, but for my landscapes I'm a very willing student. So I got the 20. Bob was very nice and very patient with me and my questions. I can't wait to try the 50 extension tube on my 50 and 200 as well. Armed with the two new lenses and a couple new filters I'm set for a while. Well until I find the next lens I want! :-)

[gnashings]

'I can't find anyone else who would even consider using a film camera'

 

Try www.apug.org , nothing but film, about 11,000 people and growing ;)