Canons best FD portrait lens 85/1.8 -100/2 or f2.8 - 135/2 or f2.5 (?)

[richard_garrett1]

<p>Hi Guy<br /> I am hoping you can help me out. I'm a Reportage street photographer<br /> trying to complete my perfect 3 lens triad for fast available light photography.<br /> I have a black AE1-P, F1, 35/f2 SSC concave, 50/1.4n, 50/1.4 SSC <br /> and am looking for the last piece of the puzzle. I love speed but am not looking to <br /> kill my self weight wise. Thanks for any and all help you can give with this.<br /> Richard Garrett<br /> PS: can the original f1 use the f1n focusing screens and how do you change them?</p>

[dave_s]

<p>The easy question first: no, the original pre-1981 F-1 (both versions) will not take the focusing screens 'FN' from the post-1981 F-1N.</p>

<p>The question about lenses: this is going to be impossible to answer, because it depends so much on personal style. Everyone will have his/her personal take on this. </p>

<p>I actually have all five of the lenses on your list, which is pathetic and it must mean I'm becoming a collector, but I accumulate them when I see a good deal. If I had to choose only one lens, it would be the 100/2.0, or possibly the 85/1.8. The best bang for the buck is undoubtedly the 135/2.5, which is a real sleeper. </p>

[awahlster]

<p>From your list I would go with the 100mm f2.0 nFD I use mine for weddings and love it's results. I also have the 85mm f1.8 nFD 100mm f2.8 S.S.C. and 135mm f2.5 S.C. As well as a 85mm f2.8 Soft Focus nFD which in it'self is quite the one off portrait lens as it gives you sharp to an almost dreamy look.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>In 1976 Canon improved the original F-1. The new model is often referred to as the F-1n. The same screens fit the F-1 and the F-1n. In 1981 a new F-1 model came out. It is referred to as the F-1N. Its screens are not compatible with the F-1 and F-1n bodies. <br>

The subject of FD portrait lenses has been brought up in many other threads. I have two 100/3.5 FL lenses, an 85/1.8 FL, two chrome front 100/2.8 FDs, a 100/2.8 FD SSC, two 100/2.8 New FDs, an 85/1.8 New FD and the 135/2.5 FD SC. I do not have the 135/2 FD, the 100/2 New FD or either 85/1.2 lens. All of the lenses I have are sharp. The questions you have to ask yourself have to do with lighting and depth of field. I don't really like portraits done any wider than f/2.8. Even an 85/1.8 will just show the tips of the eyeballs as sharp if used wide open. At f/1.2 only part of the tips of the eyeballs are sharp. If you like that look then go for the fastest lens you can find. Some people like the faster lenses for ease of focusing even if they don't intend to use them wide open for close subjects. By f/4 or f/5.6 a 100/2.8 and a 100/2 or 85/1.8 will all look very good. I don't think any of the 135mm FD lenses focus close enough for a tight portrait. My favorite 135 for portraits is the Vivitar f/2.8 Close Focusing. I have two of them in FD mount. You can always use a short extension tube with a 135 if you just like the extra working distance. The 85/1.8 and 100/2.8 New FD lenses are somewhat smaller and lighter than their earlier FD SSC counterparts. The 85/1.8 lenses tend to sell for much less than the somewhat rare 100/2 New FD. Medium telephoto macro lenses can also be used for portraits. Some people consider them too sharp for portrait use and some of the lenses have odd out of focus rendition compared to the non-macro medium telephotos. Medium telephoto macro lenses I have used for portraits include the 90/2.5 Vivitar Series 1, 90/2.5 Tamron SP (2nd model), 100/2.8 Vivitar (22XXX...), 90/2.8 Vivitar, 90/2.5 Rokunar, 100/3.5 Vivitar (Cosina), 100/4 Canon New FD, 90/2.8 Panagor, 105/4 Konica Hexanon (W/Auto Helicoid). </p>

 

[chris_waller]

<p>For my money it's got to be the 85/1.8. It's absolutely pin sharp.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>There is really no contest. The FDn 100mm f/2 is the finest short tele made. It's compactness and high speed make it a shoe-in for reportage. But the wonderful optical quality makes this a desireable lens for all FD shooters. Here is a casual portrait of my wife, Suzie, shot with this lens at f/2.8.</p><div></div>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>I have the 85 1.8, 135mm F2, 100mm F2 and an older 135mm F2.5. All of these lenses are great, the stand outs are the 135mm F2, which is the best of the lot, and the 100mm F2, which is amazingly compact...something the 135 'aint!<br>

For portraits and general walk around stuff the 100mm F2 is a no brainer, small and compact, sharp as a tack, and just the right amount of reach.<br>

I would also agree with previous comments about the 135mm 2.5 being a sleeper, still quite heavy though.</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>I'm also a fan of the FDn 100/2 as well. It really is amazingly sharp and the compact size is the icing on the cake.</p>

[summitar]

<p>Louis, beautiful photo of a beautiful woman. Lucky you!</p>

[jay_mcclure]

<p>Though I rarely shoot them wide open, I am a big fan th the original FD breechlock versions of the 85mm 1.8 and the 135mm 2.5 personally.</p>

[User_4136860]

<p>My favourite is the FD 85mm 1.2 L , I also have the 1.8 version that is very very good lens and a lot less expensive . I think on balance I would recommend the 85mm f1.8.if you want it purely for portraits, if you want a short telephoto as part of a three lens outfit that can be used for portraits that is also more generally useful I would go for the 100mm f2.</p>