Any opinions on New FD 70-150/4.5?

[andreas_thaler1]

<p>This lens can quite often be seen on ebay to moderate prices. What about the performance of this zoom? I would be glad to get any opinions as I consider a purchase.</p>

[rick_janes]

<p>Andreas, I surfed over to the Canon Museum for a peek at zooms in that focal range- have you also seen the New FD 50-135mm f/3.5? Gary Reese's lens test rates it very highly, though it's a little heavier than a 70-150 and requires 58mm filters.<br>

If that's not a deal-killer it IS one full stop faster in aperture too, handy! </p>

[andreas_thaler1]

<p>Rick, thanks I already own the New FD 50-135/3.5 :-)</p>

[awahlster]

<p>Cut and Dry I've had one and wasn't impressed.</p>

[andreas_thaler1]

<p>Mark, what did you not like about this lens?</p>

[awahlster]

<p>If I remember mine had zoom creep/it was a focal lenght I almost never found a use for/didn't have a look that lent itself well as a Portrait lens (only use I could think of for it)</p>

[User_502260]

<p>Some time ago someone posted old magazine ads and I was surprised at how much the 70-150 originally sold for. I have one but have not used it much. For portraits a 100/2.8 or 85/1.8 is easier to focus and easier to handle. With an F-1 and an L screen and some kind of decent light the 70-150 is not too difficult to use.</p>

[gnashings]

<p>3.5 is a stop faster than 4.5... ? Close but not quite. </p>

[andreas_thaler1]

<p>Some comments regarding the optical performance of this zoom lens?</p>

[sfcole]

<p>I bought one in 1984. It had the reputation as a very sharp lens, which makes sense considering the limitations of its zoom and slowish speed. It was a pretty compact and light weight lens as well.<br>

I'm fairly sure this photo of Himeji Castle was taken with this lens:</p>

<div></div>