135mm or 200mm?

[bill_force]

<p>I have a variety of FD zoom lenses covering from 24 to 300 and 3 primes, 2- 50mm 1.8 and the 1.4 plus a 24mm F.2.8. I want to start doing some "home" developed B&W and scan myself.<br>

I am going to buy another prime and can't decide between the FD 135mm and a FD 200mm.<br>

I will call on your experience with these prime lenses to tell me which one you think I would use more,. 99% of my photography is landscapes. I have used my 80-200 zoom at both these settings, 135 and 200 but see little diff on the zoom? Eventually I will no doubt buy both but for a start which one. My principal cameras are Nikon DSLR's and don't want to invest too much coin on an experiment with B&W. I still have and use 4 Canon film cameras, A-1, AE-1 Pro, and 2 FTQL's, all are still working great.</p>

[craigd]

<p>I don't see how anyone could tell you which focal length you would use more. This sort of thing varies a great deal from one person to another, and you ought to know your habits better than anyone else could.</p>

<p>A 200mm lens covers about 2/3 of the width of a 135mm lens's view. The difference is pretty significant.</p>

<p>Since you have zoom lenses covering 24-300mm, what is your goal in buying more primes? Are the zooms inadequate? Do you need faster apertures, or sharper images? I would think that if you look at how you use the lenses you have, and how (if at all) they fail to satisfy you, that should tell you what additional lenses you should buy.</p>

<p>I can say that the FD 200mm f/2.8 SSC is a very nice lens, though fairly large.</p>

[mike_stemberg]

<blockquote>

<p>I am going to buy another prime and can't decide between the FD 135mm and a FD 200mm.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I went through a similar 'think-time' deciding between those two focal-lengths. I opted for a compromise by getting myself a 135mm along with a x1.4 converter. I am a Canon person (is why I said mentioned the x1.4). I do believe the Nikon conversion adapter would almost give you the capabilities of both the focal lengths you are pondering about. Good Luck!</p>

[bill_force]

<p>Craig, I was merely asking for personal preferrences from landscape photographers.<br>

Incidently, I have a Canon FD 2X converter, bought it 4 years ago and never used it.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>The FDn 135/2 is a favourite prime of FD users, and is surely sharper than the 200/2.8.</p>

<p>I would suggest, however, that you consider acquring an FDn 80-200/4 L. Most agree that it is the best FD zoom ever made and, furthermore, that at 200mm it is optically superior to the 200/2.8. And it sells for surprisingly little these days. You'll likely will be able to find one for the same price as either of the aforementioned primes.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Ditto on what Mark said. I never had the 135/2 but I had two versions of the 200/2.8 and the 80-200/4 L. The L zoom is superb!</p>

[bill_force]

<p>Good advice, because I already have the 80-200 (non-"L") I never gave it a thought. Having used Nikon Digital (D2x) for several years I had become partial to Nikon primes....they truly are better than even the 24-70 I have. Also my FD 50mm F/1.4 is a vey good lens.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>The 80-200 is great as everyone says, although you have to like push-pull (they disappeared for a reason), and it does have some distortion.<br>

Don't rule out the very sharp, light, and cheap 200 f4. </p>

[dave_s]

<p>(i) I agree with all the comments so far. </p>

<p>(ii) You're a landscaper, so let me offer a contrarian view. For landscapes, you'll probably use the tele at a small aperture, like f/8, give or take a stop. At that kind of aperture, all FD lenses perform very, very well. You might consider a simple 135/2.8, which is small, light, and can be found for next to nothing. (That's much the same advice as Scott's, to check out the 200/4.)</p>

<p>(iii) If you took portraits at wide-ish apertures, the best bang <em>for the buck </em>is arguably the 135/2.5, which is a breechlock lens from the 70s. It has really nice out-of-focus rendition, and you can find one for less than a hundred bucks. Downside is it's heavy-- has a big thick element near the front.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Yes, the 135/2.5 is a treat. Another very fine FD lens for portraiture is the oft-overlooked 100/2.</p>

[rick_janes]

Mark just beat me to suggesting an FD 100/2. If long enough, it is one of the system's real gems. Much, much

smaller and lighter than either the 135/2 or 200/2.8, it uses 52mm filters instead of 72. About its only drawback is the

lack of a built-in lens hood.

 

I do tend towards shorter focal lengths for landscapes however, too often finding atmospheric conditions limiting the

usefulness of longer lenses for distance work.

[flatulent1]

<p>You want to add one prime, with the intention of adding the other at some later date. Then it doesn't matter which; get whatever's available now at a reasonable price. That would most likely be the 135, unless you're aware of a great deal on a 200 right now.</p>

<p>As has been said, which one you will use more is a question only you can answer. Some points to consider:</p>

<ul>

<li>The 200 f/2.8 and 135 f/2 are both large and heavy; one of them is going to stay at home.</li>

<li>The least useful lens is the one that always stays home.</li>

</ul>

<p>I have found over the years that there really isn't enough of a visual difference to me between 135mm and 200mm to warrant my carrying both. In fact, as I get older I find myself downsizing everything: smaller bags, smaller cameras, smaller and fewer lenses. Lately I've taken to carrying a pair of bodies with a pair of primes (24 & 135), period. And I don't seem to miss what I've left at home.</p>

[bill_force]

<p>Fred,<br>

I think you have a handle on the situation, I'll just look for the best buy on either because I'll add the other one later. I also intent to add a 35-105 at some point, I have the range covered but maybe a little weak in the 85-100 range and the 35-105 appears to be the ticket. My only question, is the FDn as good as the older FD two touch?</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>Bill, Mike had a decent suggestion that I will second. You can buy off eBay a Nikon F to Canon FD adapter for not a lot, and this will allow you to use all of your Nikon glass on your FD cameras. Manual aperture of course, but all your Canons will do stop-down metering. This can potentially save you some bucks, depending on your Nikon lens inventory.</p>

<p>I'm partial to the old BL Canon 135/2.5, but it is big and heavy, and I used to own the 2nd version of the nFD 200/2.8 (with internal focusing). It's also big and heavy. I really liked that lens, but I really didn't like the green and magenta fringing that it would produce with hard lines against a bright background (like tree branches against the sky, for instance). I currently own a nFD 200/4, and it is really a thing of beauty. Very light, tack sharp, and can usually be picked up for cheap used. As can the nFD Canon 135/3.5. So, if you really want to get another Canon prime, why not a couple of small ones? They're both light, both very sharp, and neither will put much of a dent in your wallet. And then you won't need to fret over which one you should have bought because you'll have both.</p>

 

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>I also intent to add a 35-105 at some point, I have the range covered but maybe a little weak in the 85-100 range and the 35-105 appears to be the ticket. My only question, is the FDn as good as the older FD two touch?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bill, both of the 35-105's are FDn. The earlier, better one is f/3.5, and the later one is f/3.5-4.5. The later FDn 28-85/4 is also optically very good, but it's build quality is inferior to that of the 35-105/3.5.</p>

[flatulent1]

<p>Mark, I don't see that. I use both the 28-85 f/4 and 35-105 f/3.5 and they seem identical. (Now you've got me curious; I'm going to have to drag them both out to see.)</p>

<p>Bill, the 35-105 f/3.5 is generally considered to be superior to the f/3.5-4.5. I have never used the latter so can't say from experience.</p>

[flatulent1]

<p>Regarding the 200 f/2.8, I believe there are two versions. One has internal focus (and a non-rotating filter ring) which is particularly advantageous when using polarizers or split ND filters. I scored one off ebay a few years ago, described as excellent; what arrived was so battered I sent it right back and haven't tried again since.</p>

[bill_force]

<p>After doing some research and observing my lenses that I do have one thing is graphically obvious...the old lock ring lenses are in a whole different ballpark regarding build quality. I had never really looked closely until I had a problem removing a BL lens and had to disassemble the ring to remove the lens (worked out O.K.) but checking th new FD lens mount closely on another lens I was somewhat dissapointed with the construction vs. the lock ring lens. The new FD has a thin metal lock ring attached with 3 screws to a totally plastic sub-base on the actual lens. I could see where it could break if hit very hard. FYI plastics in the tropics last about as long as a tank driver in combat. I have an entire box filled with digital P&S cameras, mostly Olympus that stripped the focus gears after about 3 or 4 years here. I also have a Tammy AF-80-200 for my DSLR that broke the mounting ears off. I am jaundiced against plastics here in the tropics. My FD 50mm F/1.8 that actually came with my AE-1 Program camera when new is O.K. because of the size and weight, almost nothing but larger lens are a different thing, I'll just stick with the metal mounts.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>Mark, I don't see that. I use both the 28-85 f/4 and 35-105 f/3.5 and they seem identical.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Optically, yes, but the 35-105 is more robustly built, at least IMHO. But some might prefer the 28-85, since it's quite a bit lighter and more compact. </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>After doing some research and observing my lenses that I do have one thing is graphically obvious...the old lock ring lenses are in a whole different ballpark regarding build quality. I had never really looked closely until I had a problem removing a BL lens and had to disassemble the ring to remove the lens (worked out O.K.) but checking th new FD lens mount closely on another lens I was somewhat dissapointed with the construction vs. the lock ring lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Although I've never had a serious problem with the mounts of any of my (many) FDn lenses, I definitely agree that the earlier BL's are much better built. And the earliest "chrome nose" versions are the best built of all. Unfortunately, they are in relatively short supply, given their age and short production run.</p>

[bill_force]

<p>Michahael McBroom,<br>

Thank you for suggesting the Nikon F to FD adapter, I really didn't know they had one. I have an FD to Nikon adapter but never gave it a thought to go the other way. I can see it's really a better way to go for 2 reasons, the Nikon F lenses I already have and there is no corrective "glass" in the adapter.<br>

Bill</p>

[gordon_yee]

<p>I guess I have a somewhat contrarian point of view. While I don't own the FDn 28-85 f/4 lens, I've always considered it to be one of Canon's top tier non-L FD lenses. I examined one in the '80s but couldn't afford it, settling instead for the Vivitar 28-85 f/2.8-3.5 variable focus lens. I do own the FDn 35-105 f/3.5 which strikes me as one of their better advanced amateur/consumer lenses. The FDn 28-85 was more expensive ($460 vs $384 retail) and has the 8 bladed diaphragm normally reserved for Canon's top tier lenses (vs 5 blades for the FDn 35-105). My recollection is that the FDn 28-85 is at least as well made as the FDn 35-105.</p>

<p>That said, if you need to fill the 85mm to 100mm void, I'd suggest Canon's 85mm or 100mm prime telephotos. One thing that bothers me about wide to telephoto zooms is that the lens hoods are designed to work at the widest focal length, not ideal for landscapes at the telephoto end. With its dedicated lens hood and fewer elements, a prime lens should perform better with respect to reducing flare and cutting through the haze. Also, zooms are inherently compromises when it comes to distortions and abberations.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I have the 135 f2, 80-200 F4L, 200 F2.8 Internal focusing. Of the three the 135 F2 is the best perform are and a remarkable lens. I find that it is very close to my 85 F1.2s in terms of performance and is probably the best non L lens in the Fd line up - it even has a built in hood. The 80-200 L is also a very impressive lens and I once posted images comparing this lens to the 200 F2.8 IF. The 80-200 performs better than the 200 IF at most apertures - it is clearly the sharper lens of the two. Stopped down the 200 IF is better in terms of CA but my choice would be 135 F2 or failing that the 80-200 F4 L</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<blockquote>

<p>Michahael McBroom,<br /> Thank you for suggesting the Nikon F to FD adapter, I really didn't know they had one. I have an FD to Nikon adapter but never gave it a thought to go the other way. I can see it's really a better way to go for 2 reasons, the Nikon F lenses I already have and there is no corrective "glass" in the adapter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Glad I could help, Bill. As I dimly recall, Canon actually made Nikon to FD adapters for a while, but good luck finding one. Canon also made others -- I have a Canon M42 to FD adapter that I've used occasionally on my FD cameras with some M42 lenses I own. The Nikon-FD adapter I bought off eBay was made in China, but it is a well-made piece and infinity focus is retained. Mine looks just like this one: http://www.ebay.com/itm/MASSA-Nikon-Lens-Canon-FD-Mount-Adapter-/290539332050?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43a57e61d2</p>

<p> </p>

[zensphoto]

<p>I have the prime 135mm lens, the only time I have it on the camera is when I am shooting a portrait of a person. I use my 80mm - 200mm the most when I am out shooting. I created a two camera kit AE-1 Program silver and black bodies. The black one usually has the 50mm f/1.4 on it and the silver has the 80 - 200mm on it. Both are always loaded with the same kind of b&w or color film. I don't have the 200mm prime for this kit, I probably wouldn't use the 200mm prime very much but then that has to do with my shooting style.</p>