Canon FD portrait lens choice

[ivan_gninenko]

<p>Hello guys! So it's my birthday soon and I want a portrait lens for my Canon AE-1 Program. I've been reading bunch of topics on different forums about that and decided that I will choose between 100mm f2 and 85mm f1.8 (also s.s.c. version). There was a lot of good words about both lenses, but I like 100mm f2 more. So the main question is: Is 100mm f2 better to pay more for it, or 85mm f1.8 is good enough? <br />P.S. Sorry if this has been asked, I need a quick answer, if it's possible. (Also sorry if my English is bad) Have a nice day. :)</p>

[barry_hatfield]

<p>Hi Ivan:<br>

In my opinion the 85/1.8 is the way to go. I have one and it is my favorite lens by far. The 85 captures the human face perfectly.</p>

[SCL]

<p>Depending on your subject distance either would work fine. I have the 100/2 but have used 85mm lenses on other cameras for portrait work. Both are good lenses and I'm sure you would be happy with either one.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>I have an 85/1.8 New FD, an older 85/1.8 FL and a number of 100/2.8 FD lenses. I rarely use either 85 wide open for portraits and I use a 100/2.8 more often. My AE-1 Program has a plain matte focusing screen in it now. Whether you get an 85/1.8 or a 100/2 you might find that a plain matte or grid type focusing screen is nicer to use than the standard screen for portraits. You can frame the subject first and then focus on the eyes without having to work around the split image or microprism focusing aids.</p>

[rick_janes]

For this application I prefer the 100/2 for its very small and unintimidating size and that little bit of extra working distance

which put subjects more at ease. The thing is freakishly sharp and a snap to focus!

 

Just to mention it, you should also look at the New FD 85/2.8 Soft Focus. Made specifically for this application, it has

three settings which increasingly soften the appearance of portraits and other "atmospheric" images. Set at zero and

stopped down to f/5.6 or more it's very sharp and plays like a conventional lens. It is tricky to learn the balance between

softness settings and apertures, not to mention lighting influences, but it's really fun (or frustrating...your choice!). I can

recommend bracketing your shooting sessions for best results! The 85/2.8 SF is a rare lens and not that many were

made.

[JDMvW]

<p>Assuming, and I think it's at least partially true, that the older EF prime lenses are continuation of their nFD ancestors, I'd be inclined to recommend the 85mm f/1.8.</p>

<p>On the other hand, with a simple Nikon>FD adapter (they are out there, but a little harder to find than the EF adapters) you can use the spectacular Nikkor 105mm f/2.5. Of course, like almost all these adaptations, it's totally manual, stop-down and all. The non-AI Nikkor 105s are still a bargain, and pretty easy to find. The non-AI versions (makes no difference on a Canon), have sold recently for as little as US$75 on eBay, less than recent prices for the FD 85mm lens.</p>

[jim_bielecki1]

<p >The FD 85/1.8 is a good choice. Deliberately designed to be a bit soft wide-open, it sharpens up nicely as you stop down. I had one years back, which If foolishly sold. Now I use a FD 100/2.8, which works well as a portrait lens.</p>

[chris_roberts10]

<p>The 100/2 is significantly sharper and has smoother bokeh. The 85/1.8 is an okay lens, but firmly in the "nothing special" category of FD glass. If you want to save money, get the 85. If you want the better lens, get the 100.</p>

[johnny_scarecrow]

<p>Hi Ivan,<br /> I've had both the 85mm f1.8 and the 100mm f2. I sold the 100mm f2 because I thought I had too much invested in a lens I wasn't using that much and I got the 85mm f1.8. Since then I have sold that lens and bought back a 100mm f2.<br /> <br /> Why? I just like the character of the 100mm better. It is similar in that way to the Nikkor 105mm f2.5 mentioned above, but it is half a stop faster, lighter and, in my opinion, slightly better in terms of character than the Nikon.<br /> <br /> The 85mm just seemed to be a bit "clinical" to me, in the way I also found the 85mm f1.2 when I briefly owned that. The only two alternatives I'd suggest are the 100mm f2.8, but the chrome-nose one, not the later ones, or the 135mm f2.5, although this doesn't focus as closely as does the 100.<br>

Of course comparing "character" involves highly subjective judgement so what works for me may not work for you. Half the fun is actually trying them for yourself - get one or the other, use it for a while, sell it for what you paid, then try the other one.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Ditto Barry, and others - 85mm/1.8</p>

[ivan_gninenko]

<p>Thanks everyone! Really helpful responses! I found a guy with 100mm f2 in my area, I think I'll get it from him if condition is good. </p>