Quality FD Lenses?

[cmaslow]

Hi all,

 

I just purchased a used AE-1 with a Canon 50mm f/1.8 prime. This is

my first SLR and from reading around here on photo.net I opted for a

cheap body with the intention of buying quality lenses. The largest

selection of FD lenses I've found so far is at bhphotovideo.com and

the brands seem to be Vivitar, Tokina, or Phoenix. I also found some

Quantaray's at Ritz Camera. Being new to SLR's, I'm really clueless

when it comes to judging lens quality. Does anyone have comments on

these brands? I assume with the popularity of the AE-1 there had to

be some good FD lenses made over the years. Could someone provide

links or name of some of the "classic" high quality FD lenses? I'm

pretty much looking for any advice concerning high quality FD lenses.

I'm primarily looking for a good wide angle prime (24 or 28) and a

good telephoto prime (100 or so). Secondary are zooms around 28-70

and 70-300 or possibly even a 28-200.

 

Cheers!

-Craig

[steve_gangi2]

Get the original Canon FD lenses, made by Canon. Pawn shops and swap/auction sites are loaded with them. They are plentiful. fairly cheap now, and you know they will be well made.

[bishop_vc]

Hi Craig,<br><br>

 

Check out these sites:<br><br>

 

<a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/index.htm">The Canon FD Resources - The FD Lenses</a>

<br>

<a href="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/f_lens.html">Canon Camera Museum</a>

<br>

<a href="http://web.mit.edu/dennis/www/canon/fd-lens-info.html">Canon FD Lens Info</a>

<br>

<a href="http://www.kjsl.com/canon-fd/lenses/">Canon FD Lenses</a>

<br><br>

Good luck!<br><br>

 

Regards,<br><br>

 

Steve

[buzz]

Good choice Craig.

 

I own an AE-1 and an F-1. Out of my six lenses, I use my 50 mm 1.4, and 135mm 2.8 the most, if you throw in a 2x tele, you have some good focal lenghts. If you are looking for a good wide angle try a 20mm 2.8, or the 24mm 2.0(if you want to spend the money). Unless you are prepared to spend a lot on a zoom you'll get inferior optics, so a decent one might be a 75-200 4.5 macro (about $120-150 mint). Don't try to stretch that focal lenght too far.

 

Try KEH.com for lenses, they have a good selection.

 

Also make sure you have a flash and tripod.

 

 

good luck!

[John Crowe]

From my experience and from what I have read all of the Canon FD prime lenses are excellent! In general when you pay more for a faster lens ie, maximum aperture f2 instead of f2.8, it is not to get a sharper lens but a lens that is merely faster for low light situations that still maintains the sharpness at it's maximum aperture. Several of these faster lenses carry an "L" designation with a red line marked around the lens. These lenses have special glass to achieve sharp focus at their extremely wide apertures and were designed with pros in mind. Two lenses that come to mind which may be particularly better than their slower counterparts and that do not carry the "L" designation are the 135mm f2 and the 200mm f2.8.

 

If you think you are likely to enjoy a lot of Macro photography, before deciding on a medium telephoto, consider the Canon FD 100mm f4 Macro, you may find that you are able to kill two birds with one stone.

 

Before going superwide 17mm, 20mm, 24mm, I would recommend going medium wide with a 28mm f2.8 or 35mm f2 and see how you like it. The older 35mm f2 with the concave front element is supposed to be sharper than the newer one with the convex front element, but the older one has a significant yellow cast to it that is very apparent in photographs.

 

You will find that the FD series of lenses come in two types of mounts, bayonet and the older breech. Most seem to have a preference for one or the other but I have never really cared. I have both and I have to think about it when ever I try to remember which ones have which mounts, and I have used these for years!

 

As you learn more from Canon's brilliant website I am sure you will have many more questions. One last comment I will make is that I would not have the Canon FD system I have now with out that big auction site, approach it in a slow methodical way and you may find some very attractive deals. Start small until you gain confidence in it. And if you see a deal that is ridiculously too good to be true then it probably isn't! Good luck and enjoy experimenting!

[david_chananie]

Go to the uncategorized questions which have been posted on this list, and you will find two recent discussions about which lenses to buy and best sleeper lenses. The uncategorized questions can be found by going to the very bottom of the page after all the current questions are listed.

[GerrySiegel]

Used FD lenses mean you are going to find a shopper's delight in buying the original, made- for- your- camera Canon lenses. I have never diddled around with anything but them,never found a "dog" in the Canon lineup. If I were starting out again I would go the same route I did twenty five years ago. Buy a good fast 50mm 1.4 (superior I have no doubt than the 1.8, but someone could argue it aint by much), then go for the 28mm f2.8, and next the 100 mm f 2.8 and then one macro lens. 50mm macro or the pricier 100mm. For a zoom I have only one, the two-touch as in two rings to get zoomed and focused macro, one of Canon's most useful range of focal lengths. All of this will cost less than-I betcha- a 19" new Sony LCD monitor at Circuit City...Check out the sites cited and remember, shoot a roll a day, and drink a glass of Merlot in moderate quantitities for health and photoinspiration. Add some dried pitless prunes and you will be a regular chirpy FD forum member like the rest of us.(smiley).Aloha, GS

[larry_mobbs]

I've had a bundle of lenses for Canon F and As and my all time favorite was the 85mm f 1.8. Lens length really depends on what you plan to do but I far preferred the 85 to the 100 because it gave a slightly softer but discernable background. The speed isn't necessarily all that important depending on your needs but being 1.8 makes the lens expensive, even on Ebay.

[cmaslow]

Thanks for the replies and the abundance of information, everyone! It's been a great help.

 

-Craig

[Rob_L1664876404]

Craig,

 

Adorama in New York (one of the supporters of this site) always has a large selection of good, used FD equipment (including lenses). Their web site doesn't always included the latest additions, but they have a 1-800 number and their 35mm staff will be happy to tell you about what they have (don't expect them to advise you on which lenses are best for you, though - that's a slippery slope).

 

KEH in Atlanta (also has a web site) is another volume dealer in used equipment. I've purchased from both (and also from PBPhoto), but have generally been happier with Adorama.

[cmaslow]

I went with two lenses from Adorama, the FDn 24mm f/2.8 and the FDn 135mm f/2.8. I'll likely upgrade to the 50mm f/1.4 at some point down the road. My AE-1 and the lenses should arrive this week sometime. Thanks again for all the advice and links.

 

-Craig

[lee_brand]

Hi - Nothing wrong with the AE-1, It is a fine old camera! As for lenses try to stay with the Canon stuff - they are all very good to fantastic.

 

If you can get aftermarket lenses at good prices then Tokina, Sigma Cosina and the old Vivitar lenses are generally OK - but they all made dogs at some stage. Remember that you are not always going to notice the more subtle lens faults until you start enlarging your photos past postcard size - so this may not be much of an issue as you get started?

 

As another bit of "general" advice - stay away from zooms with really broad focal ranges - 28 to 200 for example. Better to go for the more conservative range if you are not certain about a particular lens - like 28-80 and 80-200mm.

[doug_nelson1]

A third party lens I like that is highly regarded and reasonably priced is the Series 1 Vivitar 90 f2.5 macro. Look for a serial number beginning with 22. It was made by Kiron for Vivitar in the early 70's. It was American-designed in an effort to make non-compromise lenses. It meets some macro needs, but also is a distortion-free short tele. I like Canon's FD 85 1.8 for portraits, but it burned me with severe pincushion distortion in an architectural shot. If you guys would like, I could post this shot. This lens shouldn't be but $100-150 on auctions. Be sure the macro adapter comes with it.

[ptn4egl]

You can always pick up a few of the FD lenses I'm selling :) <a href=http://www.actionathletics.com/forsale/> Canon FD lenses and bodies forsale</a>

<P>

The <a href=http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CanonFD/> Canon FD group on yahoo</a> is also a great place to get information. The archives are worth the free membership alone. Although, I think the archives are open to anyone.

<P>

As far as third party lenses go, head to the <a href=http://medfmt.8k.com/third/cult.html> Third part Cult Classic</a> site.

<BR>

Before my switch to the EOS 1D, my main lenses were a Tokina 24mm f/2.8, Tokina 35-70 f/2.8 ATX, Tokina 80-200 f/2.8 ATX and a Canon 50mm f/1.4. These lenses along with a Canon A-1 with motor drive MA were my staple for many a job assignments for nearly 12 years. I later added some T90's, F1-N and a Canon 400mm f/2.8 and 1.4X's. I briefly owned a Tokina 300mm f/2.8 ATX, but sold that.

<P>

Most of the Canon FD lenses below and at f/4 are great lenses. It's hard to go wrong. As far as focal length goes, I much prefer the 24mm over the 28mm. It's amazing what that 4mm does when you are shooting with a prime lens(the 24mm. The 28mm isn't a prime, it's a fixed focal length). <soapbox > Primes are defined my some fun mathmatical formula: esentially 1.4X the previous focal length. We round to make the numbers nicer: 17, 24, 35, 50, 70, 100, 135, 200, 300, 400. You'll notice that a lot of these lenses are quite popular. The exeptions are the 20mm, 28mm, 85mm and any of the fisheyes or super-telephotos.<soapbox/>

[gregory_nicholson]

Brian, Explain the difference between prime and fixed focal length lenses again including the empirical number 1.4. It makes no sense or logic to me. This is not the first time I've heard that argument. Last time I searched the web and found nothing on this topic.

 

Does this have anything to do with Nikon versus Canon? Canon makes a 14 and a 17mm non-fisheye, while Nikon makes a 13 and 18mm non-fisheye wide angle. Those numbers, 13 and 18, happen to be closer to your 1.4 rule. Please enlighten me.

[John Crowe]

Hi Gregory!

 

Perhaps someone will post a real answer to your question, in the meantime I will see what I can figure out. As a starting point 1.4 is a very important number re-occuring in photographic math (ie. 1.4, 2.8, 5.6 etc...) It is likely a shortened version of 1.414....which is the square root of 2. And since light falls off at rate directly proportional to the square of the distance from the source, then this has something to do with it. It's the same reason a 1.4x (there it is again!) converter only loses 1 stop of light and a 2x converter loses 2 stops. I will put pen to paper and see what I can remember from much too long ago! I love a mathematical challenge!

 

As a "single focal length lens" selection criteria, it may have some use. When I had a 24mm and a 50mm, the two were just too far apart, and the 24mm was always either too wide or not wide enough! Now I have a 17mm, 35mm, and 55mm and I am dying to pick up a 24mm (of course for next to nothing!) To me 28mm has always been too close to 24mm and 35mm, it was probably created as the one lens answer to wide angle photography.

 

When I get bored at work I will see if I can figure this thing out!

[gregory_nicholson]

I understand the square root of two part. It's ridiculous to say that 24mm is better than 28mm simply because its focal length is a number from which 50 is divided by 1.4 and then by 1.4 again. It might have some small thing to do with the accuracy of exposure but image quality, I don't know. If it was a fact, then why would Canon or Nikon make an auto focus 28mm f/1.4 that sells for $1400.

 

I think some people are full of hot air, like that guy that recommends 3rd Party Cult Classics when the original question asked about Quality FD lenses.

[alan_swartz]

Hmmm. . .I'll steer in a bit different direction and pose another idea. Indeed, the square root of 2 is an important figure for us photographically, but it's also interesting to note diagonal angles of view wider than that of the 50mm:<br><br>

 

14mm, 114 degrees<br>

17mm, 104 degrees<br>

20mm, 94 degrees<br>

24mm, 84 degrees<br>

28mm, 75 degrees (close enough!)<br>

35mm, 63 degrees <br><br>

 

Perhaps this regular succession explains the succession of focal lengths. I enjoyed learning the true definition of "primes." I've only heard it applied in the loose sense to all fixed-length lenses. As a teacher, learning means a great deal to me, and this forum, with all its varied input, remains a good source.<br><br>

 

Back to Craig's original question, I'd have to agree that any genuine FD lens will be very good at moderate image sizes. The famous stars of the lineup, such as the "L" lenses, will be outstanding as far as the 35mm format can take us.<br><br>

 

It was recently said (perhaps above--don't remember!) that the more exotic, faster lenses <i>are</i> exotic in order to improve performance at wide apertures. The gist of the "L" series would seem to be to provide maximum performance wide open, or at extreme focal lengths, rather than to be superior under more ordinary conditions. Even the more mundane FD lenses are quite good at smaller apertures.