Tell me about FD wide-angles

[dzeanah]

OK, I'm moving back into the Canon FD realm. It turns out the T90 is

the best camera I've ever used (other than the M-leicas, but they're a

different breed), so as my photography turns more into personal work,

I'm moving back.

 

Right now I've got a 35/2 SSC, 50/1.4 SSC, and 100/2 nFD. My

experience with Leica was that 35mm often wasn't wide enough, but 15mm

was too wide. I'm trying to decide which lens to go with in the FD

realm, and can use input from experienced folks.

 

Right now the options seem to be the 24/2.8, the 20/2.8, the 17mm, or

maybe a 24-35 or 20-35 L zoom. Which would y'all recommend?

 

In general I don't like zoom lenses, but there are lots of situations

in the past where a 20-35 would have been incredibly useful. I'm not

afraid of third-party lenses either, but don't know about the quality

of available wide-angles.

 

Right now, I'm leaning toward either the 24 or 20. Which is "better"?

How do the 24-35 and 20-35 compare optically? What third-party

lenses should I be seriously considering?

 

Thanks in advance.

[richard_zevnik]

I got a 24mm f2.0 last fall. I really like the perspective of this lens both indoors and out. I assume based on my 28mm f2.8 that the 24mm f2.8 would make indoor available light focusing more difficult than f2.0, but I think you're likely to be pleased with the 24mm. It's wide but without grossly unnatural perspective.

[phule]

I got a 24mm/f2.8 off of Ebay for a good price (for my AE-1). I really like the lens. I've used it almost exclusively outdoors, hand-held. I'll probably end up saving up for a 24/f2.8 for the Elan7 and used the AE-1 as a wide-angle backup, but for now it's all I've got below 50mm :)

[gregory_nicholson]

Right now, I'm leaning toward either the 24 or 20. Which is "better"? One is wider and one takes smaller filters, that's about it.

All the Canon wide angle primes are excellent and compare favorably with the other Japanese offerings of the time. These optics were designed in the 70's and 80's but do hold up well to what is available today. This is true even for the 50 f/1.4 that was designed in the 60's. If your perspective is from the Leica M camera you might find a wide-angle zoom on an SLR quite useful. The four that stand out are the 20-35 f/3.5 L, 24-35 f/3.5 L or aspherical, 28-50 f/3.5 and 35-105 f/3.5. Any of these will give prime lens quality for normal use. The primes that stand out are the 14 f/2.8 L, 17 f/4, 20 f/2.8, 24 f/1.4 L, 24 f/2, Tilt/Shift 35 f/2.8 SSC and the 35 f/2 chrome nose.

 

The lower level lenses are at such a discounted price right now a 3rd party lens of similar optical quality will probably be close to 50% the price. None will be markedly better than the genuine product, but rather a decent substitute. I say get a Canon lens unless your budget doesn't allow, but I doubt that. I have a Sigma 21-35 f/3.5-4.2, the later one sold after 1992. It has 12 elements in 12 groups, 77mm filter threads, this lens is very well built with impressive optics for a $190 lens. I would guess, because I haven't used one, that the 20-35 f/3.5 L with its aspherical element would out perform it in every aspect. But the L lens was out of my price range at the time of purchase.

[timothy_fitzgerald]

I think if you're looking for a good, general-purpose wide-angle lens, the 24mm focal length would be your better choice if you select a prime lens; while I find 20mm to also be a fun and useful focal length, it will give a more exaggerated perspective to your shots, so if you aren't looking for that sort of effect, 24mm will probably be the better choice.<P>

 

By your own admission, you seem to be encountering a lot of situations where a wide-angle zoom would be the more useful lens; either "L" zoom will cover this focal length and should provide excellent results; the 20-35 L will, of course, be more expensive, but more versitile too. Probably the main disadvantage with the "L" zooms is lens speed; the Canon primes will be faster lenses, so if you plan to do a lot of low-light, flash-free shooting, you should factor that into your decision.<P>

 

I'm looking to sell an FD 24mm f/1.4 L lens, but it's in fairly rough overall condition; my asking price is fairly discounted over the going rate for the lens, but I will consider reasonable offers. If interested, check it out <B><A HREF="http://home.alltel.net/timfitz/for_sale_pn.html">H E R E</A></B>, or contact me via e-mail.

[billangel]

I've been getting good results with the following third-party lenses:

Vivitar 24mm/2.8 and Tokina 17mm/3.5. One thing I noticed though is that it is difficult to avoid vinetting when utilizing an ordinary polarizing filter with the 17mm lens.

[david_goldfarb]

There might be some sample variation among those Tokina 17/3.5's. I had one (the original version, not the current one) and it was unsharp an any aperture. They sold lots of them, though, so I wouldn't be surprised if I just got a bad sample.

[billangel]

All the images in my

<A href = "http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=319855">Discovery Communications World Headquarters</a> folder were shot with the Tokina 17/3.5 set to f16. I'd be happy to supply additional info about the lens (serial number etc.) if someone were to develop an interest in acquiring such a lens.

[buzz]

I've just recently purchased a 24-35 3.5L. I've only shot 2 or 3 rolls of film with it, but so far I've found the focal lenghts quite convienent and I am happy. It costs about $250 less than the 20-35L.

Both of these lenses have UD glass and are supposed to produce images as good or better than most primes. I have not found myself needing the extra speed of a 2.8 or 2.0 either. Good luck.

[pensacolaphoto]

I have always had a dislike to wide angle zoom lenses, so I use the following fixed focal length wide angle lenses:

7.5mm (fish-eye) : too specialized but interesting

17mm/4 : an excellent lens for landscape photography

19mm (Vivitar): small and very light. Not bad at all.

24mm/2.8: an excellent wide angle lens overall.

28mm/2.0 : also an excellent lens that is also fast.

35mm/2.0 Can be used as a "normal" lens. Recommended.

[John Crowe]

Since you have the 35mm, I would go with the 24mm for now and get the 17mm later if you like the superwide angle view. 20mm is too far from 35mm and not wide enough for superwide shots.

 

I love the 17mm and for the longest time the next closest lens that I had was a 55mm! Now I have the 24mm and 35mm.

 

Good luck!

[ari_kermaier]

I love my 28mm f/2 for street shooting, because it's compact, lightweight and has a versatile angle of view. For indoor or other low-light situations, I use my 24mm f/1.4 L, which is pretty big and heavy, but produces great images. I shoot almost exclusively hand-held available-light, so the f/3.5 maximum aperture on FD zooms is a little restrictive for me, and the size/weight vs. primes makes me think twice about actually going out with a zoom.