FD Portrait Lens Recomendations?

[david_tavares]

Looking for a good FD lens for portrait work. I'm using a 50mm lens

right and like it but i feel i need something a little longer...maybe

a 80 or 100mm lens? How do these focal lengths compare? I like to

work light and quick...thanks David

[dave_s]

I asked a similar question here several months ago-- several guys suggested the 85/1.8, and I took their advice. Perfect portrait length, at least the way I see things, and I use it a lot for scenics too. I've barely touched the 135 since I've had it.

 

85s aren't in that great a supply, but you should be able to find a nice one for around $200 - 250.

 

It's a funny thing-- when I bought my first AT-1 in 1979, I bought a separate 135/3.5 with it, which I still have. Seems everyone had a 135 back then, but in hindsight I can't fathom why it was such a popular focal length. Sort of wish the salesguy had talked me into an 85 or a 100 at that time, or a 100/4 macro. Might have got some better pictures-- who knows.

[james_ewing2]

I use the FD 135mm f3.5 This is a great lens. I basically use it as the lens of preference in my opinion. I also use a zoom 70-210. This is a good lens due to its range of focal lengths so I don't move so much.

[GerrySiegel]

The Canon FD 85mm and the Canon FD 100 are both fine lenses. I just happen to have both in my arsenal. I find the 100mm to be an exceptionally sharp and compact lens and recommend it if you want a coin toss. As you will note, there is no agreement about what focal length is correct for a prime "portrait lens." There are times when 200 mm is exactly right. You won't go wrong with either the 85 or the 100, you don't need both. I got carried away with a bargain offering on the 85mm. Has some good qualities I won't go into because they are on FD web sites ad infinitum. Gerry

[michael_linn]

I'll second that emotion on the FD 100/2.8. Compact and very sharp lens. Bought mine new in 1975 and I've always thought it one of the best values in the FD line.

[charles barcellona www.bl]

I prefer a longer shooting distance... and actually prefer the 135 to either the 85 or 100 if I can get away with the distance.

 

THe 135/2.5 or even a 135/2.0nFD would be great

[gregory_nicholson]

Hi David, I have been thinking about the 50-135 f/3.5 myself. I think it would be pretty useful but no one seems to talk about it. New it sold for more than the highly regarded 35-105 f/3.5. Canon states in their sale brochures it has the optical quality of a fixed focal length lens and they did not lay that claim on any other zoom except the 150-600.

 

 

If you like primes you can choose from the 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2 and f/2.8 and the 135 f/3.5, f/2.8, f/2.5 SC and f/2. Except for the 135 f/2 they are all going to give the same high quality photos. The 135 f/2 is a big notch above for its sharpness wide open and every aperture up to f/16 is excellent.

"How do these focal lengths compare?" I would say that the 85 is for inside, traditional and calm portraits, the 100 is more for high fashion and glamour and the 135 is for fun outdoor portraits. I don't know if any one will agree though.

 

 

If you are interested in price it goes, or should go like this, 135 f/3.5, 135 f/2.8, 100 f/2.8, 135 f/2.5 SC, 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2 and the most expensive being the 135 f/2.

 

 

For quick and light without braking the bank I would go with the 100 f/2.8, new or old. Remember though the older SSC versions of these lenses took 55mm filters, the newer one's 52mm, the 135 f/2.5 SC took 58mm and the 135 f/2 used 72mm. Something to consider if you like filters. Hoods for the 85 f/1.8 SSC, 100 f/2.8 SSC and 135 f/3.5 SC are about the cheapest around, it's the BT55. All the 135's had build in hoods except the f/3.5 for some reason.

 

Try Kenmore Cameras they have about 20 or 30 portrait lenses from 40 to 60 bucks.

 

http://www.kcamera.com/main/invusd/usedca.htm

[pvp]

If you decide on a longer focal length such as 135mm -- and unless you are working in confined spaces, there's much to be said for that -- go for the FD 135/2.5. It has a bit of uncorrected spherical aberation that makes the unfocused areas nice and creamy smooth.

[chris_waller]

I have both the 85mm and the 100mm. I loved the 100mm but

unfortunately the diaphragm linkage has failed and it's stuck at

full aperture. The 85mm is very sharp and seems easier to

focus than the 100mm used to be. The 100mm was excellent

for head and shoulders portraits, but the 85mm is better for 3/4

length.

[bob_mcbob]

The same thing happened to my 100mm. I didn't notice it for a while because I was using it open most of the time. I took some shots in the middle of the day once, and they ended up grossly overexposed, and I noticed that it was sitting wide open when not attached to the camera... bummer. I'm going to try fixing it when I can figure out which Phillips screwdriver to buy for the smaller screws on the back (I got the larger ones off, then noticed I didn't have the right screwdriver for the others). I'm told this is a fairly common problem with this lens nowadays.

[vincent_jan]

I personally prefer using the 135mm focal length. Greg, I have the 50-135mm f/3.5 lens and I don't much care for it when doing portraits. At 135mm, it doesn't focus close enough for a tight head shot. I really like the Vivitar Series 1 135mm f/2.3. It's a terrific lens if you can't afford the Canon 135mm f/2.

[charles barcellona www.bl]

Chris Waller - dont give up on the stuck mechanism. Either the spring came off its stud, or the mechanism is just gummy from dried lube. Both are REAL easy to fix.

[bishop_vc]

Chris, <p>

 

The small screws are likely not Philips; they're likely Japanese Industry Standard (JIS) Crosspoint screws. I recently fixed my new FD 50/1.8 and the small screws which held the lens mounting ring were No. 00 crosspoint screws. I also took apart 2 T-90s and made 1 fully operational franken-T90. All screws were No. 00 crosspoints.<p>

 

 

Crosspoint screwdrivers have slightly slimmer "blades" than Philips screwdrivers.<p>

 

 

You can get them <a href="http://www.e-sci.com/jensen/RENDER/1/26/235/3483.html">here</a> and I'm sure other places as well. Perhaps <a href="http://www.micro-tools.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=MT&Product_Code=XPT-SET">here</a> as well.<p>

 

 

Regards,<p>

 

 

Steve

[chris_waller]

Reply to Chris Birkett,

 

I also have a 135mm lens whose diaphragm is stuck at full aperture. I sent it to Canon but they said that the necessary part to fix it is no longer available.

[bill_dewberry]

The lens to use is 85 1.8 SSC, chrome ring.

[bino lee]

David,

 

I've used Vivitar's Series 1 135mm f2.3 with great success. Awesome subject seperation @ f2.3 to bring the eyes snapped into focus. These don't sell for too much... i got mine off of everyone's hated auction site. :)

[bob_mcbob]

There are two sets of screws on the 100mm. The outer ones came off with a #1 head (though they could have done with a slightly smaller one). The inner screws are a lot smaller than that, would those be the #00 ones? I tried to find some standard measures for the screws so I could measure mine and find out the appropriately sized screwdriver to order, but I never had any luck with that.

[gregory_nicholson]

The CRAFTSMAN 41676 PH 000x40 is the screwdriver to get for the smallest phillips screws. Get the 41677 PH 00x40 too. Only $5 each at any Sears. Very strong for such a small screwdriver, easily ten times tougher than the 'made in China' kit of jewelers screwdrivers sold everywhere for under ten dollars.

[bill_g2]

<p>If price were no object, I'd buy the 85/1.2L for portraits.

 

<p>But here in the real world where price <i>is</i> an object, I have both the 85/1.8 and 135/2.8. I really like the small size and speed of the 85/1.8. Beautiful blurred backgrounds and an overall great lens.

 

<p>The 135 is a bit larger and slower, but I get equally good results from it.

 

<p>Between the two, I probably shoot with the 85 10x more than the 135. Reason? Because I can leave the 85 on as a walk around lens.

 

<p>Good luck.

[buzz]

I have the 85 1.2L, since I bought it I have rarely used my 50 1.4.

I have found that I use it for many applications including landscape, you can isolate a subject and either blur the background or stop it down and do a landscape. However, it was about $600 in ex. cond., but well worth it.

[._._z]

To tweak something Jeff Spirer said on another thread:

 

A portrait lens is a lens you use to make portraits. For many years, there was no such

thing as a portrait lens, but many photographers made great portraits. Much of the

time, it was a "standard" lens, like a Rollei TLR with an 80mm lens. Somewhere along

the way, "portrait" became confused with "headshot." It was probably a brilliant

marketing idea by someone at one of the camera manufacturers, realizing that they

could sell a lot more lenses if they called something a "portrait lens."

 

There are some types of portraits that do call for certain focal lengths, usually

headshots, which need a longer length since agencies expect a certain look for

headshots. It's also generally a good idea for fashion shots since art directors often

look for a certain look there.

 

But for portraits, you can use anything that makes you and your subjects work

together well. I typically use the 35mm lens that's grafted onto my Yashica T-4 when

shooting in 35mm format. Better still for environmental portraits I shoot with a 24/

2.8 lens, which has in fact become my primary lens.

 

I have the FD 135/2.8 and use it quite a bit, but almost never for portraits because

unless I back up far enough to have to shout over to my subjects when I'm

photographing, I'm just making a headshot, which doesn't interest me much.

 

Jane Brown has photographed musicians and actors for five decades for the London

Observer. Until the early 1970s she exclusively used a Rolleiflex TLR with its built-in

80mm lens -- comparable to a 50mm in 35mm format. A normal lens. Since 1971

she's exclusively used a batteryless, meterless Olympus OM-1 with a 50mm lens and

Tri-X. A normal lens -- and she has gotten gorgeous results from the combination.

 

You can find a Flash gallery of her work here:

 

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/JaneBown/JaneBown_gallery.swf

 

One of Mike Johnston's columns was about her:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-03-09-28.shtml

 

Work with any lens you have at various focal lengths and figure out what works, what

doesn't, and what you might need. Anything else is just giving away money. Don't

buy into the hype that you need a special lens for portraits. You don't.

[._._z]

Actually, go to Jane Brown's Flash site via here:

 

http://www.observer.co.uk/janebown

 

It sets a pop-up page for the photos. If you directly enter the .swf URL and your

browser page is too big the images scale up and look clunky.

[david_tavares]

I think i'll have to go for the 85mm lens...I don't like to be far from my subjects when photographing them. Is the 85mm 1.8 good? should I go for the 1.2L? I shoot in lowlight all the time so lens speed makes it or brakes it for me. So much so that I will not buy a lens slower then 2.8 and even that speed kills me sometimes. What can I say i'm young and always out late=)

[buzz]

David, go for the 85 1.2L(if the money is not an object), you won't be dissapointed. The only thing you will have to get used to is focusing wide open, it can be tricky with such a narrow DOF.