alan_swartz

<p>Alex,</p> <p>Enjoyed those photos. That is one of my most-used lenses. Still using it with 35mm, I find myself using it mostly at 20mm, sometimes zooming longer. I like to use its perspective to emphasize a nearby object against a vast field. It's a favorite travel lens for me. Mine has great contrast.</p>

<p>Reynold,</p> <p>Years ago, as I learned to make repairs on FD cameras, I used to respond here to people's repair questions, but grew weary of the censures that generally followed; it was either morally, ethically, professionally, or mechanically wrong, or I or another soul was certain to doom a camera to inevitable death, whose value had by that time fallen to a pittance anyway. People had already stopped sending $30 AE-1's in for $69 CLA's anyway. But I will stick my neck out again and attempt to answer your question, if memory will serve.</p> <p>The squeaky mirror damper flywheel--not a gear--is located with the rest of the mechanism on the outside of the mirror cage, on the shutter-release side of the camera, near the top. It can be reached with a bent hypodermic needle through the upper lens bayonet mounting screw hole, as it lies just behind and below that screw hole. For what it's worth, I purchased such an oiling syringe prepared by a camera technician roughly 15 years ago, which included precise instructions for finding the flywheel shaft's bushing by feel with the needle. I applied a miniscule--yes, miniscule: 1ml is a lifetime supply for 50 cameras--droplet of oil to two A-1's, an AE-1, two AE-1P's, and a handful of other A-somethings I've now forgotten, none of which have ever squeaked since or displayed any side effect from the treatment. (There are mushrooms growing on the shutter curtains, but I don't think that's related.)</p> <p>As I recall, once the leatherette is off, there are screws straight in from the front of the camera that retain the mirror cage, which has flanges that mate with the front casting of the body. I do not recall any access to the sides or bottom of the cage without removing the whole thing from the body. I may be wrong. It's been a long time. But I think National would have indicated another method if it were possible.</p> <p>Standard disclaimer: anyone who goes into a camera with inadequate skills, poor tools, insufficient knowledge, bad luck, or simply makes a mistake, might ruin it. I never felt it was the forum's job to pass judgment on anyone's skills. You take your chances. Just because some people can't do it doesn't mean that no one can do it. Reynold has clearly stated that he has a junk camera bought specifically for practice...just as the camera repair books recommend. Have fun!</p>

<p>Wait! I was out of town yesterday, haven't checked the forum lately, haven't offered an opinion!</p> <p>Keep it!</p> <p>Sorry. I had a fun day yesterday. As to the lens, unless the damage diffuses a lot of light into the lens, it goes unnoticed. People forget that a reference point on the subject, say the brick wall one photographs to make tests to worry about one's lenses, "radiates" light spherically (unless obstructed) into space. Therefore, its rays impinge upon the entirety of the lens's surface and are then refocused exiting the rear of the lens. Those little damaged spots are not reserved for specific points on the subject or in the frame.</p> <p>Of course, should the damage be catastrophic, contrast will suffer. Photographers have been known to paint large chips in the glass with black paint to stop them diffusing light into the lens, like skylights on your roof.</p> <p>Michael mentioned the string and depth of field. I did once run into a situation where dirt on a filter became visible when I fully stopped down a superwide, and it was probably my 17mm. But that flaw is on a flat surface, and I can't imagine that the lens's own front element would fall into the depth of field. If you're concerned, shoot a few test exposures with various telling subjects at minimum aperture.</p> <p>My 14mm/2.8L has a tiny, tiny blemish in the coating. It saved me many, many hundreds of dollars. It will save the next owner a lot of money, too, when I can no longer stand or lift the lens. Of course, no one can ever see a problem in the images. Well, except for the faults in my photography!</p> <p>Now, I have a question. The central obstruction in a mirror lens, as Mark says, doesn't affect the realization of the image at the focal plane. But it surely does have an effect either side of the focal plane, creating the famous "donut effect" in out-of-focus highlights. Has anyone ever had a conventional lens with a front element so damaged that it had any effect on bokeh or out-of-focus highlights? I wonder how much trauma it would take to have a visible effect.</p>

<p>My pleasure. I think a lot of us take aesthetic pleasure in beautiful machinery. My latest quirk has been a search for a lathe. I enjoy seeing the 1940s-era Monarch lathes. They are attractive in their way, a statement of precision in strength and latent power. I'd seen pictures, then happened to stumble onto an actual example locally, about 14 feet long, probably weighs 11,000 pounds. Its designers made no real attempt at beauty or style, but it is still attractive.</p> <p>Paul, search this forum for a thread entitled "Original Prices?" It contains a discussion of a lot of items plus some scans of old ads.</p>

<p>Bill, I wish my dad had met you. He grew up in what must have been wilderness Arkansas mountains in the 1920s and loved birds all his life...almost as much as you do! As much as he loved to sit for hours watching birds at the feeder, he would have been thrilled by all of your FD-optics bird photography. He spent many years wishing for FD gear, starting back in the earliest FD days, but never made the leap until we found a deal on a bagful of stuff, probably in the early 90s. By then he didn't have much enthusiasm to go out and shoot.</p> <p>After he came to live with us, I set up a feeder with a natural perch outside the kitchen windows. We'd mount a big telephoto on a tripod outside and run a long release through the window. He was at least 87 then, with reflexes not quite as fast as cardinals and finches, but he still captured some good shots. Your work reminds me of him every time I browse the forum. You do good work, and it's getting better all the time.</p> <p>Alas, the beautiful old Arkansas farmstead is now the back yard of a McDonald's. An interstate runs right behind the site of the old house. Only the well remains.</p>

<p>Photo 4: First curtain magnet labelled, second curtain magnet held open. Remember that the T90 uses permanent magnet cores. Only a brief electrical impulse is applied at exposure to buck the permanent magnet's field to make the armature move. It takes a surprising amount of force to pluck it off of the core by hand, like I did here. (Note the armature gap I'm holding open on the left magnet; that's where they stick.) I don't claim to know what causes them to "stick." Maybe magnetization of the moving part, maybe some sort of sticky film, maybe black magic.</p> <p>I have the mirror box as well, but cannot find it tonight. When I locate it, I'll add it to this thread, but its sticky magnet looks essentially the same.</p><div></div>

<p>Photo 3: opposite side of the mechanism. The release magnets are at the top, identified by their copper windings. Below them are black plastic worm gears on long shafts, which engage spur gears that adjust curtain spring tension. If you look closely, you can see that the plastic worm is broken off on the left side. That's for the second curtain. It no longer has proper spring tension and only closes about halfway. I don't know whether that gear failed from stress, or if it was damaged after the shutter was removed from the camera. I hope it was the latter.</p><div></div>

<p>Photo 2: a closer view of the flex circuit and the shutter-side of the mechanism.</p><div></div>

<p>OK, not a movie. I've been meaning to do this, so I finally did, reminded by the recent "flashing arrow" thread. This is a defunct T90 shutter that's been lying around in a box of parts for years. I took some photos this evening so everyone can see the infamous magnets.</p> <p>Photo 1: the entire shutter assembly. Curtains run in a frame about 3mm thick. The high-rise structure at the end is the charge and release mechanism. It houses what must be 100 different springs, levers, pawls, catches, shafts, gears, the two release magnets, and the switch for flash sync. The large lever that protrudes is operated by the motor drive at film advance to charge or cock the mechanism prior to exposure. The flex circuit on top carries five transistors, at least two of which would be drivers for the release magnet coils. The "tail" on the flex circuit wends its way up to the top of the camera, where five connections solder to the main circuit and I believe two to the hot shoe.</p><div></div>

<p>If your manual photography is generally sharp, then you undoubtedly already know whether this is camera shake or any other problem with your own technique. </p> <p>My prime question: was your test roll slide film or print film? In other words, are you judging by the original image shot in the camera, or by later-generation images made at the lab, which could introduce errors despite your instructions?</p> <p>Beyond that, I'd mostly reiterate points made above.<br> 1. Focusing screen not installed properly and fully seated against its rails.<br> 2. My most likely candidate, the mirror in need of adjustment. A tiny error here can make a big error in focus at the film plane.<br> 3. Possible problem with the lens. Maybe a botched repair, maybe a severely clouded element, maybe a wobbly or loose mount that's inconsistent. If focus problem exists only at infinity, perhaps the focusing ring only needs readjustment.</p> <p>I've made tests with "screens" on the film rails in the film chamber. This is a sensitive business. If you really want to accomplish something meaningful here, you need a rigid screen that sits firmly on the inner rails and stays put. Any flex will destroy your results. Resting the screen on the outer film guide rails, which are "higher," will put you out of the film plane, again giving false results.</p> <p>As for dioptric correction for the viewfinder, I find that the error of my eyes doesn't <em>shift</em> the point of best focus out of the film plane. When I am not properly corrected for the viewfinder, it simply never looks completely in focus, but the <em>best</em> point of focus, though still poor, is the focal point on the film plane. In other words, the finder's always blurry, but the least blurry point is "in focus" on the film. There is no "wrong" or misleading in-focus point in the viewfinder.</p> <p> </p>

<p>There are three release magnets in the T90, one for the mirror mechanism and one for each of the two shutter curtains. All three are prone to "stick" when disused.</p> <p>The mirror release magnet must release first. Then the first curtain magnet releases, then after the proper electronically timed interval, the second curtain magnet releases.</p> <p>It's been a long time, so my memory isn't entirely clear, but failure of one of these to release causes the flashing arrow in the LCD--I think the mirror magnet. In any case, "EEE" is <em>not</em> the only visible result of a stuck magnet.</p> <p>Gaining access to the magnets is a huge, painstaking disassembly process suited only for the determined, skilled, and highly capable person in both mechanics and electronics. If you're good enough, you don't necessarily have to be a camera repair specialist, but you must have those qualities.</p> <p>The simplest plan is to send the camera for a CLA, have the magic done to the three magnets, have the now-gooey rubber bumper replaced, and let the technician clean, adjust, and check over everything else. Just be done with it. Steve Sweringen, Camera Clinic; Reno, Nevada, if you're in the US. I am a delighted customer.</p> <p>Or do you want to bang your precision T90 on the floor? Somehow this has never seemed to me like a good way to treat a precision instrument. After a while, the magnet is going to stick again anyway. When buying a used T90, always ask the seller how often the magnets have been "fixed" by slamming it on the floor. I'm glad I bought my T90s before the banging became Internet legend.</p> <p>When I see a speck of dust in my FD 400mm f/2.8L, I grab it by the skinny end and swing it like a baseball bat, into a tree trunk. Oak is better than pine, higher density, more rigid. The sudden deceleration of the lens causes the speck to fly to the edge of the barrel through its own inertia, lodging in the anti-reflective flocking. This is why I prefer the 400mm f/4.5. Its glass has fewer cracks. Along the same lines, if I were a golfer, perhaps a driver applied swiftly to a T90 perched upon a tee would be a good way to repair it. Alas, I own no clubs.</p> <p>End of hyperbolic comment. No offense meant.</p>

<p>I did see a couple FD 200/1.8L's for sale ages ago, online. After I regained consciousness following my sighting of the prices, I did note that they were definitely retrofitted EF lenses, as has always been said. They don't look like FD lenses, they look like EF.</p>

<p>Just to reiterate the business about the FD 600mm again, from a somewhat different angle, consider this.</p> <p>The longer the focal length, the worse chromatic aberration becomes. Beyond 300mm it is a gigantic design obstacle. Look at the glasses used in the FD teles from 300mm up. With the sole exception of the 400/4.5, which performs better than its construction suggests it should--a lucky design outcome?--these lenses all perform as the glass dictates they will:</p> <p>300/4: ordinary glass. Mediocre performance.<br />300/4L: two UD (ultra-low dispersion) elements. Outstanding performance.<br />300/2.8L: one UD, one fluorite. Brilliant performance.</p> <p>400/4.5: Canon says, "Appropriate selection of glasses, including low dispersion glass...." Not UD glass, but appparently not just "glass." Performs well.<br />400/2.8L: two UD. Brilliant performance.</p> <p>500/4.5: one UD, one fluorite. Not as stellar as the 400/2.8 despite the fluorite, but the length is catching up with us now.</p> <p>600/4.5: has glass. Not one word from Canon about the glass. Length is now a severe problem and there is no help from exotic glass. Expect mediocre performance, and that's what it delivers. Pronounced chromatic aberration, strong purple color fringing.</p> <p>800/5.6: one UD. Length now extreme, but the UD helps enough that performance is better than the 600. Still inferior to the 500, though, in my experience. It should be, at 1.6 times the focal length and without the benefit of the fluorite element.</p> <p>Why wouldn't you put fluorite in the 400/2.8L? I have to wonder if it's simply because of the huge diameter. Fluorite only appears in the smaller diameter lenses. Might have been too difficult or too expensive to grow a crystal large enough. That would also eliminate the possibility in the 600. Canon was just pioneering big calcium fluorite crystals in those days.</p> <p>Why not UD glass in the 600? I suspect a marketing decision. Let's make one supertelephoto that ordinary people can afford, the big white one for the over-the-top camera-club guys. Lots of nature and sports pros were going to use the 500 because of its focal length and slimmer physical size. It had to be great. The 600 was already going to be cumbersome, with that weird rack and pinion focusing. Never mind. But then some extreme wildlife people will want the 800, so it needs to perform. Perhaps cost precluded a second UD element in it.</p> <p>Speculation.</p> <p>I am absolutely clueless about the Nikon 600mm. But if they designed it as a true top-notch professional lens, and not just a filler between 500 and 800mm as Canon did, it must be the better choice.</p> <p>I should disclaim that my opinions about lens performance are based upon my results with the single copies that I own, operated with my technique, whatever that should be.</p>

<p>Ben asked how much I actually use these. Not too much, of course. The 800 more than the 6, 5, or 400, because we live in the country, have nesting hawks and animals and things at a distance and it was fun to pretend to be a wildlife photographer. This was a spectacular way to develop a razor's-edge respect for <em>good</em> wildlife photographers.</p> <p>In recent years, I've plunged headlong into late middle-age--make that face-first on the pavement--so eyesight has become a limiting factor. I also have extremely wide-ranging interests and tend to humor them (and finance them) in cycles. Some of my interests involve large and heavy objects, so I'm working on those while I still have the physical ability to do them. Therefore I've shot almost nothing for some time. So another timely answer to the question is, "I shoot these just as much as I do all the regular lenses."</p> <p>But I like to collect. I'm a profitless collector, rather than one who invests in mint items that will appreciate in value. I just like to have things for fun. I do have acquisition syndrome, and not just with photography gear. Some would call me compulsive, but I don't hoard in the sense of burying my living space or ruining anyone's life. Guests like seeing the stuff; it's like going to a museum where everything works or is being restored. </p> <p>This reminds me of the "lectures" some used to give on this forum and on Yahoo years ago. We were all supposed to be out shooting, not collecting. Well, no apologies from me. I <em>like</em> collecting, and if I only shoot a roll of Velvia every two years, so be it. I also refuse treatment for an illness that doesn't exist. Many who have some discretionary cash usually put it somewhere besides the bank.</p> <p>There's a new thread today where Gary's apologizing for buying another F-1. So what? Unless it deprives your family of food or shelter or some other necessity, enjoy it. Go make some art!</p> <p> </p>

<p>Sorry to cause envy. It wasn't my intent...guess I should have thought of that. I spent <em>years</em> collecting these, and probably hundreds of evening hours scouring ads and auctions trying to beat the prevailing prices, which I ultimately did. I bought these (naturally) before the bottom fell out of the FD market, but I still got the 300/2.8 and 500/4.5 for less than 4 digits USD at the time, and for not a lot more than the 300/4L or 400/4.5 were then going for.</p> <p>I think I posted many years ago that I will never own the 200/1.8 or the 150-600 because they simply got <em>too</em> insanely expensive. But I do have every other FDn lens Canon ever released, plus a smattering of breech lenses, a fair selection of "chrome noses," a small assortment of FL glass and a few R lenses. So JDM, you're not the sickest. In defense of the disease, I've had so much fun with them. No great photography, but great fun.</p> <p>Like Bill, when I actually <em>go</em> somewhere, it's usually the 300/4L and 400/4.5 I take simply because they can be handled without a loading crew. But when I do feel adventurous, and feel like I want to be suspicioned as an international spy, the white 300 and 400 are so, so amazing.</p> <p>John, I have not directly compared the 400/2.8 with 2X against the 800/5.6, at least not that I remember in a controlled situation. But I have a gut feeling that the 400 plus the genuine Canon 2X will at least equal the 800. It might surpass it. There are several reasons for that speculation. The 800 is hard to handle well, as we said in that other thread recently, due to its physical length. It's <em>extremely</em> susceptible to vibration. The 400 is half the length. It is also, I think, a much better lens before you apply the 2X--it's an <em>astonishingly</em> good lens. And, the Canon 2X is very good, too.</p> <p>Shooting either on digital, with the latitude to use high ISO's I never had on film, will change the game by several degrees. It'll be almost like getting free image stabilization.</p> <p>I am the last of the holdouts. Having really slowed down my shooting, and deliberately avoiding the new-digital-every-year phase of the industry, and putting money into other interests, I still do not own an EOS digital body, though I may make that move this year. My new iPhone is the most capable digital camera I have owned, actually. But I long ago did find a nice buy on the you-know-what lens adapter that Canon made in limited quantities. I've kept it in quiet reserve for the moment I do take the plunge, and that's why I've held onto all the big FD glass. If that day comes, then we'll make some tests. I have a brick wall. (Sarcasm intended.)</p> <p>The problem with the iPhone is that my carpet is dark green....</p> <p>And of course, Santa had nothing to do with this. I worked hard to pay for all of these!</p>

<p>Flipping assets...that's what I'm beginning to do, too. I'm turning some little-used stuff into machine tools this year.</p> <p>I like the 50-300L at times when I know I'm going to have the tripod on hand. It's not hand-holdable for me any more, with increasing age and rapidly encroaching spinal trouble. It's <em>really</em> heavy. It's nice for framing when you can't be sure of mobility with a big lens. I remember reading once that motorsports shooters liked it because they could zoom right up to individual cars, but could also quickly zoom out for the whole track.</p> <p>When you opt for one, do check a couple of things. This is my second example. The first one I had was a KEH BGN condition lens that looked good externally, but the diaphragm blades were worn bright from extensive use. It must have belonged to that race photographer. The other thing is to try to get that detachable hood, which is unique to the 50-300. It mounts with lugs like the white lens extension hoods, but is black and tapered to accommodate the 50mm field of view. You'll want it to help protect the front glass, which is precariously exposed in that lens.</p>

<p>Corrections and additions to my previous post:</p> <p>The FD 85-300 is a different optical formula than the FL version, though casually it appears it was modified from the FL version, as the lens groups nearest the front are very, very similar. Lens Work states that curvature of elements was increased to shorten the overall length.</p> <p>The maximum aperture of the FL version is f/5. That's arbitrary.</p> <p>The FD is still not known as a particularly sharp lens.</p> <p>The FD 100-300/5.6L actually has one UD element and one fluorite element, which puts it in pretty fancy company. Yet I don't recall hearing great things about it. I've not actually shot mine to find out. Those three cousins are such difficult lenses to control, being slow and lacking tripod mounts, that technique can easily erase the benefits of the nice glass.</p>

<p>The question arose recently about 600mm and 800mm FD lenses adapted to Sony digital bodies. Several of us wrote comments in that thread discussing the sheer size of those lenses.</p> <p>Since I decluttered the FD closet this evening to retrieve zooms in response to Bill's 85-300 post, I decided to pretend Santa Claus had hit the jackpot with FD supertelephotos this year, too. Without entering into another of my extremely wordy posts, here is a lineup of the following New FD lenses for your comparative viewing pleasure:</p> <p>300mm f/4L<br> 300mm f/2.8L<br> 400mm f/4.5, ever-popular on the FD forum<br> 400mm f/2.8L, heaviest<br> 500mm f/4.5L<br> 600mm f/4.5, poorest<br> 800mm f/5.6L, longest in more ways than one<br> New F-1 with 50mm f/1.2L for scale</p> <p>The phone camera exhibits some distortion, so the 300/4L appears a bit wider than reality. The hoods are collapsed, and the extension hoods are not included on the big white lenses.</p> <p>The most amazing? To me, the 300/2.8L and 400/2.8L. They will each produce an image that looks like it was shot with a 50mm. Just as free of optical artifacts as a standard lens, the only clues being perspective and depth of field. It's like having Scotty beam your subject right up to arm's length with no photographic compromise.</p><div></div>

<p>Pictured below under the tree, the lineup of FL and FD zooms to 300mm. Would have been some Christmas if you could have had them all at once, wouldn't it?</p> <p>But as you've discovered, the 85-300, along with the 100-300's, aren't the sharpest lenses in the FD line. I don't suspect you'll get a better example when you try another one.</p> <p>The FD 85-300, if I recall correctly, is the FL 85-300 repackaged in a slightly smaller barrel with full FD mount and modernized appearance. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's still the mid-60s optical formula, and for a long-focus zoom, that was very good technology in the FL days. But even the FL 55-135 isn't too sharp.</p> <p>You cannot compare it to the fixed-length lenses of the FD era, even less to the fixed lens designs of the later 70s, and certainly not to the exceptional FD 80-200mm L zoom, in whose case the word "exceptional" takes its literal meaning--an exception to the norm in performance for the time.</p> <p>The 50-300mm L came later. If you had enough money, it bought you two UD elements that improved its performance significantly over the much older 85-300, and Canon apparently felt it was enough to s-t-r-e-t-c-h the range down to 50mm so they could boast a 6:1 zoom range, unheard of in those days. Again susceptible to my failing memory, I recall that even this lens is soft at one end or the other; don't actually remember which!</p> <p>Both lenses weigh as much as a minivan. The 50-300's weight is all in the nose where the big glass is. And no integral hood...a separate plastic one!</p> <p>I bought the first generation 100-300 when I was young and broke. That was its market, an inexpensive lens for people like I was, so it wasn't going to be a tremendous performer. Shot many, many frames with it. I was so thrilled with the reach that I didn't notice the softness much. It's another awkward lens. Slow, long, no tripod mount. The second generation is one of the mostly-polycarbonate lenses, like the 28-85mm, as is its 2G "L" cousin, which is a little better optically. Sloppy, loose zoom on these.</p> <p>So the only lens one should expect to really "perform" out of this lineup is the 50-300L. And it's still rare and expensive. And heavy and ill-balanced. But fun, and you get to brag about having the biggest 50mm lens in history!</p> <p>Remember, too, that Canon always had at least two lens lines in the FD series at most focal lengths. At any length casual amateurs were likely to buy, there was a cheap lens, a better lens for the serious amateur and some professional tastes, and sometimes a quite expensive premium lens to really get the job done. Sometimes the premium was an "L" lens, sometimes not. It depended whether the special "L" technologies were necessary to achieve the performance level at the desired design criteria. If not, then they didn't do it. Remember that "L" doesn't designate performance, it designates special technology.</p> <p>At 135mm in the New FD years, there was an f/3.5, a 2.8, and a 2.0. Very inexpensive, relatively inexpensive, and "great big really expensive," the lens everyone says "shoulda been an "L." That statement gets the cart in front of the horse, because at a relatively modest 135mm, Canon was able to design a stellar lens without resorting to exotic technology. It didn't <em>need</em> to be an "L."</p> <p>By the way, note the chic original case on the far left for the FL 85-300. Pretty cool, tapered like a keystone so it will fall over all the time, but looks neat. I got that lens in the case for $26 in an auction everyone was afraid to bid on because the seller's pictures were horrible. The lens and case are virtually mint. Sometimes you get lucky!</p><div></div>

<p>The FD 600mm minimum focusing distance is 8 meters or 27 feet. The 800mm L minimum focusing distance is 14 meters or 45 feet.</p> <p>To reiterate previous comments, the 600mm is an average optical performer on film, with noticeable chromatic aberration. The 800mm is better, thanks to its UD element, but improper technique can quickly render that advantage useless. Even good technique is usually improper with that lens.</p> <p>Mark is correct about needing a combat-ready tripod. I shoot the 800 on 35mm film using a huge Manfrotto double-shank-leg tripod with gear head and an additional support strut from leg to camera body. It isn't enough. Vibration is still the factor that ruins images. Multiply this problem by the crop factor inherent to your digital body and you will likely find that the planet Earth is not stable enough. As I understand it, the NEX bodies do not have inbuilt stabilization...too bad!</p> <p>The 600 is 462mm long (18-3/16 inches) and weighs 3.8kg (8.38 pounds). The 800 is 577mm long (almost 23 inches) and weighs 4.27kg (nearly 9-1/2 pounds). The 800 is the most fun to handle because so much of the weight protrudes waaayyyy out ahead of the mount. Without a nice, heavy F-1 and motor drive to counterbalance it, it will mostly want to point at the ground.</p> <p>But the absolute most fun is the 400/2.8L, which weighs in at 5,395g, just a couple of ounces under 12 pounds, almost all of it in big glass in the nose! And for focusing woe, the old FL 1200mm f/11 was the winner (loser?) at 130 feet minimum, if I recall corectly.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Hi sub lunar,<br> <br />Within your parameters of a film body to use with old glass, and specifically an FD body capable of 30-second exposures, I'd suggest the A-1 or T90. They are the youngest FD bodies that meet your criteria, and the ones most similar in operating feel to your experience. I've written a long post to forewarn you what problems to expect in these aging bodies, too.<br> <br />The A-1 was the "prosumer" version of the AE-1 (and later AE-1 Program), and it boasts a lot more features and flexibility. The T90 was the first heavily-electronic professional FD body, so much so that there was a good deal of doubt about it in the beginning. Popular Photography dissected one in their initial review, accompanied with a certain dose of fear about whether all that circuitry was reliable and suitable for professional use. It was...but there's more.</p> <p><strong>A-1</strong><br />The A-1 at ISO 100 couples to EV -2, f/1.4 at 8 seconds. It will therefore auto-expose a 30 second exposure at f/2.8, which is of course also EV -2. It has Programmed, Shutter Priority, Aperture Priority, and Stopped-down AE modes, as well as manual, though the manual mode isn't as intuitive as some would like. Viewfinder readout is in red LED digits for aperture and shutter speed below the screen. I wear glasses and never had an issue with the viewfinder myself. Focusing screens are interchangeable with a screwdriver...hardly worth it.<br> <br />The Motor Drive MA is a nice, chunky drive that adds a lot of heft, good grip, and a nice vertical release. There were both NiCd and AA alkaline battery packs for it. If you get the drive, you want the AA pack today, as the NiCd pack is nigh impossible to recondition and the chargers are generally inoperative.<br> <br />I used to shoot a lot of night on Kodachrome using aperture-priority AE with my A-1s. Depending on the percentage of the frame in darkness, I'd set exposure compensation on the A-1 and let it shoot AE. It worked beautifully.<br> <br />All A-series cameras consume battery power to hold the shutter open during long exposures. Battery life can be rather short if you do a lot of night shooting; otherwise about a year. Uses a 544 6-volt battery, still readily available, but not on every street corner like they once were.<br> <br />Any A-1 will need a CLA service. There is a mirror damper flywheel whose bearing has been dry for 27 years now, causing a classic squeak on shutter release. Otherwise, the camera is quite durable, especially considering it was a consumer-grade machine.</p> <p><strong>T90</strong><br />The T90 at ISO 100 couples to f/1.4 at 2 seconds, as I recall. Could be longer...maybe. The manual shows charts for the various program modes, but oddly does not offer a meter coupling range chart like the A-1 manual does. Shutter speeds extend to 30 seconds.<br> <br />The T90 is an A-1 on steroids: additional exposure modes, partial-area and spot metering patterns, sophisticated flash exposure with a 300TL Speedlite, lots of cool stuff--the true precursor to the Modern Age as embodied in the EOS cameras. It's really very like an EOS prototype for FD lenses. Built-in motor drive, so noise is unavoidable. Lovely camera, and the electronics are bulletproof, but the shutter design, specifically the release magnets, were not.</p> <p>To solve the battery problem of the A-series, Canon used a permanent-magnet armature in the shutter release electromagnet. Only a brief pulse of power is needed to reverse the field and release the shutter, so there is no excessive current drain during a long exposure. Unfortunately, the magnets tend to stick over time, especially when the camera is disused, resulting in <em>"the dreaded EEE error,"</em> where the camera does nothing and the shutter will not release. Technically, there are three of these magnets: mirror release, first curtain, second curtain. Professional service is the solution, though whacking the finely crafted precision camera body on a hard, yet cushioned, surface is an internet-recommended (?) temporary cure (?). General wisdom is that a serviced T90 kept in regular use will keep working, but it's a point you should be aware of. My most regularly used T90 body failed to expose some 40-50% of its images at the end of a long trip in 2012--just the last roll. It went through the motions, but the first curtain apparently didn't open all the time. It was serviced some years prior, but it had been awhile.</p> <p><strong>Nostalgic feel: the EF</strong><br />Like the A-1, the older EF body will also couple to EV -2, f/1.4 at 8 seconds, and it has timed shutter speeds to 30 seconds. A product of 1960s-early 70s concepts, it has mechanical pointers and meter needles in the viewfinder. Its viewfinder is darker than the A-1 or T90. Requires two 625 button cell batteries. It is a rugged camera with a Copal Square metal focal plane shutter. Slow speeds are electronically timed, but fast ones are mechanical and require no battery to operate. I don't believe there is any LSI electronic wizardry in this one; I think it's too early. I wonder who is still able to service and repair an EF? I just don't know the answer. IIRC, it has a reputation as an extremely mechanically complex camera.</p> <p><strong>Not what you asked</strong><br />You didn't ask, but if you want an FD body that will still be shooting after you're in your grave, a cleaned and serviced copy of any of the three versions of the F-1 will do it. No 30-second timed speeds, but one lovely, hefty fine piece of machinery. It's worth owning one just to hear the shutter.</p>

<p>That New F-1 stop-down button will fool you. Works opposite the A- and T- series buttons!</p>

<p>Lots of good suggestions, including ones for lenses you don't have. But this is Thursday and you're backpacking this weekend, so unless you're stopping by KEH on the way, I presume you're taking what you already own. : )</p> <p>I think you answered your own question, based on photographic requirements and weight burden. I've been through the Smokies in eastern Tennessee, which I assume to be similar, perhaps in error. I don't know that you'll have a lot of use for long lenses, particularly if it's hazy. Backpackers count grams, so leave them behind. The extender will only take you from 50 to 70mm, which is insignificant, with serious image degradation. Leave it behind as well. Just take one step closer to your subject.</p> <p>Macros would be fantastic, but you don't have them.</p> <p>Take Velvia and Reala if you wish, but my opinion doesn't matter. Take what <em>you</em> like. But with just one camera body, are you going to have the wrong film in it at the right time? Or are you going to shoot Velvia on the hike in, and Reala on the return trip? I don't know how I would plan it; I'm not a backpacker.</p> <p>Yes, fresh batteries, plural. Our local battery specialty store has lots of them now, Duracells labelled as "medical" batteries. They now have a second reincarnation. Of course it's funny, because the kids working there have no idea they were ever used in a <em>camera</em>.</p>

<p>Definitely bubbles under the black paint applied to the rough, ground edge of the second element. The rear of that element is so concave you can drink water from it, but its cup is so small in diameter that the edge of the glass is quite wide. That edge is nearly perpendicular to the lens axis, too, maybe only 15-20 degrees from perpendicular. When you look into the front of the lens, you're looking <em>through</em> that edge just as much as you are through the optical "cup" in the center of the element. Hence the black paint.</p> <p>No idea why the bubbles form under the paint, but many (most?) 28/2.0 lenses have them. I had one that did. I have one that doesn't. Both had a far worse problem, a tiny element right next to the diaphragm that was nearly opaque with some sort of scum, and not just an oil film.</p> <p>But the bubbles make no difference in image quality, since they are not in the optical path. Some speculate that they might reduce contrast by scattering light against the back of the first element. I was very happy with both of my copies of the lens, even after cleaning the other terrible element, and never saw any lack of contrast or saturation.</p>

<p>I have to chime back in after the discussion concerning the feel of a great film body with the 85/1.2L.</p> <p>Absolutely!</p> <p>You're talking about a great lens here that also feels great. It's big and it's heavy and its huge front element smiles at you. Its red racing stripe makes you feel like you bought a supercar and its silky focus is like a fine gear selector.</p> <p>I'm a T90 fan, but to me, that lens feels like the perfect engine/transmission match when mounted on a New F-1. Solid, powerful, well-machined, precision instruments. The perfect shutter sound of that body makes the lens even better.</p> <p>Enough industrial poetry. Enjoy the lens!</p> <p>Dirk, your macro shot immediately above is one of very few I see that appears surgically sharp to me on the monitor. Well done, technically speaking, and a pleasing photo as well.</p>