alan_swartz

<p>There are many sides to every argument, and they've all been pretty well argued here. I'm probably just stirring up the same dust.</p> <p>I must disclaim that I shoot FD lenses on film. I have both the 100/2 and the 85/1.2L. They are very different lenses, at least my copies, despite their similar focal lengths. I don't find the 100/2 to be as incredibly sharp as many say, and mine is particularly soft for a couple of stops on the open end. The 85, however, is like a scalpel, and it stays much sharper as it opens. I'll add that both lenses are in fine condition. I did once own a 100/2 that was pretty rough, and it was just not optically good, either.</p> <p>My 85 also has higher contrast. Colors really pop. The 100 produces more muted images, as well as being slightly softer in focus.</p> <p>But to me, if you discount any need for the speed of the 85/1.2, it comes down to creative potential. I see a lot of photography these days with no creative use of depth of field, a vast array of sameness. I have to wonder whether this stems from a generation of photographers using f/4 zooms, who simply have no means to achieve shallow field effects. Another contingent may shoot at wide apertures, but never really mastered the techniques, so their results aren't promising. Another contingent might be the "f/8 group"--"my lens is sharpest at f/8 and that's where I shoot. F/4 is not as sharp and f/11 begins to suffer from diffraction." They're the techies, who value the measurement of sharpness over the worth of the aperture control ring as an artistic device.</p> <p>Shooting for shallow depth of field is fun, but the results don't come easily. Like anything else worthwhile, practice and experience make it happen. You can't open to f/1.2 for a portrait at 5 feet. Eyes will be sharp, but the nose will be a blur. Yet f/1.2 might be perfect for a night cityscape focused at infinity. You can't really just dismiss an f/1.2 lens as "too shallow to be practical." Subject matter and shooting distance--not to mention the photographer's thoughtfulness--have everything to do with it. I once loaned an FD camera and a couple of lenses to a young person who had never shot anything but a fixed-focus point and shoot. First roll had some closeups of flowers, but depth of field was too shallow and focus points were all wrong. Much disappointment: "I don't know where to focus!" Yes, now real learning begins.</p> <p>I actually like focusing with the 85/1.2. You can't be ham-handed, but when the microprism stops scintillating, you're dead certain it's on the spot. And you'll soon know whether your SLR's mirror needs adjustment!</p> <p>What would I do? I'd save a few dollars here and there, over time, and buy the 85, as long as my family was not having to sacrifice for it. Priorities, after all. Then if you don't see a difference, you might learn to see a difference, or you can resell it, because it seems to stay in demand.</p>

<p>To be entirely specific (yet entirely obvious), the issue isn't that you <em>cannot use NiCd batteries</em> with the motor drive. The issue is that you <em>cannot use AA NiCd cells in the Battery Pack MA</em>, which is intended for alkalines or the then-dirt-common carbon-zinc cells. The problem arises when loading up a dozen NiCds in the AA form factor, which comprises a greater current source than the motor drive (or camera or film) was apparently designed to handle. Therefore, you supposedly arrive at the end of the film roll and the souped-up motor drive tears things up. It's all about horsepower.</p> <p>The MA manual doesn't specify why you cannot use NiCds in the Battery Pack, it just says you cannot. The NiCd pack obviously came loaded with NiCds, which according to Reynold's post are a dozen N cells. N's are little. That suggests a lower current capacity, hence lower torque from the drive. Makes sense, too, because the NiCd Pack MA is a good bit physically smaller than the Battery Pack MA.</p> <p>So what about NiMH cells in the Battery Pack MA? Depends on their current capacity and internal resistance. I don't know that answer. If they are similar to AA NiCd's in those parameters, don't risk it. If they're close to AA alkalines, they might work safely. Perhaps knowing the background of the situation, those of you better equipped than I to evaluate battery specifications can hazard an opinion.</p> <p>If your Charger MA is actually working, you may still be able to find solder tab NiCd N cells. I successfully rebuilt the battery pack for my 1977-vintage TI scientific calculator by that route. All problems solved...it works properly and charges with its original charger.</p> <p>Mouser lists N's without tabs, but I didn't find any with tabs in a quick search. A 2/3 AA cell is about 2mm larger in diameter. Perhaps there is room in the case to use those if they are electrically compatible. </p>

<p>As Mark said, the A-1 cannot make use of any of the 300TL's advanced features, which are available only with the T90 camera. So when used with an A-1, the <em>camera</em> does not measure flash exposure. The sensor in the 300TL measures the flash intensity as reflected from the subject and the circuitry in the flash then quenches the flash tube at the proper instant. This is no different than a Canon 199A Speedlite, for example, or the venerable Vivitar 283.</p> <p>The actual electronic component that performs the quench is a thyristor, or silicon controlled rectifier. Hence the name, "thyristor flash."</p> <p>The 300TL Reference Guide, to which Mark refers, was not the best-written book ever published. Its descriptions of the 300TL's functions in combination with the T90 were somewhat more clear than those in the operator's manual, but could have been far more clearly expressed. The gist of it is that the flash sometimes operates in a mode intended to provide primary illumination, and sometimes in a fill-flash mode. Knowing when it provides which is the catch.</p>

<p>Hi, Bill. This will be about as vague as you could ask for.</p> <p>Image quality typical of the zooms of the era...good 'nuff, not the worst of those zooms, but certainly not in the league of the legendary FD 80-200 F/4L. Perfectly good for a day-trip snapshot lens.</p> <p>Build quality is typical of the earlier New FD zooms, before the encroachment of too much plastic. It's a pretty big lens, though; nearly the diameter of the 70-210 f/4, and only about an inch or a bit more shorter. I couldn't find it on the shelf a minute ago because I was looking for something too small.</p> <p>Zoom range...hmm...I carried the 35-105 everywhere, then bought the 50-135 for times when I knew I would want a little more length, mostly outdoors. It is, after all, a standard and three short telephotos (on 35mm). You know, a 50, 85, 100, and 135 in the same barrel. My wife used it, too, when she wanted a "TE-LE-PHO-TO." A 200 or 300 or more was too scary for her. She never liked to be in the same room with my 400-800 big white lenses.</p> <p>The 50-135, as I recall, was sort of a big brother to the last version of the 35-105, the little one with push-pull zoom and a molded aspherical element, which replaced the famous, big, heavy 35-105 f/3.5 everyone loves. I don't remember the 50-135 ever being very common. I looked a long time before finding one at a price I wanted to pay.</p> <p>I still remember how my dad used to shake his head when salesmen--in the early-to-mid 60s--always pushed a 135mm as the second lens to buy. Its length was stunning to the novice, yet it was often a little too long for portraiture and generally too short for real telephoto work beyond the camera store lobby. But that 135mm aura still held on to the end.</p>

<p>Disregarding any adaptation to other mounts, I'm not as optimistic about the potential macro capability of the 100/2 as Stephen is. I used to shoot quite a bit of macro. I have all the "real" FD macro lenses and I experimented with several "ordinary" FD lenses on the bellows, though I can't say I tried the 100/2 specifically, though I own it. While people generally speak about the difference in flatness of field, I found that the ordinary lenses suffered a great deal, not only from curvature of field, but in terms of distortion and overall sharpness as well.</p> <p>They perform better when reverse-mounted, but that brings about another basket full of complications--mounting adapters, diaphragm adapters, etc.</p> <p>I'd buy the macro. The 100/2 is a nice lens for normal shooting, though quite soft wide open, but I don't have high hopes for it in macro. And of course, its speed will be useless in macro, though you may perhaps be hoping to get a fast conventional 100mm plus true macro capability in one package. If Canon could have done that in the FD days, perhaps the 100 Macro would have been f/2.0!</p> <p>Though two stops slower, the FD 100/4 Macro is a perfectly good conventional 100mm for ordinary shooting.</p>