egoldste

<p>I would just add that if a proper Canon hood for this lens is included, it adds substantially to the value of the deal.</p>

I've shot with an FTBn for 30 years. I never found the meter on the camera particularly accurate, and mine did

not age well either. My friends who shot older F-1s with similar CdS cells have made the same observation. I've

had it replaced by Ken Oikawa, and while the replacement is better, the camera is nowhere near the accuracy of

A-1s and T-90s, which are excellent in this regard. My reference is a Luna-Pro SBC, an extremely accurate and

linear meter.

 

I do like the 12% defined metering area concept on these cameras, though this does take some brain work to get it

right even if the meter itself is accurate...

The two 85s you mention are completely different. The 1.2L (or Aspherical in BL) is well corrected even wide open. It is an unflattering lens for shooting heads and you will get no romance out of it. The 85/1.8 has residual spherical left uncorrected at wide aperture and gives a classic portrait lens look. You will also see some of this in your 135/2.5. Both regain their corrections by about mid-aperture.

 

For the price, I'd recommend sticking with the 135/2.5 and spending your $$$ on an 85 L; then you will have lenses of entirely different character. I cannot tell you if the 85/1.8 BL is a different formula from the FDn version...

Hello Cesar -

 

Although on paper the Booster might give you a but more sensitivity, in practice both the A-1 and the T-90, with

their SBCs, will blow the original F-1 (and FTB) away. You will get much quicker, more reliable readings in any

light from -2 to 18 EV

This works very well... excellent image quality and lens handling.

Agree that reflectance meters can be and are calibrated to both 12 and 18% gray. With all due respect to John Shaw it is also a bad idea to try to calibrate off the reflectance from bright sunlight, because the finish and speculance of gray cards differ and this can easily cause variance of 1/2 stop of more from a very bright light source.

 

I'd offer that it is much more important to calibrate your entire work flow than your meter... that is the approach I would take...

I think surveys such as this are largely worthless... we have no idea if the people participating know what they are judging.

 

By all accounts I've come across, the 300/4L and 300/2.8L are fine lenses. I've shot them both.

 

The 300/4 suffers from chromatic. I've shot it. Seeing as the 300/5.6 is much slower, it is not impossible for it to be a decent lens at a decent price, but I suspect there is a fair amount of chromatic present as well; I have not shot it.

This was not the leader of the L lens pack, and any zoom would be hard pressed to have better corrections than good primes. You also have a significant speed difference, so you are trying to compare apples to oranges. IMO the only reason to shoot zooms is in situations which demand high shooting speed, because every other compromise (speed, price, performance, size/weight) you suffer shooting zooms are tough to justify...

Hi Dieter -

 

I know this is not directly answering your question, but I'd suggest you look at the 24/2 instead. It is a much more useful FL and it is considered one of the best of the FD lenses...

Hello -

 

This could easily be an emulsion flaw or a soup problem with your lab.

#10 -

 

As some software print programs such as genuine fractals fabricate apparent resolution which may well bear no relationship to the actual detail of the original scene, much more than CoC nomenclature falls by the wayside relative to the digital darkroom (or dorkroom; your choice :))

 

Eric

Hi Mark -

 

You've lost that bet... feel free to send me your 200/2.8 IF or the L, your choice ;-)

 

Of course, those who respond that the L is "head and shoulders" above the prime still have not responded to my comment... how do you duplicate the look of the 200 (or the 135/2.5) wide open with the L? We do shoot these lenses for the way they look, right? And not how they shoot test charts?

The claim of one lens being superior to another, absent any context, is dubious at best and not very meaningful in a practical sense. The design criteria for a last prime versus a slow zoom are about as different as can be, and I am confident that the 200/2.8 IF has superior corrections in at least some of the major aberrations when compared with the 80-200L.

 

For me, the extra stop of speed and DOF control are very important. But putting the technical stuff aside, I would never trade the 200 prime, because it has a look and a character which I love, and in my judgment that is what makes it superior. I shoot my 200 wide open as a creative choice all the time, just as I shoot my 135/2.5 wide open; following the reasoning of the question above, the 135 prime and it's incredible way of drawing faces would go, too...

Remember that there is a lot of individual variation between samples of these lenses, particularly the Apherical which had a lot of hand work in its production...

You wrote:

 

"Whats character in a lens? Bokeh, Vignetting, transition, contrast, curvature of field. Take the Leitz Noctilux for sample, a bad lens when you look for edge to edge sharpness or resolution, easily outperformed by a Summicron 50/2 if youﾴre looking for flawless "reproduction", but utterly unique in the way it draws. Some love it, some do not."

 

There is little I can say to make sense of this. Your comparisons are apples to oranges, and your criteria for character are unique to say the least. Perhaps it is best to leave it at hoping you enjoy your Angenieux zoom... I found the ones I used to be wanting on the very basic measures, much less the esoteric ones...

I hate to burst the bubble which the marketers have worked so hard to create, but Angenieux zoom lenses of this vintage are hit or miss to say the least. I used to shoot some in 16 mm and 35 mm motion picture production and more than one was an absolute dog. Since "character" can mean anything from a Holga to Rapid Rectilinear to an original Summicron, it is hard for me to offer you insight into the 80-200L relative to what you might be looking for, but I can tell you that it is a very well corrected and popular lens.

The 135/2.5 is an excellent portrait lens. It is designed with residual SA left uncorrected. From about f/2.5-4.5, you will get the subtle classic "smooth, yet sharp" look which is so desirable and usually so expensive. Saturation and resolution are very good. Medium contrast as are most other FD lenses.

 

You cannot go wrong with this wonderful lens. Check yours very carefully for haze/dust; lenses of this vintage usually need a good c/l/a.

 

Shoot and enjoy.

There is a difference of opinion relative to the superiority of the 50/1.4s over the 50/1.8s. It is much easier to design a well-corrected slower lens. Having shot several examples of both, I personally think the 1.8 is the better corrected lens at most apertures, but it is very likely that individual/batch variation and condition is more of a factor with lenses of this age.

 

Save your money for more film. Processing this is a PIA, and you will likely need several more rolls to get anything like acceptable results through trial and error. There are now more modern emulsions which are nearly as high res without all the fuss.

FD lenses were designed in the 70s and 80s. Some of them are fine performers, others not. A few of the prime and L series lenses still perform to a reasonably high level by modern standards. I wonder why you are looking only at the new mount lenses and not the breech locks?

 

There will be no comparison with this system and the new Zeiss manual focus lenses. No comprison in price and none in performance, either...

 

In the FLs you sight, check out the 24/2, the 50/1.4 or aspherical/L, the 85 L, and the 100/2.8 or 135/2.5.

I believe there may be quite a bit of discussion on the if you search the archives... the long and short being the the primes in the range outperform this zoom, which by modern standards is not a particularly well-corrected lens.

Coatings have no effect on correction of lens aberrations... they improve transmission across a broader spectrum and reduce flare.

A contributor wonders how great a difference there is between newly designed Zeiss lenses (which received rave reviews; some are the most highly corrected lenses in all of 35 mm photography) and FD lenses which are 20-30 year old designs...

 

The answer is the difference is enormous, as you would expect, about as enormous as the price point. But if you are not enlarging or magnifying the negative/chrome, it is not likely you will see a critical difference and there is no value to the more expensive lenses. The value depends upon the demands of your shooting and the project...

I would not shoot 35 mm film if I was looking for detail in a 16 x 20 print. But if you must, then I would look into some of the Voitlander/Cosina lenses (quality varies) and the new M42 Zeiss line.

My 2 cents is to go with the 20/2.8. It has much less flare, shooting an f/4 lens in a reflex camera is a PIA, and I think that it is more difficult to make 3d space conform aesthetically to 2d with anything wider than a 20-21 mm. When my 20 isn't wide enough, I go with a 16 mm Zenitar fisheye; sometimes converting it to rectilinear and sometimes not...

I routinely use M42 lenses on my FD cameras. The adapters are inexpensive and robust. Operation is very easy in stopped-down metering mode. With some FD bodies, you will be able to shoot aperture priority AE. There will be no operational difference between the new Zeiss M42 lenses and any other M42 lenses. The difference in corrections however, from everything I had read, is very impressive indeed...