lance_dennis

Mike,

 

I have three NEW F1 cameras (3rd model) and one F1n (second model). I use and enjoy using both models. I use the F1n exclusively with the "L" laser cut screens. I can effectively focus either camera with my half century old eyes and my -7.5 corrective lenses. Bear in mind that Canon made two different eye-level finders for the F1 (first model) and F1n (second model). They look the same from the outside and are interchangable. The newer one has a slightly darker image.

 

The New F1 has a better "feel", has easy to use AE functions, and metering patterns quite easily changed by replacing the screens. The motor drive and winders are better for this model.

 

The F1n has mirror lock-up, booster T finder for very low light exposures, cheaper parts and accessories, and functionality without a battery. There are multiple inexpensive battery solutions.

 

The New F1 requires special tools for repair and adjustment. The F1n uses more standard parts and tools.

 

Changing the metering patterns on the F1n is more difficult. The pattern is associated with the prism type. The familiar 12% rectangle functions with the eye-level, waist level, and speedfinder prisms. A full-frame center weighted pattern is associated with the EE (auto-exposure) prism, and a full-frame non-weighted pattern with the Booster T prism. However, when using the Booster T or EE prisms, you can use the normal metering pattern (12% rectangle) by switching off the prism's special functions.

 

The two advantages of the New F1 that I find important are: 1) spot metering; 2) built in light for the meter info. I wear hats with brims outside. I find the brim shades the F1n meter info window. Either add-on light is not that good. In this respect the New F1 is better.

 

Both cameras will last almost forever. I have a fear that eventually the electronics in the New F1 will fail. The electronics are not repairable.

 

When I need something to be perfect I always grab my F1n. Now they are so cheap, they are almost free! Get one. You will feel that you have the world's best and second best SLRs, regardless of which one you find to be better!

 

-Lance

Lindy,

 

I would worry about the lubricant in the lenses melting and the resultant oil dripping on the aperture blades. Then the lenses will not quickly stop down, if at all.

 

-Lance

~~Snip~~

Wrap the lens in tin foil without caps, cut the front and rear element portions away

~~snip~~

 

I left the foil covering the bottom, so the light was reflected back throught the thorium doped element a second time. I don't know if that makes a difference, but I hoped it would. :)

 

-Lance

Peter,

 

Like Mark, I have both the first concave, chrome nose version and the latest convex FDn version. Both are very good. However, I find the concave chrome nose version to be extremely sharp. I have over 30 Canon lenses and only two are sharper: the 55/1.2 ASPH and the 85/1.2L.

 

The fellow who did this testing http://tinyurl.com/wkjw found the chrome nose 35/2 to be the sharpest of all the lenses he tested.

 

The CN 35/2 has thorium and because of that slowly turns brown over a number of years. It is possible to easily "bleach" it water clear. I and others have done so.

 

-Lance

Here are my lenses I use.

 

17mm f4.0 pre SSC/SC | 18mm f4.0 SMCT full frame fish-eye on P-adapter | 24mm f2.8 SSC | 28mm f2.0 SSC | 35mm f2.0 CN (clear as water!) | 35mm f2.8 T&S | 50mm f1.4 CN | 50mm f3.5 SSC macro | 55mm f1.2 CN | 55mm f1.2 ASPHERICAL | 85mm f1.2 L FDn | 85mm f1.8 FDn | 100mm f2.8 SSC | 100mm f4 SC macro |135mm f2.0 FDn | 135mm f2.5 pre SSC/SC | 200mm f2.8 SSC | 300mm f4.0 FDn | 400mm f4.5 SSC | 500mm f8 Tokina

 

 

24-35mm f3.5 ASPHERICAL | 28-85 f4.0 FDn | 35-105mm f3.5 FDn | 35-85mm f2.8 Vivitar Series 1 | 80-200mm f2.8 Tokina SD ATX | 90-180 f? Vivitar Series 1 flat field | 100-300mm f5.6 L FDn

 

 

1.4XA | 2XA | 2XB | Vivitar 2X macro

 

Various lenses for bellows

 

I have about 5 primes that have been �retired� because I have replaced them with better or lighter ones. I also have about 5 zooms that have also been �retired�. An example would be my retired 300/5.6 pre SSC/SC. It is sharper than my 300/4 FDn, but it is heavier than all the lenses listed above. Also my retired 85-300/4.5 SSC is a fine lens but too darn heavy.

 

I have been using and acquiring FD lenses and cameras since the FTb first hit the street 35 years ago. That is less than one lens per year.

Walter,

 

I don't know your friend's needs. However I can answer that I know of three FD cameras that have metal (titanium) horizontal shutters: F1; F1n; and F1N. These are pricey and not very automated.

 

I suspect that the T70 and T90 MIGHT have vertical metal shutters. I have those cameras, but I am not sure. The T70 might just be the best used FD bargain. I believe it has every feature of the AE1, plus a built in motor-drive. It also has selectable metering patterns. I've seen completed sales from $40 - $100. Also check keh.com where they range from $53 - $103. I've always liked KEH better than eBay.

 

The EF also has a vertical travel shutter. I am not sure if it is metal.

 

-Lance

Fredrick,

 

I have both the 55/1.2 non aspherical and the aspherical. I love them both. For 8x10 enlargements the only thing you will easily notice is the veiling flare on the non aspherical.

 

The aspherical one is heavier, much more expensive, and much much harder to come across than the non-aspherical, so I rarely use it in uncontrolled environments. Therefore, I use the non-aspherical more than the aspherical.

 

The non-aspherical is great. Its softer contrast, slightly reduced sharpness, and DOF isolation wide open make it nice for people shots. Always use a hood with this baby.

 

-Lance

Brian,

 

The (Honeywell/Asahi) Pentax Spotmatic F camera and its companion SMC Takumar lenses are capable of producing images as good as or better than equivalent lenses from the Canon FD line. The cameras are simple, small, light, clean, durable, inexpensive, and easily repairable. They are easy to use with open ap metering. The SMC Takumars (with an exception or two) produce images second to none with comparable lenses from other lines. Keppler ran a test using the '70's vintage SMC Taks against then current Leitz lenses a few years ago and found the Taks as good as or better than the Leitz glass. Scores of incredible non Takumar lenses will work in stop-down mode with the Spotmatic.

 

Why then use Canon instead of Pentax? Canon offers a much wider selection of focal length in lenses. Canon also offers wider aperture lenses than Pentax. I like the greater weight of the Canon equipment for hand held shots. Canon cameras have a choice of center weighted full image averaging, full image equal, partial, and spot metering options. Canons also have 1/2000 shutter speeds and mirror lock up. Canon also made a far greater variety of zooms. You can also get excellent Canon made telextenders.

 

I have had both Canon and Pentax equipment since about 1969. I've used the Canon about 90% of the time. That said, the Pentax equipment is second to none! It is just as good as the Canon, just not as versatile.

 

In addition, you can always use the Tak lenses on the Canons. I frequently use the Tak 18/4 fish-eye, 85/1.8 portrait, and the 100/4 macro on my Canon bodies. The 85/1.8 portrait, and the 100/4 macro are BETTER than the Canon equivalent. I also like the 50/4 macro better.

 

The Spot F failure you mention is the open ap/stop-down meter switch. It is the same as the meter on/off switch on the older SPII an Spot. The plastic button on the outside cracks. The newer metal button does not. It is easy to fix without opening the camera by the clumsiest user.

 

All my Pentax stuff includes: Spot F; Spot ES; (2) Spot II (stop-down only); SMC Taks: 200/4; 135/3.5 105/2.8(!); 100/4 macro(!); 85/1.8(!!); 50/1.4(!); 50/4 macro(!); 35/2.8; 28/2.8; 18/4 fish-eye.

 

Some of my Canon stuff includes: (3) F1N; F1n; Booster T; EE servo; FTb; (2)T90; FD bellows with stage; FD BL 17/4; FD SSC 28/2.0; FD CN 35/2.0; FD CN 50/1.4; FD SSC ASPH 1.2; FD SSC 50/3.5 macro; FDn 85/1.8; FDn 85/1.2 L; FD SSC 100/2.8; FD BL 135/2.5; FDn 135/2; FD SSC 200/2.8; FD BL 200/4.

 

-Lance

Good question!

 

T70 35-70/3.5-4.5 superia 100 @ exp #20

 

F1N #1 24-35/3.5 ASPH Supra 100 (old stock from freezer) @ exp #2

 

F1N #2 35mm T&S Supra 100 (old stock from freezer) @ exp #2

 

F1N #3 35-85/2.8 Vivitar Series 1 superia 1600 (exposed at 3200) @ exp #34

 

Canonete g3 1.7ql Supra 400 (old stock from freezer) @ exp #20

 

Fed 2 w/ Canon 50/0.95 Supra 100 (old stock from freezer) @ exp #25

 

-nonCanon-

russian Leica IID clone with elmar 50mm clone Kodak B&W400 (C41) @ exp #30

The Canon RF 50/0.95 was not a leica mount lens. It has the same registration distance as Leica (28.80) but has NO threads. It has a bayonet lock ring that takes 3 60* lugs, 60* apart.

 

The Canon 7 has a special lens mount that will take the 0.95 lens and a standard leica mount lens. The special lens mount also will take a special reflex housing used by Canon's long focus RF lenses.

 

I have the 0.95 lens, but not the Canon 7 camera. I have adapted a FED 2 camera to use this lens. Great lens. It is fun!

 

Three 60* wide lugs, 60* apart. That sounds just like a miniature FL/FD mount. Hmm!

 

Here is a picture of the special lens mount:

http://tinyurl.com/c5zvy

 

-Lance

Turn of the focus signal slide switch just below the battery check button or remove the batteries.

 

You can then focus by turning the ring in the front.

Is this on only one camera?

 

A symptom of a loose lens mount or mis-set mirror stop is the inability to focus lenses. The mildest case would be teles. It would have to be worse if the problem extended to wides also.

 

Have your camera repair guy check the lens mount and the mirror stop first.

 

-Lance

Joseph,

 

I have the 200 ssc bl f2.8 and the 200 bl f4. I would not dismiss either because of image quality. The f4 version produces wonderful enlargements as does the f2.8. I'd use either one. I would only consider the f4 if price was the factor.

 

Why then did I get the f2.8 if I had a great f4? I needed the extra light. On my trips to the zoo, 4.0 does not work. Also the f2.8 is easier to focus. The 2.8 ssc FD bl IS LIGHTER than my 4.0 FD BL by 25 grams! (truth is stranger than fiction)

 

When I researched with 2.8 to buy, people who had both the IF and non-IF versions said the image quality was comparable. There are two advantages to the IF over the non-IF:

 

1 The IF model can use the 1.4XA teleconverter. Then non-IF can't.

 

2 The IF model's front element does not rotate when focused, making it easier to use a polarizer. The non-IF's rotates.

 

If you go the IF route (I did not believe the extra price justified it) please note that only some of the 200/2.8 FDn bayonet lenses are IF.

 

-Lance

Ethan,

 

Of course there is a pancake lens for the FD series. However it is not made by Canon. It is the 40/2 Ultron Aspherical (still in production for the FD mount. At only $285, its a bargin ;)

 

http://tinyurl.com/cmbgl

 

scroll down a bit. It's less than 30mm long!

There were two Canon FD 35-105 zoom lenses. The earlier one was the bigger and heavier and used and had a 72mm filter. It also had a straight through 3.5 ap. Its operation was 2 touch.

 

The later one was smaller and lighter. It had an aspherical element. Its ap was variable 3.5-4.5. Its operation was one touch. The filter size is 58mm.

 

I have the earlier 72mm variety. It is among the best of the zooms I have used. I picked it after some research. Its down side include its size and clunky close focus operation.

 

From what I heard and my research, the earlier 72mm is better on all optical counts that the 58mm. I am not saying the 58mm is poor, it is reputed to be good. The 72 is talked about as being the best Canon made FD zoom.

I have that chrome nose lens and like it very much for the little bit I've used it. This lens is supposed to be the same as the FL 55/1.2, which I thought was a great lens. Wide open, the flare and contrast are not as good as my chrome nose 50/1.4. Of course it is not as good as the 55/1.2 ASPH, but it is several hundred dollars less expensive.

 

I have used the chrome nose FD BL lenses, SSC/SC FD BL lenses, and the FDn (all black bayonet) lenses. I have heard much anecdotal evidence that the chrome nose lenses perform the best. What can be measured is that the optical coatings and formulas are the same as the later SSC/SC lenses. Also the chrome noses lenses are heavier! (except the 55/1.2) I have found that with use, the FDn lenses develop rotational slop. I have seen no ill effects from use with the chrome nose or SSC/SC lenses.

 

 

 

You should be very happy with that lens.

I've done a little looking into this. In some near ancient Canon marketing literature, it was stated that FL (the older lens line) was selected to emphasize that these lenses were for a reFLex camera.

 

As for the newer FD line, I have no idea. I could find no reference.

 

-Lance

Jason

 

I loe my Tak 85 also! You can easily find an adapter for FD/FL to M42. They are availible new at camera stores for about $20 USD, or on Ebay. Canon made a "mount conveter P" that can also be found on Ebay for $30 or less. They both wok.

 

-Lance

I agree with Mark and Lindy. I've had the 400/4.5 SSC BL FD for a while now, and taken a few hundred candid people shots with and without the Canon brand 1.4X and 2X tele converters. (my son's marching band practice sessions)

 

The lens is outstanding. I do not regret my purchase. I don't have any other 400mm lenses to compare it to. However, it is better than my FDn 300/4. It is very sharp and has good contrast.

Hi Mark,

 

My 135/2.5 has a date code of L301 (March of 1971). That matches the first month of production at the Canon museum site. The lens has a green circle instead of an "A" and no SC/SSC designation. The lens has a built in shade and no chrome nose.

 

I can't clearly read the numbers on your scan, but it looks like the 135 lens is a 3.5.

 

BTW I also have had 50/1.4 CN for over 30 years. As best I can recall, I got it in late spring of '71. It is a great, great lens. I like it better than my CN 55/1.2.

I have a 300/5.6, 135/2.5, and a 200/4.0. All of these lenses are from early FD production runs (by date codes). They are heavier than the SSC models (matches the preSSC models weight), no SC or SSC markings, and have a green circle instead of an "A". They do not have chrome noses, because they have hoods.

Sean,

 

I have the third model, of three, of the Canon 100-300 5.6. I find it to be a good lens. I use it when I need a light 300 zoom, for traveling. It cost me about $150 a few years ago for a mint one.

 

I also have the Tokina ATX SD 100-300 4.0 zoom. It is sharper than the Canon with contrast just as good. It is much heavier and requires a tripod. I can only get 1 out of 4 good shots on it without a tripod. It has a hard to come by screw on hood. They go for more than the Canon and are harder to find. If you get it, make sure it has the often lost tripod foot. It cost me almost $40 to replace the tripod foot on another Tokina zoom I own.

 

-Lance

I have had the 55/1.2 ASPH for over a month now. I've taken about 200 images with it. The color contrast and sharpness are great at all apertures. They are hard to find and cost several hundred dollars. I saw one go for over a grand. They are rumored to be better than the 50/1.2L. However I have never used a 50/1.2L. This 55/1.2 ASPH is the lens that Erwin Putz said is better than the old Noctilux.

 

I also have the 55mm 1.2 FD with the chrome nose. It is a wonderful lens, especially if stopped down a bit.

 

If you don't need that extra half stop, I would go for the much cheaper 50/1.4, costing about $60. I've had the chrome nose version for over 30 years and the only better lenses I have are the 85/1.2L, 55/1.2 ASPH, and MAYBE the 135/2.0.

 

-Lance

Kerry,

 

I have a T90 and F1 also. The two best cameras!

 

You have nice lenses.

 

To stay under $200 and get an f1.2 lens is possible, if you don't mind stop down metering. For less than $100 you can get a Canon FL 55/1.2. They are on that auction site and keh.com. It is a great lens. I had one. I am sorry that I sold it. It is similar in design to the FD BL 55/1.2. Do not get the 58/1.2.

 

-Lance

Carina,

 

I have the first version, the one with the detachable tripod collar. It also has a small green circle instead of an "A" on the aperture ring. It also does not have an SC or SSC designation on the front trim ring. This version cannot use the 1.4X teleconverter due to the mask on the back end of the lens. Canon used to alter the mask to allow the use of that converter. It is easily done.

 

I have found it to be sharper at all apertures than my 300/4 FDn with and without Canon 2X teleconverters. I tested it by shooting a brick wall about 200 yards distant with extreme enlargement on ASA 100 color negatives. The test was done on a weighted tripod, with a cable release, mirror lock up, and anti-vibration pads. The slight color fringing that I saw with enlargements (especially with the teleconverter) on the 300/4, were not present on the 300/5.6.

 

It is focusable on an F1n (older style, relatively dark viewfinder) in most daytime situations. It was difficult to focus with the 2X teleconverter or polarizer unless extra time is taken. I've never tried it with the brighter F1N with the K or J screen or the brighter T90.

 

It is a very heavy lens, the heaviest prime I have. It weighs more than the 300/4 FDn, 200/2.8 BL, or 85/1.2. It is about the same as my 400/4.5 SSC. I believe the newer versions are lighter. It is too heavy to hand hold. But then I can't hand hold anything longer than 100mm.

 

I think it is a great lens, better than the 300/4. That is why I kept it after I bought the 300/4.

 

-Lance