barryreid

I actually rather like the red halos on the neon and can imagine it being quite a useful effect. Not so nice for the interior.

Like the FD 24/2 on the F-1, that lens has been in the wish list for about 30 years ago, finally picked one up this year and will be trying it on my Eos R soon.

I’ve seen an early FD era product brochure which lists the TS lens as a chrome-nosed lens with an aspherical element. Clearly this is not the common production version.

Does anyone know the story about this lens, if any made production and why the AL element(s) was ultimately omitted?

This weekend I’m using an OM-4Ti & 40/2, the latter being the only OM lens I currently have.

Need to get it finished as I’d like to shoot Canon FD, which in my (non digital) mainstay since the early 90’s, for the summer.

Looking at online reviews of the 500mm mirror lens, the rings occur sometimes and not others. Why is that? The aperture adjustable FDn 400mm f4.5 with a Canon 1.4-A extender seems like the more practical of the two though. 560mm is very appealing.

I'm not sure the 400/4.5 & 1.4x A combo will work, due to the projecting front element of the converter hitting rear baffles on the lens.

eBay sellers are being a bit silly with quite a few things at the moment. Looking at sold prices, it doesn't seem like much is hitting anything close to those really outrageous asking prices, but £5-6k is definitely happening.

I'm fed up with some of the pricing. I'm after an S-100 hood for my 50-300L and have been tracking them for over a year now. In which time only one has sold yet the sellers who have them keep raising the prices on the unsold stock. It's now as much as treble the price of the one that did sell. Ironically, given how cine is driving FD prices, a good proportion of 50-300s are known to have been cinevised from the box. So it's plausible there are less still photographers looking for original hoods than there are hoods as the modded lenses will have been / will be used with matte boxes, not circular hoods. Watch Count certainly suggests very little interest...

I dug in to this as a mate of mine is a cameraman and knows I have FD stuff, so he asked me if any was for sale - a mate of his was looking for some lenses to convert.

For the eye watering lay expensive high end sets the lens body doesn’t matter - as ther will be little to nothing left. Check this kit;

G.L. Optics Mk V - Canon Vintage FD 7 - Lens Set - cinemaglass.com

Note that there will be at least one FDn lens in there (the 135/2) and at least one FD B/L (55/1.2).

I think what is driving the prices up is the young hipsters using the vintage lenses on digital cameras via an adaptor. My two cents worth.

Nope the cool kids don't really use digital cameras so much these days, at least in arty Urban areas like London's Hackney. Nor do most of them buy lenses they just use 50/1.8's on the AE-1 bodies which supplement their phone and/or Instax. I guess some buy UWA lenses if they are into Skateboarding.

The big price rises are driven by the Cine boys looking for a less clinical look. It has been noted on some Video-centric sites that certain FD lenses have some commonality with Canon's 1970's K-35 series. It started with the Asph. lenses, but it's trickled down and FD B/L stills lenses have generally soared - basically if a lens has S.S.C. on the front it's value moves up. You'll notice that, for example, the 17mm S.S.C. breechblock lens can sell at a price multiple of FDn version, in spite of the IDENTICAL optics and coating, due to the magic letters on the bezel. There are a couple of exceptions, are good lenses like the 100/2 which are now back to what are realistic prices for the quality driven by MILC users

So, for the OP, and anyone else looking at FD lenses you'll get a better deal on FDn stuff. I'm good with this as, for the most part, I prefer the FDn versions and tend to look for the newest I can find.

For the particular request, prices being where they are, off-brand is good; the Tamron SP 90/2.5 can do decent portrait work, as can most 90-105 macros with 2.5-2.8 apertures.

Hmm.

You’re confusing mechanical with reliable, but citing expensive, pro level cameras which are engineered to last. I’d suspect most electronic camera failures are mechanical, because most of those cameras are engineered down to a price point and precision parts are expensive.

it’s the same with any other product, a £250 espresso machine will have a longer spec sheet than a £4k La Marzocco Linea Mini, but the latter can be serviced and will last far longer.

Back to Cameras, yup, there are a few with flaky electronics (Contax RTS, RTS III spring to mind) some of the most failure prone I know of are the OM-2SP, Contax 159 and Pentax P30. And guess what, in all three it’s predominantly because of mechanical issues. Respectively, wind-on, mirror mechanism, wind on. Wind-on also affects Minoxes, the typical electronic failures are 2 minute fixes for anyone with a steady hand, unlike the winder.

Many will electronic cameras have been binned regardless problems being mechanical or electrical. My Contax RTS II can’t be reliably used right now because it needs a CLA, not new chips - (I am able to work the shutter using it’s one mechanical over-ride and get a few days life out of it).

How many binned AE-1s would have been fixable? Probably quite a few but on cost-benefit, it’s (just) worth CLA-big an RTS II or T90 but an AE-1, not so much.

Further, a fair proportion of Canon F-1 prisms are now losing silvering - paperweight time. I sold my F-1 which developed this problem as there are now very few viable prisms available. This equally applies to lots of fixed prism bodies like Nikkormat, K1000, OM-1 bodies and some OM-3/4s where it’s game over.

Also, many cameras, regardless of shutter control, will by now have defunct cds light meters, as the early cells are dying.

In short there’s plenty mechanically/ optically broken cameras out there. Whether fully mechanical or not.

I would definitely have an AL-1 were it not for the potential battery door issue. There is a mechanical fix for it but it's klunky. The tape solution is too ugly. I've mostly given up on the idea of getting an AT-1. It was never sold in the Japanese home market meaning no new-in-box examples. That leaves the rough hard used ones found here in the USA on eBay. Another all manual camera that appeals is the Pentax MX but that would entail a whole new fleet of lenses. My old Takumars would work with an M42 to K mount adapter but only in stop-down mode. Ah, so many cameras, so little time.

Back in the 90s started with Pentax and when I got more advanced went from an MX and SFX to a T90 and tried the AT-1 as a manual camera. Without wanting to encourage GAS, while the AT-1 is OK it's not anywhere near the MX. The MX has options like changeable focussing screens, Motor Drive as well as winder, which make it better and more flexible than any of the FD mount manual only bodies short of the F1 (even there the compactness of the MX closes the gap).

My AE-1P, New F-1 and T90 are all black, and I’m happy with that. My Canonet QL17 is Chrome, and id really have preferred black, but id not pay a premium.

Mind you, if I could justify buying a Contax T2/3 that would definitely be champagne finish…

This discussion has made me pull out my Canon AL-1, very much like the AV-1, but with focus confirmation. I forgot how compact and light this camera is. And the focus confirmation is dead accurate. Time to start using it again.

The AL-1 is arguably a better camera overall, with its manual shutter speeds. Feels a lot more fragile though.

The 17 TS-E will flare with the sun towards an edge or corner, but it is usually so well controlled I simply clone them out. Definitely need to keep the front element clean!

 

I just use my hand for a shade too.

Not wanting to derail my own thread too much but, it’s not really the sun that gives me the biggest issues with the 17mm it’s street lights. These are often multiple sources of flare requiring several shades. I find the TS-E 17 pretty well behaved with single point flare, and also surprisingly flare resistant. As these examples from my other Flickr;

Ciudad de las Artes y las Ciencias by Barry Reid, on Flickr

Hastings Pier 3 by Barry Reid, on Flickr

However, it can still be provoked into some mighty impressive flare…

One Blackfriars by bp reid, on Flickr

This is a similar shot but from a different copy of the FD 17mm (an FDn version) which came up at an acceptable price to replace the damaged one. Even though the light is totally different there’s definitely better contrast…

Louise Bourgeois - Hayward by bp reid, on Flickr

I know that the T90 has a lot of fans and is a fine camera and can take great photos, but I have never understood why it is held by many in such high regards. Modes for action, modes for wide angle, modes for telephoto, modes for rewind, modes for just about anything while in reality all of those modes are just making decisions for you about only two setting which are easy enough to do yourself. Instead of figuring out what mode is needed for sports photography, isn't it a lot simpler to just set the shutter speed to 1/500th? You want depth of field - set to f 16. Seems to me that the T90 just makes film photography a lot more complicated than it needs to be. Yikes - the instruction manual is twice as long as the one for the F1. About the only thing I see as a plus, is the ability to change metering areas without changing screens.

Except the T90 has no subject based modes whatsoever.

Another Sample from The A7ii

So I did get out today and have a go with the lens. It's Definitely low contrast, compared to the Tamron SP 17/3.5 which I also took along for comparison. The Canon is possibly a bit sharper at the edges. Sadly, there's an issue with scratches in the coating at the centre of the lens which have a noticeable impact in some shots.

Sample SOOC jpeg from an A7ii

Here's an (extreme) example of the 17mm flare (Bryce Canyon National Park). In my experience, all FD lenses have more flare issues than multicoated lenses from other manufacturers.

[ATTACH=full]1419367[/ATTACH]

That’s some ‘Hollywood’ cinematic flare!

My primary concern is whether the first version FD 17mm I had ordered, not realising there was a pre SSC version, is whether it would have excessive contrast loss through veiling due to its SC coatings when compared to the later SSC/FDn version that I have past experience of.

The lens is now here ready to compare with my current FD option, a Tamron SP 17mm on a long walk this weekend.

Sadly the weather will not match your sunny image here in SE England!

By the way, Canon was very proud of the FD 17mm:

[ATTACH=full]1419386[/ATTACH]

Imagine using the term perfect for things made by people!

 

A user has to know their tools. ANY wide angle will have flare problems. Many that are not wide angle also.

 

Older lenses and older coatings have been improved over the last 100 years, to be sure, but perhaps not so much as you'd think.

 

Here's a newer Canon 17mm. I've never had a flare problem with it, but that has more to do with me than with the lens:

Some deluded souls actually try to square the circle by rigging some kind of shade for it...

 

[ATTACH=full]1419385[/ATTACH]

I do have that latter lens, for my 5Ds and I actually wouldn’t be without my hood alternative, a Flare Dinkum hot-shoe mounted French flag when using the 17 TS-E

Before I'm through, there may yet be an AT-1 and an EF in my modest collection. I will most likely keep the FTbn now. BTW, I need to expose six more frames of the present roll in the FTb. The results should be instructive.

You have mentioned being an Aperture Priority shooter, that's something I share. Having owned a couple of EFs and AT-1's (and a couple of New F-1s) over the years, I'd offer that if you want some Heavy Metal, or a manual mode camera, it's probably better to get a New F-1 with an AE Finder FN in place of both. The F-1 shutter has a faster 1/2000th setting and you can change the meter patterns, maybe add a grid screen or a wait level finder. The New F-1 also has a nicer manual mode than the EF and can also share batteries with A-Series bodies, unlike the EF. The latter is a minor point but, nonetheless, helps when you take a couple of different bodies out.