brandon_walker2

<p>Hi, I have one of these and think its a great lens: very similar quality to a Tamron SP 35-80, maybe better. I hink Ken Rockwell's comparison to the 35-70 2.8, and the excellent 50 1.8 tell a tale! On that test it seems better to my eye than the 72mm diameter earlier version.<br>

Also you can look at Modern Photography's original test posted on <a href="http://www.edsawyer.com/lenstests/">http://www.edsawyer.com/lenstests/</a> under MP Oly 24f35 shift.... . Hope that helps</p>

<p>And speaking of filters, it amazes me how much people are willing to pay for the "quality" of them (not a bad thing in itself of course), but when was a single piece of coated "optical glass" worth more than say the humble 50mm 1.8 lenses which have no fewer than 6 pieces of optical glass of two or more types, barrels, AF motors etc?</p>

<p >Hi Larry. I’m certainly no expert on this but will try my best to expand. The issue is common to both AF and non AF-confirm adaptors. Many of us I think have been happy to have lenses that can infinity focus, and the respective “film”-plane mount distances of Canon Eos and Nikon FD (and also zuiko, yasica/contact, pentax screw,leica R) allow niikor lenses on EOS body provided the intermount is not too thick. But some are actually too thin. For a single unit focusing lens too thin just means you rack out the focus heliciod to compensate,and focus can be achieved as designed. With CRC lenses when you do this at infinity for example you are altering the front and rear lens group relationship to each other to “compensate” for the whole lens being too close to the “film”-plane. You can focus it this way, but the images are not critically sharp across the frame. I haven’t got the images here, but A-B testing say a nikkor 24 f2.8, or 28 2.8 Ais with a thin silver adaptor or a friends fotodiox (pro series, black and silver) shows such hugely different performance, no matter what f stop or whatever way I focus the lens (eg focusing screen or focused on infinity marks for a distant scene). I think the effect is more pronounced the wider you go as little lens movement is generally required for focusing adjustment (ie the too thin adaptor makes the lens more “out of position” in a relative sense). The test I referred to is on <a href="http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/15mm_2/sigma1224vnikon15f.html">http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/15mm_2/sigma1224vnikon15f.html</a>, and I think illustrates the point well (incidentally I tried a nikkor 15mm and replicated the findings for myself). </p>

<p >Hope that helps</p>

<p >regards Brandon</p>

<p>Hi Larry<br>

There are two aspects to your question about adaptors if accurate focusing (and good performance)is desired. The first is the AF confirm part as discussed. The second is the adaptor thickness. This is relevant whether you use the screen or AF confirm circuitry to assist. I have found that some adaptors (cant give brands becaus they are sold in non-descript boxes) of Nikon to EOS are too thin. This may be in an effort to guarentee infinity focus. Its not an issue with traditional focusing non-CRC lenses (eg 105 2.5, or 50mm 1.8) but especially for wide lens places the rear elements too close to the film plane, and you have to focus the lens "closer " to compensate, for a "sharp" viewfinder image. The consequence is that for any subject distance tat the rear group focusing and front group elements are at a differing relationship to each other and the film plane than designed. If you look at 16:9 site you'll see some tests of differing adaptors (thin silver and thicker two piece) on a wide angle: it makes a big difference. Hope I explaned that OK.</p>

<p>Hi Dean<br>

Not 100% sure for a 1D, but I have had problems with a 1Ds. On that model it appears that an extra pin is needed to move a lever just behind the camera lens mount in the 10 O'Clock position to activate the AF confirm mechanism in addition to the electronic contacts at 6 O'Clock. Same is true for my EOS 3. There ma be a work around by inserting a tiny wad of paper to jam the pin,but you'll need to chack that out for yourslf: I saw something on the web about it. I think some AF-confirm adaptors have this sorted, but many dont even if advertised as "compatible" with your model</p>

<p>Hi Dean<br>

Not 100% sure for a 1D, but I have had problems with a 1Ds. On that model it appears that an extra pin is needed to move a lever just behind the camera lens mount in the 10 O'Clock position to activate the AF confirm mechanism in addition to the electronic contacts at 6 O'Clock. Same is true for my EOS 3. There ma be a work around by inserting a tiny wad of paper to jam the pin,but you'll need to chack that out for yourslf: I saw something on the web about it. I think some AF-confirm adaptors have this sorted, but many dont even if advertised as "compatible" with your model</p>

<p>Hi James Here's an opinion that was on the net previously by Paul Young (apologies if this is plagiarism)</p>

<h4>135mm f/2.0</h4>

<p>This ought to be an L lens. Sharp. Try 125 lines per mm center, 114 at the edges, and that's at f/2.0! I'm looking now at a shot I did of Comet Hale-Bopp with this lens (a day before the UFO arrived). There are foreground fir trees in the corners; they are tack sharp. The star images are quite sharp. This was taken wide open, and the lens improves slightly with stopping down (it goes to f/32, but why?). I measured 140 lines/mm edge and a phenomenal 176 center at f/4.0 and f/5.6. Wow! I also have some wonderful shots of 'Carmen' at the Odessa (Ukraine) Opera house. Beautifully deep contrast, saturated colors, sharp and detailed. My wife's very picky about photographs, and she loved those. Absolutely no coma, but a very slight hint of astigmatism wide open. Very good flare control. No color fringing either. Above average contrast, but not way above average. The contrast is even across the image and at all apertures. This lens does wonderful outdoos scenics, plus with its speed you can use slow film or go indoors. I believe this lens came out in May '80 and it is one of the most solid feeling of the new mount FD lenses I have handled. I got it from a local camera shop that seems to get in a moderate amount of unusual FD stuff at occasionally very attractive prices. It wasn't really way up there on my lens wish list (Had I known of its optical quality it would have been). Anyhow, about 2 years ago I saw the 135/2.0 at this shop for $260 in EX+, almost mint shape and knew it was a pretty good deal. Man was I pleasantly surprised. Don't know what else to say: This is just one superb lens.</p>

<p>Hi James (? Brent). I'm sure you got a great deal..as an underbidder I would have gone much higher if I was predominantly a film user still.. the 85 1.2 and an F1 with AE finder would be a great kit..I guess its watch out on TM if you split the kit. I see from your description of your brassed up F1 that you like using cameras..dont worry about the minor stuff its mould on elements (or finger prints) that turn top glass into soft focus rubish, Regards, Brandon</p>

Thank you Manfred. That is really helpful (or interesting at least). Much appreciated, Brandon

Thanks Rob for your speedy reply. I have only the Puts compendium on line version (no photos/diagrams), and haven't seen Brian Bower's book. Any one able to scan the crosssection lens diagram? BTW used 1/2 stop down (approx f4 I guess) it really shines, seems little gained (except dof of course) by taking down further: thats well-corrected I guess!

HI, have just purchased one of these in good condition. First photos look very sharp: hope to A:B test with my 180

2.8 (version 1 the big one) Elmarit, which is also a great lens.

Can anyone point me to a lens diagram (elements/"cut-through"), or scan a brochure with one to post here? Thanks

I had exactly the same issue with a mint 80-200 f4L I recently purchased. It was oil on the blades, and an easy repair. Have never had it with any other FD lens (mostly breech locks). But the lens is worth the fix.

Thanks for your suggestion. A bit more work has uncovered that like the older film cameras the 1Ds has a little pin around the 10 O'Clock position that needs to be "pushed" by the mount. Without this mechanical "link" the camera doesn't activate autofocus functionality.

See http://optix.happypage.com/EOSswitch.html for reference for anyone else who may run into this issue. A wad of paper allows it to function, although i is less than ideal Iguess aiming to minimise dust/lint getting to the sensor.

I'd value any advice on this

I have a few eos adaptors: no issue with infinity focus etc. Have recently

purchased two focus confirm adaptors for my Leica R glass, and neither activate

the focus confirm on my 1Ds, 3 or 5. (actually they lock up the 3, and I think drain

the 1Ds battery..but I may be mistaken on the last point). Both are of separate

sources (New Zealand internet importers), look a bit different from a hardware

perspective. I think they came from China. The guy I bought the first from let me

try equivalents in Nikon, and contax/yashica and a second leica: the same

results. But they worked on his 20D! Has anyone got information on what actually

works on the models I've listed? Sources or photos of the adaptor pins would be of

help. Cheers, Brandon