ccabaniss

My CC was also charged automatically $29.95 - an unauthorized charge. Please investigate ASAP.

<p>The FDn 300/4.0L (black "bay" mount) <em>does not</em> have threads in the front. Looking at the one I purchased (back in '05) it's clear the front element is held in place with a lens "fastening ring", which has two slots for a ring removal tool. The ring does have very small, light baffle grooves. Incidentally, when I was shopping for this lens I found one in great condition with three drop-in filters - clear, red and yellow. Wish Canon made a drop-in pol filter for this lens. But apparently they didn't.</p>

Hello Forum -

 

Is it still reasonable to expect a slight variation in the

performance of two identical lenses from the same manufacturer (ie

Canon) as it was in the past, particularly in the relm of the high-

end lenses with aspherical and UD/LD glass elements; lenses made

twenty-five or thirty years ago and those made today?

 

Charles

<<Here's what I'm thinking about, when I can find good deals. First question is whether you guys think I should go to a 50/1.4 to use as the normal lens. With a standard lens, I rarely shoot wide open, and I think the 50/1.8 (stopped down) and the 50 Macro are both excellent glass.[...]>>

 

I'm happy to field your question and happy to see such extensive discussion of a focal length that, unfortunately, many now consider boring. I own all three versions mentioned above. In my experience, each performs very differently. First, the FD 50/1.4 (either version SSC or Bayonet) represents the best value if you must buy only one 50mm. Apparent sharpness is similar between the three. The main difference is in the area of color balance. The Breechlock 50/1.4 SSC has a slightly warm color balance, while its newer, nFD brother is more color neutral, a better standard lens. The BL and nFD f1.8 color balance is similar to the nFD f/1.4, but has slightly greater center and outer edge contrast, as illustrated above, therefore giving the overall appearence of greater lens resolution. Finally, the 50/3.5 Macro is very contrasty and sharp (at all apertures), center to corner. It's a flat-field lens showing little or no spherical aberration.

 

In sum, the 50/1.4 is warm-neutral/sharp; the 50/1.8 is neutral/sharp, higher contrast; and the 50/3.5 is cool/very sharp, high contrast and resolving power. Hope that helps.

 

Charles

I believe you're right. A similar problem can occur at the faster speeds, 1/500 or faster. Either way, the fix is relatively simple. A clean, lub, and adjustment (CLA) would cover it.

 

BTW, there are many tech savvy folks on the 'Canon FD' site along with links to numerous repair facilities used by its members.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CanonFD/

 

Good Luck.

 

Charles (F-1 owner)

1) The one problem you can't afford to overlook with this vintage is the dreaded "sticky shutter" syndrome. According to a reliable source, this is the result of a breakdown of the shutter brake/stoppers (after a decade or so of use). Proper repair is costly - involves replacement of the shutter blades - but should last another decade.

 

Autofocus start/lock can be transfered to the partial meter button (on the back of the camera just behind the top display) via CF-4.

 

2) The 620 (second in the series) offers 1/250 flash sync; 1/125 for the 650 and 630. Since the 630 was introduced last, I don't why the top sync speed was reduced! No custom functions for the 650.