ken_williams5

<p>I heartily agree with Alan. In fact, you could probably buy the 100/2.8, 85/1.8, AND 135/2.5 for the price of the 100/2.0. The quality of all three of those lenses is excellent. This isn't to deny the additional increment of quality for the 100/2.0 and 135/2.0, but you pay quite a premium for that increment.</p>

<p>There are actually three FD 100/2.8s. My favorite is the pre-SSC chrome front version, which is quite sharp. If you want to see some of the fine differences in the quality of these lens, including between the 100/2.0 and two of the 100/2.8, see the Gary Reese lens tests:</p>

<p><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070112231316/http://members.aol.com/canonfdlenstests/default.htm">http://web.archive.org/web/20070112231316/http://members.aol.com/canonfdlenstests/default.htm</a></p>

<p>I'll briefly note a couple of other points that could be made in this discussion. Vsevolod mentions wanting a lens that is "useful even wide open." I don't claim to speak for everyone, but for me, when you get down to 2.0 or 2.8 for portraits, particularly with head and head-and-shoulder shots, your depth of field is getting mighty narrow, as is your margin of error with manual focus. If you're shooting in low light, that fine focus gets even tougher.</p>

<p>Also, while the 85-100-135 nexus is generally thought of as the "portrait lens" zone, you can make good portraits with a wide array of lenses. I have recently made wonderful "portraits" with 20mm and 200mm lenses and have made many with the 50mm over the years.</p>

<p>In an earlier post, I wrote that the Tokina AT-X 28-135/4-4.5 didn't seem to sell for the premium that the AT-X 28-85/3.5-4.5 does. Now I find a 28-135 listed on eBay for $158, reduced from $198. So someone obviously seems to think that this lens should be worth a premium. I paid $9 for mine. In general, most of the AT-Xs can be found for a deep discount except the 28-85 and 80-200/2.8, which still seem to command higher prices.</p>

<p>Jeff has me beat, though, in getting his 35-105 FDn for $20!</p>

<p>Zooms vs. primes is a personal decision, based both on how you work and what you shoot. Since you've got the 35-70, though, you can definitely improve the sharpness in your kit for not very much.</p>

<p>FD prime choices on a thin budget: 50/1.8 and 28/2.8. With patience, you can get both for a total of $50 or less.</p>

<p>FD upgrade: 50/1.4 (any version, they're all super) and 24/2.8. Like many posters on this list, I find that I reach for the 24mm more often than the 28mm. If you want a prime at the other end of this range, there are several affordable choices of the 100/2.8.</p>

<p>Tokina also made a 28-135/4-4.5 in its AT-X line. These don't seem to sell for the premium that the AT-X 28-85/3.5-4.5 lenses do. You will pay even more of a premium for the excellent (but somewhat fragile) Canon 28-85/4 FDn.</p>

<p>There are a number of quality zooms in this range, as have been mentioned. Your choices can be narrowed by what you plan to use the lens for and by price. My go-to walkaround lens is the Canon 35-105/3.5 two touch. As Russell noted, you can find these for a reasonable price if you look around and are patient. When I need better macro, a little wider range, or a little more speed, I reach for my Vivitar Series 1 28-105/2.8-3.8. For more speed, you can look at the Vivitar Series 1 35-85/2.8 variable focus (not a true zoom) and the Tokina AT-Xs, 24-40/2.8 and 60-120/2.8. Canon also made a 50-135/3.5 FDn, which has a good reputation but seems to be somewhat rare, so consequently, sells for more than the 35-105.</p>

<p>The 35 f2 is one of my favorite lenses. I have the concave SSC version (distinguishable because it only goes to f16 vs. f22 for the convex SSC). It's a legendarily sharp lens at an affordable price.</p>

<p>As for the 100 2.8 chrome front, it does go to f22. It is the heaviest of all of the 100 2.8s, but not quite as heavy as the 100 f2.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, in the Gary Reese lens tests, there was a significant difference between the 85mm 1.8s, with the FDn scoring better than the SSC at every level except f11 and f16.</p>

<p>As for alternatives, the 100 2.8 chrome front isn't mentioned that often, but I have been very pleased with mine. It may the sharpest of the 2.8s. For landscapes where speed isn't an issue, I would recommend the 35-105 two-touch zoom, which provides nearly the sharpness of the primes and a lot more flexibility.</p>

<p>For whatever it's worth, KEH currently has an SSC Asph. in bargain condition at $599--the same price they have for a bargain FDn L version. For the latter, they have an Ex+ one at $789, reduced from $819, so you would think that a near mint SSC Asph. should be worth at least that.</p>

<p>Does anyone have any comparison experience with the SSC Asph. vs. the FDn L? I assume we're talking slightly varying degrees of awesome.</p>

<p>I must admit that I've recently been wrestling with the same questions, tempted by the Panasonic G-1 so I can keep using my FD gear. It's the first time in a long time that I've been tempted.</p>

<p>I've been using FD since 1977 and still have the A-1 that I got in 1979. I did get an early digital point-and-shoot around 1997. The shutter lag killed me, particularly when photographing kids, and I vowed at that time that I wouldn't go digital until I could afford a top-notch DSLR. Since then, though, my FD kit has grown nicely, to about 20 lens. As several of you have noted, even if I went digital, I could never, ever think about building a comparable kit.</p>

<p>I also agree with Alan about the "thinking factor." I definitely put more thought into my shots than the folks around me digitizing madly. What do they do with all of those images? Do they have several external hard drives filled with mediocre photos that they're never going to print and really shouldn't show to anyone? As Alan said, I feel like I know when I've got the shots to document whatever the occasion is, and I'm right the vast majority of the time.</p>

<p>I've started my two oldest kids shooting T-50s (total cost: less than $50, including two 50mm 1.8s). They love it. And they already stop and think about every shot, which is invaluable to learn at their ages. I'm looking forward to moving them into something with more manual control, again at the dirt-cheap FD system prices.</p>

<p>Heck, I just recently bought a beater F-1n off of eBay for $32. I wonder if any G-1s will still be going strong 30+ years from now--even for $32!</p>

<p>Call me a relic, call me what you will . . .</p>

<p>Greetings from a long-time reader but first-time poster. I've finally bothered to register to contribute to a subject near and dear to my interest--longer zooms. When I first started looking at them, I couldn't find much information about them, so I'll contribute what I can.</p>

<p>First of all, Robert is correct in noting in his initial query that the subject here is really the 200-300mm range. There are faster and sharper options in both zooms and primes at 100-200mm. But I consistently find myself coming up short for my needs at 200, so I've found that I benefit from having the 200 to 300 range.</p>

<p>I have what Alan has identified as the newer version of the 100-300mm f5.6 non-L. I've been pleasantly surprised by the color and reasonable sharpness of this lens. If you have reasonable expectations with this lens, you can get reasonable results (up to 8 x 10) if you have enough light. With a max speed of only 5.6, "if you have enough light" almost goes without saying. This lens benefits from a lens hood to avoid flair in that light. Without a tripod collar, it helps if you can at least find a place to prop yourself as you get into the 200-300 range.</p>

<p>After a few months with the 100-300, I lucked into an 85-300 f4.5 SSC for less than $100. This lens is a hoss, but if you can wrangle it, you can get excellent results. This lens has a tripod collar, and I didn't expect it to be hand-holdable, but I actually find myself using it that way more and more. With the monopod or without, I feel much more secure having this lens with the breech-lock mount, as the lens tends to hold the camera more than the camera holds the lens. The 85-300 is faster and sharper than the 100-300, and I have been using it more than the 100-300. But if I'm going to be lugging the gear for a few hours, the 100-300 has its place.</p>

<p>I've been tempted by the 100-300 L, but I can't get excited about paying a premium for another 5.6 lens with no collar. The 50-300 L is well out of my range. It weighs the same as the 85-300 SSC.</p>

<p>I'm curious if anyone has experience with 3d-party zooms in this range. Jeff mentioned the Tokina AT-X 100-300 f4. There is also the Tamron SP 60-300 f3.8-5.4 (no collar and 5.4 at the long end).</p>