jochen_busch

<p>I compared my FD 1,4/50 S.S.C. and my nFD 2,8/135 with my Lumix-Zooms 14-45 and 45-140. The Lumix-Zooms are much better at same aperture. The FD 50mm nearly matches the 14-45 zoom. Wide open the 1,4/50 produces a softening effect by straylight, which I like for portraiture. But both lenses are not in my MFT-bag normaly. Only the 135mm + converter 2xB is indeed a good 270mm with my stabilised OM-D.</p>

<p>The shown extender is the extender with 4 lenses. It is best with long lenses. For shorter lenses as the 50mm You should use the Kenko with 7 lenses. But even this is much worse than the Canon 2X-B, that also does not produce realy sharp pictures, as You can see in the other thread. I never used an extender with a zoom.</p>

<p>Cannot decide the 1,4/50 or the 2,0/35, if I have to keep only 1 lens. May be the 1,4/50, because I have an outstanding 2,0/35 with my Hexar AF.</p>

<p>FD-lenses never change aperture off the camera. So you need an adapter with on/off switch.</p>

<p>Since more than 30 years I at once changed to a plain matte screen, because split image and microprisms do bother me. Focusing was never a problem for me even with some AF-SLRs. Since I have a EF and a T90, I have no desire to change the screen, because split screen and microprisms are nearly not visible. I keep focusing via the matte part, because this way no recomposing is necessary. Especially with a fast lens, that is usualy used for portrait to blow out backround, it is very easy to focus.<br>

Grid screens I often used but not in terms of focusing.<br>

Recomposing is, as mentioned, indeed a problem for exposure, but light does normaly not change during a shooting. So use manuel exposure and stay with your measurement.</p>

<p>No, it is no good first film camera buy!<br /> It has to many bells and whistles and handling is so much different from any other camera, that you cannot find any help in the net or books without the original manual.<br /> <br />And be aware: lots of them have a major battery killing problem.</p>

<p>Bruno, You are not right. I just had a look at Popular Photography Annual 1964. About 80% of the pictures are taken with TriX, PlusX and HP3, most of them with TriX. That days, noise was not an issue as nowadays in digital times. Picture quality had an other level than sharpness - substance.</p>

<p>Since 1980 I photograph with the C41 B&W Ilford XP1 @100-1600. For more than 15 years before my favorit was the Ilford HP4 in Emofin @ 800-1600. Somtimes the Kodak TriX. So what? Only 50-100? The man who told You THAT, was NO expert.</p>

<p>Sorry, but I am somewhat disappointed, that the photos of the month all are out of a digital cam.</p>

<p>I like my T90, but my photogear-workshop says "T90 is high-risc-area" If anything fails, nobody will be able to fix it. He serviced my EF and I asked "will it work for the rest of my lifetime?" "longer" was his answer. So I can strongly recommend the EF. Yes it is a fully automatic (time-preset) camera, but all times 1/2 - 1/1000 are mechanical and work without batteries. Only the electronic times 1 - 30 sec need the battery. Payed some months ago with the 1,4/50 S.S.C. including the service of camera and lens less than 200 Euro in Germany.</p>

<p>And if You are running out of money in the desert, may be You find a dealer that pays hard coins only for the shutter, because the blades are made from platinum :-))</p>