Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

What would you say are must-have FD lenses under $100?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:57 pm    Post subject: What would you say are must-have FD lenses under $100? Reply with quote

Hey guys, I'm moving back to the NEX system since I seem to prefer it over the other systems that I've tried.


I'm going to buy a Lens Turbo instead of a standard "dumb" adapter.

I've chosen the FD model due to the better reviews it has gotten. Nikon F is on the table but their 35 f/2's are more expensive.


Right now I have two lenses from Keh that I'm probably going to get.

An FD 50mm 1.4 rated as BGN for $50. It's the solid black one but from what I've read, the optics don't really differ all that much.

http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-CA060104000190?r=FE


The other option is an FD 35mm f/2 rated as Ugly (I'm unsure if I want to get something rated as ugly) for $65.

http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-CA060104003950?r=FE



I'm dead set on the 50mm but is there anything better than the 35 for under $100? Is the Soligar 28mm f/2 good?



I'd prefer something wider than 50 for the second lens. I'm not opposed to longer (like 85 or something) but most of the time I shoot indoors.


Thanks!


PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For some reason I can't get it to stop forming the entire end of my post as a link. There are no URL tags except between what should be the actual links.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 11:26 pm    Post subject: Re: What would you say are must-have FD lenses under $100? Reply with quote

It's anti spam, you can't post pictures or links in your first post - it stops the spam-bots.

mgear wrote:
Hey guys, I'm moving back to the NEX system since I seem to prefer it over the other systems that I've tried.


I'm going to buy a Lens Turbo instead of a standard "dumb" adapter.

I've chosen the FD model due to the better reviews it has gotten. Nikon F is on the table but their 35 f/2's are more expensive.


Right now I have two lenses from Keh that I'm probably going to get.

An FD 50mm 1.4 rated as BGN for $50. It's the solid black one but from what I've read, the optics don't really differ all that much.

http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-CA060104000190?r=FE


The other option is an FD 35mm f/2 rated as Ugly (I'm unsure if I want to get something rated as ugly) for $65.

http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-CA060104003950?r=FE



I'm dead set on the 50mm but is there anything better than the 35 for under $100? Is the Soligar 28mm f/2 good?



I'd prefer something wider than 50 for the second lens. I'm not opposed to longer (like 85 or something) but most of the time I shoot indoors.


Thanks!


PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 11:31 pm    Post subject: Re: What would you say are must-have FD lenses under $100? Reply with quote

Lloydy wrote:
It's anti spam, you can't post pictures or links in your first post - it stops the spam-bots.



That explains why they appeared after I posted the second post.


Thanks!


PostPosted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

50/1.8 SC, 50/1.4 SSC, 35/2 with chrome filter ring or early 35/2 SSC with concave front element, 135/2.5.

FL 100/3.5.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 12:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

casualcollector wrote:
50/1.8 SC, 50/1.4 SSC, 35/2 with chrome filter ring or early 35/2 SSC with concave front element, 135/2.5.

FL 100/3.5.


A 50mm f1.8 SC is an outstanding lens and one in excellent condition should be less than $100.
Likewise the 135mm f2.5 - my all time favourite FD lens - but to find one now under $100 might be something of a challenge.
OH


PostPosted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FL 2.5/35 is one I really like.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 5:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Under $100/lens leaves you with either a really ugly 35/2 or you could get a very nice 35/2.8 which isn't as nice as the F2, but still very good. The 24/2.8 would also be on my list; it'd be a little bit over $100 for a good copy, but it's a better lens than the 28mm in my opinion. You might also consider the 50/3.5 which is very sharp and gives you macro capabilities.

I agree with you that the 50/1.4 is a no-brainer, but why get a $50 BGN when you can grab an EX+ for $90? It's one of my favourite lenses of all time and is well worth an extra bit of money to get a great copy.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 5:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of course there are these three going for next to nothing:
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/151108163503?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649


PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 5:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FDn 50mm f/3.5 Macro


PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 5:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

People have been reporting that some lenses need to have the aperture lever trimmed some to clear the ST adapter, and there are a few lenses like the FL 35/2.5 that has protruding rear that could cause issues too.
My recommendations are:
24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4, 50/3.5 macro, 85/1.8, & 135/3.5 the 35/2 & 85/1.8 being the more expensive lenses.
I have a preference for the SSC versions(SC for the 50/1.8 & the 135's as there is no SSC version) because they are more solidly built, and the aperture lever can be locked at he end of the slot so you don't need to use the adapters lock ring to enable the aperture(nFD can't do this), The nFD(bayonet mount with the silver release button) versions should be good as well.

I would stay away from the ugly rated lenses too, BGN should be somewhat safe, I'd wait for good versions to pop up.

My top picks for FD SSC are the 24/2.8 & 24/1.4 Aspherical, 35/2.8 Tilt/Shift, 55/1.2 Aspherical, & 85/1.2 Aspherical. These are world class lenses.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 6:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lightshow wrote:
People have been reporting that some lenses need to have the aperture lever trimmed some to clear the ST adapter, and there are a few lenses like the FL 35/2.5 that has protruding rear that could cause issues too.
My recommendations are:
24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4, 50/3.5 macro, 85/1.8, & 135/3.5 the 35/2 & 85/1.8 being the more expensive lenses.
I have a preference for the SSC versions(SC for the 50/1.8 & the 135's as there is no SSC version) because they are more solidly built, and the aperture lever can be locked at he end of the slot so you don't need to use the adapters lock ring to enable the aperture(nFD can't do this), The nFD(bayonet mount with the silver release button) versions should be good as well.

I would stay away from the ugly rated lenses too, BGN should be somewhat safe, I'd wait for good versions to pop up.



Ahh, I completely forgot about that.

I'm used to M42 lenses being adapted with their tiny pin.


The 50mm 1.4 is a for-sure one, are all of them optically alright? Is there a noticeable difference between SSC and non?


The 24 2.8 is interesting but seems to be over $100 for the most bar (Looking on the Bay). Is it good? I've never had that wide of a lens.

I'm not opposed to third party lenses either.





And to everyone else replying in this thread, I am reading everything and am checking out the recommendations. Thank you!


PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 6:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

eeec wrote:
Under $100/lens leaves you with either a really ugly 35/2 or you could get a very nice 35/2.8 which isn't as nice as the F2, but still very good. The 24/2.8 would also be on my list; it'd be a little bit over $100 for a good copy, but it's a better lens than the 28mm in my opinion. You might also consider the 50/3.5 which is very sharp and gives you macro capabilities.

I agree with you that the 50/1.4 is a no-brainer, but why get a $50 BGN when you can grab an EX+ for $90? It's one of my favourite lenses of all time and is well worth an extra bit of money to get a great copy.



Yeah, I didn't know the 24mm existed. I'm super interested in it! I've never had something so wide.



And I have to buy the adapter too! ($144-ish)


PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mgear wrote:
Lightshow wrote:
People have been reporting that some lenses need to have the aperture lever trimmed some to clear the ST adapter, and there are a few lenses like the FL 35/2.5 that has protruding rear that could cause issues too.
My recommendations are:
24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4, 50/3.5 macro, 85/1.8, & 135/3.5 the 35/2 & 85/1.8 being the more expensive lenses.
I have a preference for the SSC versions(SC for the 50/1.8 & the 135's as there is no SSC version) because they are more solidly built, and the aperture lever can be locked at he end of the slot so you don't need to use the adapters lock ring to enable the aperture(nFD can't do this), The nFD(bayonet mount with the silver release button) versions should be good as well.

I would stay away from the ugly rated lenses too, BGN should be somewhat safe, I'd wait for good versions to pop up.



Ahh, I completely forgot about that.

I'm used to M42 lenses being adapted with their tiny pin.


The 50mm 1.4 is a for-sure one, are all of them optically alright? Is there a noticeable difference between SSC and non?

No, not a whole lot changed with the 50/1.4, they are all 7 element in 6 groups, the coatings did improve from the chrome nose version to the SSC version, the nFD also has SSC coatings. Even the FL 50/1.4 mk2 is of similar design.
Quote:



The 24 2.8 is interesting but seems to be over $100 for the most bar (Looking on the Bay). Is it good? I've never had that wide of a lens.
I love the SSC 24/2.8 its one of my best lenses easily in the top 10 of my 100+ lens collection, its sharp wide open, has good flare resistance, and color is good.
Quote:

I'm not opposed to third party lenses either.





And to everyone else replying in this thread, I am reading everything and am checking out the recommendations. Thank you!


More info about the versions here:
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/index.html


Last edited by Lightshow on Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:51 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lightshow wrote:
People have been reporting that some lenses need to have the aperture lever trimmed some to clear the ST adapter, and there are a few lenses like the FL 35/2.5 that has protruding rear that could cause issues too.
My recommendations are:


Alrighty then, I'll be getting a 50mm 1.4 (best condition for the price one) and a 24mm 2.8!


I'll eventually get more but for now this is all I can afford (with the Lens Turbo).



Thanks guys!


PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mgear wrote:
Lightshow wrote:
People have been reporting that some lenses need to have the aperture lever trimmed some to clear the ST adapter, and there are a few lenses like the FL 35/2.5 that has protruding rear that could cause issues too.
My recommendations are:


Alrighty then, I'll be getting a 50mm 1.4 (best condition for the price one) and a 24mm 2.8!


I'll eventually get more but for now this is all I can afford (with the Lens Turbo).



Thanks guys!

The 24/2.8 and 50/1.4 make a great combo, their size are nearly identical, the 85/1.8 is a tiny bit bigger.
Take your time, look for lenses with clean glass, and preferably no dents, everything else can be fixed except maybe a seized helicoid.

A sample shot from my 24/2.8 on my NEX-7


PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 8:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lightshow wrote:
mgear wrote:
Lightshow wrote:
People have been reporting that some lenses need to have the aperture lever trimmed some to clear the ST adapter, and there are a few lenses like the FL 35/2.5 that has protruding rear that could cause issues too.
My recommendations are:


Alrighty then, I'll be getting a 50mm 1.4 (best condition for the price one) and a 24mm 2.8!


I'll eventually get more but for now this is all I can afford (with the Lens Turbo).



Thanks guys!

The 24/2.8 and 50/1.4 make a great combo, their size are nearly identical, the 85/1.8 is a tiny bit bigger.
Take your time, look for lenses with clean glass, and preferably no dents, everything else can be fixed except maybe a seized helicoid.

A sample shot from my 24/2.8 on my NEX-7
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/7099539503/][/url]


Wow, that does really resist flare.

I will eventually get the 85 but that's for another time.


Really the only trouble I have with Keh is that they almost never show pictures of the actual item. At least they have a 14 day no hassle return policy and are super conservative on their ratings.

Back when I had an A55, I bought a 70-210 f/4 from them rated as BGN. I'd honestly consider it near-mint. Only a slight hairline scratch on the distance window.


I noticed you live in Calgary. Do you ever see "The Camera Store" people filming?

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheCameraStoreTV/videos?view=0/


PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 9:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mgear wrote:
Lightshow wrote:
mgear wrote:
Lightshow wrote:
People have been reporting that some lenses need to have the aperture lever trimmed some to clear the ST adapter, and there are a few lenses like the FL 35/2.5 that has protruding rear that could cause issues too.
My recommendations are:


Alrighty then, I'll be getting a 50mm 1.4 (best condition for the price one) and a 24mm 2.8!


I'll eventually get more but for now this is all I can afford (with the Lens Turbo).



Thanks guys!

The 24/2.8 and 50/1.4 make a great combo, their size are nearly identical, the 85/1.8 is a tiny bit bigger.
Take your time, look for lenses with clean glass, and preferably no dents, everything else can be fixed except maybe a seized helicoid.

A sample shot from my 24/2.8 on my NEX-7
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/7099539503/][/url]


Wow, that does really resist flare.

I will eventually get the 85 but that's for another time.


Really the only trouble I have with Keh is that they almost never show pictures of the actual item. At least they have a 14 day no hassle return policy and are super conservative on their ratings.

Back when I had an A55, I bought a 70-210 f/4 from them rated as BGN. I'd honestly consider it near-mint. Only a slight hairline scratch on the distance window.


I noticed you live in Calgary. Do you ever see "The Camera Store" people filming?

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheCameraStoreTV/videos?view=0/

I do go there, but not often enough to see them filming, they really are like how you see them.

Some lens brands I wouldn't buy from KEH, particularly when there are variations in the design, like Minolta MC they don't differentiate between the early and later version, the SSC 35/2, the early concave(better) vs the later convex is another example, but for the lenses that don't have variations they are great, the 24/2.8 & 50/1.4 should be fine.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I recently bought a fd 50-125/3.5 and 100/4.0 macro very cheap. They both seem to be very good. Not very fast but tack sharp wide open so still very usefull.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry, that is 50-135mm f/3.5.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've got that darn pretty lil FD SSC 24/2.8 for something around 55$ with some dust but with the same excellent IQ. I am sure 100-150 is really fair price for the gem. What are the options in AF world? Never seen any even twice the price.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The 50mm F1.4 is amazing!


PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks like you've gotten some pretty good suggestions so far. I have a rather large collection of FD and FL lenses, but I timed things right -- most of them I bought before the NEX and m4/3 cameras got really popular. Using eBay as a guide, prices have increased substantially.

These days, it's tough finding clean FD 50/1.4s for less than $100 on eBay. Same for FD 24/2.8s. It's possible, if you go for auctions and not BINs. A 24mm that is often very cheap, but which is an excellent lens is the Tamron 24mm f/2.5. I have one and I've compared it to my FD 24mm and it compares very favorably.

I'd go for a 24mm and not a 28mm as a prime though. Once I bought my FD24mm, my FD 28mm no longer got any use. I do use a zoom that has 28mm as its wide setting, though -- the Vivitar Series 1 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5. It is a great lens. When I shot Canon FD exclusively, I also used the S1 28-90. A lot. And it always did a great job for me.

My all time favorite 35mm prime is Canon's FL 35mm f/2.5. It is a fantastic lens and if you're patient you can find clean copies on eBay for not that much. Or KEH occasionally.

Because you're shooting with a NEX, an ultrawide will be the same as about a 28mm on a full frame camera. Unfortunately, ultrawides are expensive. Doesn't matter much who made it, either. Because of your budget limitations, I'd just stick with using the kit lens that came with your camera.

85mm lenses are almost always pricey, including FD 85s. This is a focal length that, if you want a good FD copy, you're more than likely gonna have to suck it up and pay the premium. Canon's FD 100mm f/2.8 however can often be found for much less, yet it is a great performer. When I was shooting FD exclusively, my FD 100mm was one of my most favorite lenses.

The FD 135mm f/3.5 can often be had for fairly cheap. The f/2.5 version, not. But there is a host of aftermarket 135/2.8s that you can choose from that all do a good job, many of which can be had for a song.

Canon made a great FD 200mm -- the 200mm f/2.8. It has internal focusing and a built-in hood. But it usually sells for quite a bit. A good substitute is the Vivitar 200mm f/3.5. Made by Komine, it's big and heavy, but it is an excellent performer.

For lenses 300mm and longer, chances are very slim that you'll find a clean Canon FD for under $100. Canon's 100-300 f/5.6 zoom is just an okay performer and you might be able to find one for under $100. But I don't recommend it. The 100-300 L is much better, but costs much more, too. The best 300mm zoom for under $100 that I know of is the Tamron SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4. I've used this lens for years and I like it a lot.

Longer than 300mm for under $100? Good luck. One of those cheapo presets or a no-name mirror.

In addition to KEH being a good place to shop for used gear for cheap, there's also Goodwill: shopgoodwill.com.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
These days, it's tough finding clean FD 50/1.4s for less than $100 on eBay. Same for FD 24/2.8s. It's possible, if you go for auctions and not BINs. A 24mm that is often very cheap, but which is an excellent lens is the Tamron 24mm f/2.5. I have one and I've compared it to my FD 24mm and it compares very favorably.


IMHO do not waste time and look for a clean FD 50 SSC or FL 50mm just get FDn 50mm 1.4. Look for one with original hood as it is quite big and I assume they do not made it so big without any reason. Optics on the FDn are excellent. Truly amazing lens. I had new Zeiss 50mm F1.4 (for Canon - Paid 800USD) and compared them wide open and IMO the FDn beats Zeiss. I am talking about Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50mm ZE (latest model 2013)

Also note that FDn 50mm 1.8 is as well an outstanding lens, a sleeper and can be had for a little money.

cooltouch wrote:
Canon made a great FD 200mm -- the 200mm f/2.8. It has internal focusing and a built-in hood. But it usually sells for quite a bit. A good substitute is the Vivitar 200mm f/3.5. Made by Komine, it's big and heavy, but it is an excellent performer.


+1 on this. Had both but had to sell Canon and kept the Vivitar (I have it in Canon breech lock mount) which delivers excellent results too, however Canon is a bit better.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RAART wrote:
cooltouch wrote:
These days, it's tough finding clean FD 50/1.4s for less than $100 on eBay. Same for FD 24/2.8s. It's possible, if you go for auctions and not BINs. A 24mm that is often very cheap, but which is an excellent lens is the Tamron 24mm f/2.5. I have one and I've compared it to my FD 24mm and it compares very favorably.


IMHO do not waste time and look for a clean FD 50 SSC or FL 50mm just get FDn 50mm 1.4. Look for one with original hood as it is quite big and I assume they do not made it so big without any reason. Optics on the FDn are excellent. Truly amazing lens. I had new Zeiss 50mm F1.4 (for Canon - Paid 800USD) and compared them wide open and IMO the FDn beats Zeiss. I am talking about Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50mm ZE (latest model 2013)

Also note that FDn 50mm 1.8 is as well an outstanding lens, a sleeper and can be had for a little money.




+1 on that.
You would be hard pressed to tell the difference in the images taken by the 50mm f1.8 and the 50mm f1.4 - in fact, over the years I have seen the 1.8 outperform the 1.4 in the hands of a capable photographer
OH