Review: Canon 35mm f/3.5 & 50mm f/1.4

[Adrian H]

Hello I'm looking for reviews for the following lenses:

Canon FD 35mm f/3.5
Canon FC 50mm f/1.4
Canon FD 75-200 f/4.5-5.6

I checked Photodo.com and they didn't have too many Canon FD lens rating. I
don't know of any other websites.

Thanks,
Adrian

[eMeL]

Try
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/in
dex.htm

Generally, the FD 50/1.4 is considered one of the best lenses ever made,
period. The 35/3.5 and the 75-200/4.5zoom are definitely NOT the best
lenses ever made, with the latter being in my experience quite bad - soft
and devoid of any meaningful picture contrast.

Michael

Adrian H <aah...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:V0Dh6.8153$bu4.1...@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net...

[David Littlewood]

In article <3a871...@news2.one.net>, eMeL <badb...@hotmail.com>
writes

>Try
>http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/in
>dex.htm
>
>Generally, the FD 50/1.4 is considered one of the best lenses ever made,
>period. The 35/3.5 and the 75-200/4.5zoom are definitely NOT the best
>lenses ever made, with the latter being in my experience quite bad - soft
>and devoid of any meaningful picture contrast.
>

The 35mm f/2 FD lens is, however, one of the best lenses in the FD range
from my experience (far from complete, but quite extensive). It would
stand up to the best designs of today. IMO it would be worth many times
the price of the f/3.5 design.

In zooms, the 80-200 f/4 was always regarded as one of the best - I
certainly found it to be virtually indistinguishable from fixed focal
length lenses in all normal use. The only drawback is its size - it is
much larger than comparable modern designs, being (IIRC) 161mm long and
not particularly light.

If you want anything better than these two in FD, you will have to look
for the L series, but even those may not be better, just faster (I
cannot speak from experience here, I could never afford them).
--
David Littlewood
London
Energy Consultant and Photographer

[eMeL]

David Littlewood <da...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:op1UYRAW...@dlittlewood.demon.co.uk...

> The 35mm f/2 FD lens is, however, one of the best lenses in the FD range
> from my experience (far from complete, but quite extensive). It would
> stand up to the best designs of today. IMO it would be worth many times
> the price of the f/3.5 design.
>
> In zooms, the 80-200 f/4 was always regarded as one of the best - I
> certainly found it to be virtually indistinguishable from fixed focal
> length lenses in all normal use. The only drawback is its size - it is
> much larger than comparable modern designs, being (IIRC) 161mm long and
> not particularly light.
>
> If you want anything better than these two in FD, you will have to look
> for the L series, but even those may not be better, just faster (I
> cannot speak from experience here, I could never afford them).

My all-time list of favorite FD lenses (of superb quality, top of the line,
best of breed -"then" or now - if you will)
includes the following single-focal lenses, but - sadly - just one zoom (New
FD 35-105/3.5 72 mm filter, constant aperture):
New FD 17/4 (w/floating element)
New FD 24/1.4L
New FD 85/1.2L
New FD 50/1.2L
New FD 35/2
BL FD 50/1.4 SSC
BL FD 100/2.8 SSC
New FD 135/2
New FD 200/2.8 (IF)
New FD 200/1.8L (the best and rarest tele lens ever made in the FD line.)
all 3 FD Macro lenses: 50/3.5, 100/4 and 200/4
and the 35/2.8 SSC TS tilt & shift PC lens.

Nice line-up, huh? Especially for the supposedly "orphaned" system :-) Not
to mention long teles (such as superb FD 300/2.8L) which don't interest me
much...And there are many more FD lenses that are "merely" great.

Michael