1.4/50 x2 vs. 1.8/85

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon FD : One Thread

Can anybody tell me something about the quality of the FD 1:1.4/50 in combination with the Kenko Teleplus Macroconverter MC7? What about this combination vs. the FD 1:1.8/85 (macrofeature, handling, weight, quality, ...)? Thanks for your opinion.


-- Gerald Scharf (gerald.scharf@t-online.de), June 01, 1999


I'm not sure whether you will get decent results with a Canon FD lens plus an aftermarket teleconverter. You will have to try...

The FD 85 mm f/1.8 is an excellent portrait lens, maybe a bit soft at f/1.8, but so much the better for our ladies when they get a bit older ;-). Watch the depth of field which is hardly present at such a large aperture. No macro feature at all since the minimum focus distance is at about 90 cm (3 ft). Great for landscapes, too, helps you concentrate on what's important.

Hope this helps. Cheers, Hans

-- Hans H. Siegrist (hans.siegrist@fnis.ne.ch), June 04, 1999.

My "normal" lenses with 2x extenders remain sharper than my FD 75- 200mm and Tamron 80-210mm zooms at 100mm. The old style 50mm f/1.4 BL FD SSC paired with a Vivitar 2x macro focusing extender is sharpest and heaviest (both are mostly metal, not plastic), much heavier than a prime lens in the 85-135mm range. My later model 50mm f/1.8 (pushbutton type, plastic barrel) paired with a generic 2x extender is still quite sharp and much lighter. Either combination provides a much brighter viewfinder picture than my zooms. But for most portrait or medium telephoto type work, I think the moderately priced Canon FD 100mm f/2.8 or 135mm f/2.8 would be better values. The 100 is very light and compact and produces great shots.

-- Lex Jenkins (lexjenkins@hotmail.com), June 14, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ