Upload & Sell: Off
| p.5 #8 · Does the 5N 'exaggerate' field curvature? |
Jonas B wrote:
Well, I've broken out the old FDn 28/2.8 and 50/1.8 from the AE-1 that I used in high school, (...)
Hmmm, maybe I should sell all of my rangefinder lenses, throw that $4K into the bank, and look forward to the NEX-7 again....
Your post made me check my drawers and I found an old FD (not FDn) 28/2.8. It's not the exact same lens as the FDn version; the FD has six blades instead of five and the 6 elements are arranged in six groups instead of in five groups. That's according to the Canon museum. My FD 28/2.8 has five aperture blades only so maybe they are wrong about the element/group number as well. The old aperture ring is metal instead of plastic and there are some other minor differences. I don't know how they compare optically.
The old FD 28/2.8... I placed the 5N on a tripod and shot a bookcase about 1m away. Then I backed of a little and mounted the CV 35/1.2 and took the same three images (at f/2.8, f/4 and f/5.6). When checking the images in the EVF the CV does better, also in the corner, at f/2.8. The f/4 and f/5.6 images looked more or less the same.
Then I aimed at a bottle with a chaotic and harshly lit bench in the kitchen in the background. No contest, the CV 35/1.2 trashed the FD comparing the bokeh in this situation (bright rings, comet like shaped OOF highlights towards the borders, harsher).
No surprises there. All the well known laws about diminishing returns, build quality related to price, old coating versus new coating and so on are true. I don't think I would chose this road as for every decent image I may take I would also start to wonder what it could have been like with a better lens.
Getting the money back for expensive RF lenses may be a kick but deliberately lower ones standards is not, at least not to me. I have to say this is a strange idea unless you really need the money.
Yeah, that version of the 28 has the older coatings, but I'm not sure if it has the same double convex element arrangement (the FDn version is 110g lighter and 9mm shorter.) Either way, I probably won't use the 28/2.8 too much.
Now that I'm questioning my need for tiniest, since these FDn lenses are lightweight and relatively small for SLR lenses and still fit in my bag similarly to my rangefinder lenses, I just ordered a FDn 17/4, 28/2, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 for relative pennies. I'm going to make some comparisons in size/handling and decide which way to go. Of course, using FDn lenses also makes some of my questions about the NEX-7 corner performance go away, so that's an added bonus.
Luka's post the other day really got me thinking about expectations and money spent on an aps-c sensor, and, not only am I a little tired trying to navigate a path to my perfect rangefinder setup on a NEX camera, but I'm questioning how much better the performance is compared to these relatively "generic" Canon lenses, when you take into account corner issues with the Sony sensor (especially with the 28mm focal length, which I really want.) Plus, I'm kind of liking the idea of getting back to basics and not obsessing over the shape of a highlight or something, and it isn't as if these Canon lenses are all terrible.
I don't need the money, and this is a cheap experiment, so we'll see...
p.s. I ordered a Canon 50/1.4 just to have uniformity and use the same adapter, but I have other SLR 50 lenses that I can use, too, now that I'm warming up to a size increase. The SMC Tak 50/1.4 and Summicron R 50 are still among the best 50s I've used for any system, and I can use them when I don't mind the extra weight.