Silentlight wrote:
I thought the radioactive material was part of the coating they used to use. Guess I need to do some reading on it.
Short story is; the radioactive ingredients (lanthanum, etc.) are added to the glass mixture itself, to give it certain beneficial properties (namely refractive index, I think).
I just received a cropped Nikon body and it still won't mount. Something inside at the top of the body is blocking the lens from entering the chamber--I know what it is, but not sure I want to perform surgery. I have another idea, but not sure how to get the rear element out of the f-mount.
If I already didn't have an EF 85 1.2L mk 1 I'd be pretty tempted to get an FD 85L and convert it. And an EOS-1n RS to go with it (or with any of the crazy alt choices like other FD glass, Konica, etc.)
cogitech wrote:
I was thinking the same thing, but decided to take it easy on our dear Andreas.
After all, he does do such nice work with the EF!
:-) Pengland and Paul: I would probably go the FD-route if I didnīt already have the EF. But still, af is really useful on some lenses. My keeper rate is a lot higher with my 85L than say the Rokkor. I know I have said this before...
cogitech wrote:
Short story is; the radioactive ingredients (lanthanum, etc.) are added to the glass mixture itself, to give it certain beneficial properties (namely refractive index, I think).
More than likely dispersion relationship, which would manifest itself in the complex (i.e. frequency dependent) refractive index. Titania (TiO2) has a very high refractive index at some frequencies, but I don't remember it having as "nice" a dispersion relationship as other metal oxides. TiO2 also wants to agglomerate and crystallize, so it's probably harder to work with than older materials.
In human speak--the old glasses were likely easier to formulate and get a good color spectrum. This is mere speculation, and I'm not too keen on going out into my materials books to look up a bunch of ceramics to make a better postulation, sorry.
Thanks Andre. Certainly do let me know if you ever plan to visit Toronto.
With regards to sharpness of the FD vs. the EF vs. the SSC Asph. I don't think there are enough comparisons to draw any solid conclusions. In the end, I think they all must be pretty damned good
Here is a shot with the SSC Asph. wide open on 5D. I have posted it before, but here I'll include a 100% crop as well.
Apparently, Zeiss does not have a monopoly on "3D effect":
Is it just me or does the bokeh of the tree blossoms look more "dreamier" than what I think the EF 85L II would render. Definitely nice having less CA with the FD's than the EF but need AF for quick non-posed portrait shooting. I wanted to get a FD 55 1.2 SSC Aspherical but the prices are too high, thank you Kevin's Cameras, as it the EF 50 1.2 is not as strong a performer as the 85L II. Because of wanting AF I went the Contax N 50 1.4 route.
One thing I wanted to ask about the FD 85:
Does it tend to want to easily blow out the sky in outdoor full sun portrait shots like the EF 85?
John of Pebbleplace mentions this one nuisance with the EF 85L which I agree my copy does this too.
Welcome back Paul, and yes your dog definitely deserves a treat for his great posing work.
Wayne, I'm not sure what the EF would have done with this photo. Some of the tree branches are pretty close to the plane of focus there and I agree that they are rendered very well. Andreas (Anden) recently showed us a family shot that really put the EF to the test. Maybe the EF would have rendered the branches in my scene more like the highlights in Andreas' pic, but so many other factors are involved that it is basically meaningless to extrapolate. The lighting in Andreas' shot was completely different, for instance.
The only way to know for sure is for me to rent an EF for a weekend...
My time with this 5D/FD85L combo was short lived as you can see from this photo: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3400/3656627827_c70268e35a_o.jpg
Pardon the blur, as the photo was taken at 1/10 second, and I was shaking with apprehension at how much the repair will cost.
So expecting the unfortunate event to cost money and the tooling costs I am facing for a new 303 stainless EF back for FD and Leica R lenses, I bailed. That fav 85L is going to a new home.
So, will I return to FD85L land? Probably, as I believe the lens is as good as the EF version. Erwin Puts thinks so, too, if that means anything. There is also that absolute joy in shooting this lens, provided the viewfinder is accurate. The deal breaker is the 5D mirror.
Canon doesn't sell just the mirror, but the mirror assembly for $217, plus tax and shipping, and minus instructions for install. So, I'm asking myself, Is there any other comparable alternatives to this lens, save the EF version, for a stock 5D mirror?
Did it fall off due to grinding/shaving stress or did the mirror smack into the lens?
Keep in mind that Canon has identified an issue with 5D mirrors falling off and they are repairing them for free. Call them and tell them your 5D mirror fell off. Send it in with no mirror. I bet they just fix it and send it back.
