Phillip Reeve
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
notherenow wrote:
Thanks Phillip. Very interesting.
I don't quite agree about the 50 1.2 FD L. Sold mine when I needed the money but I thought it was very nice even wide open (there is very little in focus at 1.2 but what there was, was sharp). When replacing, I was choosing between another FD 50 L, Mitakon 50 f0.95 and Sony Zeiss 55 1.8. I went for the Sony and am glad I did but it was close. I wanted at least one AF native prime so went against the 1.2 and being able to adapt it to other systems as well (unlike the two E mount lenses).
I love my FD 85 1.2 L(while old, mine is younger than some of the first version EF 85 1.2 L lenses) but mine has that dissolving bearings issue I think (AHHH, so THAT's what happened).
Three not on you list that I would love to see your take on-
24 1.4 FD L (I love mine even though it looks a bit ratty) this lens doesn't get as much love as I think it deserves. It is (probably) the lightest 24 1.4 going and so plays nicely on A7 series cameras and it is actually a very nice lens still.
Most of the focus ring is from .3m to 3m and only the last tiny fraction goes to infinity so it is not really a lens for landscapes (but still does ok stopped down I think). The price of these was just silly but has come down a bit sometimes.
FD L 80-200 f4. Again, I sold mine but was very happy with it and I think it is a lot better than the non L version.
The 35 TS 2.8 I have never owned this but it seems to still get some love.
...Show more →
The FD 1.2/50 L is certainly a nice lens and for it's performance it is remarkably small but I think other modern lenses deliver much better image quality for the same money.
About the FD 1.4/24 L I found no information, if you can point me to some full resolution images that would be great.
I have owned both the 80-200 L and TS 35 and they will be added in the next few days but Jannik had a part in those articles and hasn't found the time to finalize them yet.
|
