Archive 2014 · Canon FDn 20mm f/2.8 and 24mm f/2.8 on A7R
p.5 #1Canon FDn 20mm f/2.8 and 24mm f/2.8 on A7R
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I bought the lens after Fred's recommendation, used it a lot and I can only second twoeye's analysis
I would add that the flare resistance can be a problem and that for best corner performance the moderate field curvature should be taken into consideration.
Then I sometimes see a hot spot in the center. Have others observed that as well? The a7's reflective sensor might play a role.
When I compared it to the Sony 4/16-35 ZA OSS the Canon FD actually had better corners at f/11.
I once had to use it for night sky photography, with "interesting" results:
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5186/14100388592_6aaa06705b_o.jpg
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3674/18761301508_e5a9353682_b.jpgCAnon nFD 2.8/20 | by Phillip Reeve Data, on Flickr
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/256/18761890188_c61e0cff8d_o.jpg
Oh an I just finished my review: Canon FD 2.8/20
...Show more →
I agree with your review of the Canon 20/2.8 FD lens which I also used. I suggest you add at the end of your review as alternatives also the very good performing Cosina-Voigtlander 21/1.8 Ultron lens.
I bought the lens after Fred's recommendation, used it a lot and I can only second twoeye's analysis
I would add that the flare resistance can be a problem and that for best corner performance the moderate field curvature should be taken into consideration.
Then I sometimes see a hot spot in the center. Have others observed that as well? The a7's reflective sensor might play a role.
When I compared it to the Sony 4/16-35 ZA OSS the Canon FD actually had better corners at f/11.
I once had to use it for night sky photography, with "interesting" results:
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5186/14100388592_6aaa06705b_o.jpg
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3674/18761301508_e5a9353682_b.jpgCAnon nFD 2.8/20 | by Phillip Reeve Data, on Flickr
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/256/18761890188_c61e0cff8d_o.jpg
Oh an I just finished my review: Canon FD 2.8/20
...Show more →I agree with your review of the Canon 20/2.8 FD lens which I also used. I suggest you add at the end of your review as alternatives also the very good performing Cosina-Voigtlander 21/1.8 Ultron lens.
Jun 19, 2015 at 06:00 AM
p.5 #2Canon FDn 20mm f/2.8 and 24mm f/2.8 on A7R
A few shots from my 20mm f/2.8, which I just got yesterday.
http://www.jordansteele.com/2015/rooming_house.jpg
http://www.jordansteele.com/2015/columbus_cloudy_flowers.jpg
http://www.jordansteele.com/2015/ymca.jpg
http://www.jordansteele.com/2015/rooming_house.jpg
http://www.jordansteele.com/2015/columbus_cloudy_flowers.jpg
http://www.jordansteele.com/2015/ymca.jpg
Jun 19, 2015 at 06:23 AM
p.5 #3Canon FDn 20mm f/2.8 and 24mm f/2.8 on A7R
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Oh an I just finished my review: Canon FD 2.8/20
Thanks for taking the time to publish that review! Very helpful!
One comment, it is essentially impossible to evaluate corner sharpness without lateral CA correction. I completely understand that in a review we want to comment on and potentially illustrate how bad lateral CA is on a given lens, but it really should be corrected for sharpness examples. Consider essentially every major camera manufacturer now software corrects lateral CA and nearly every user who understands how to use their RAW converter applies software lateral CA correction for legacy lenses too. In the end for a practical evaluation of corner sharpness reviews should really show images with lateral CA correction applied in their sharpness vs. image position and aperture samples.
Still trying to convince myself not to purchase an A7Rii nor to expand my FDn collection...
Oh an I just finished my review: Canon FD 2.8/20
Thanks for taking the time to publish that review! Very helpful!
One comment, it is essentially impossible to evaluate corner sharpness without lateral CA correction. I completely understand that in a review we want to comment on and potentially illustrate how bad lateral CA is on a given lens, but it really should be corrected for sharpness examples. Consider essentially every major camera manufacturer now software corrects lateral CA and nearly every user who understands how to use their RAW converter applies software lateral CA correction for legacy lenses too. In the end for a practical evaluation of corner sharpness reviews should really show images with lateral CA correction applied in their sharpness vs. image position and aperture samples.
Still trying to convince myself not to purchase an A7Rii nor to expand my FDn collection...
Jun 19, 2015 at 09:26 AM
p.5 #4Canon FDn 20mm f/2.8 and 24mm f/2.8 on A7R
kwalsh wrote:
Still trying to convince myself not to purchase an A7Rii nor to expand my FDn collection...
As a fairly new A7r owner I'd say go for FDn lenses. I have package in the mail to pick up today I am hoping is my 20mm lenses. My next FDn will be a 300/f L. Still some gorgeous FD glass out there.
Glass, if in excellent shape, should only go up in value or at least hold its value.
Still trying to convince myself not to purchase an A7Rii nor to expand my FDn collection...
As a fairly new A7r owner I'd say go for FDn lenses. I have package in the mail to pick up today I am hoping is my 20mm lenses. My next FDn will be a 300/f L. Still some gorgeous FD glass out there.
Glass, if in excellent shape, should only go up in value or at least hold its value.
Jun 19, 2015 at 09:32 AM
p.5 #5Canon FDn 20mm f/2.8 and 24mm f/2.8 on A7R
My copy came in today. This one looks and feels brand new. Haven't done much for tests but what I have it is really impressing me. I think I have a superb copy. Hoping weather cooperates so I can get out with it this weekend.
Here is a standard gear porn shot of it sitting in front of my monitor.
Here is a standard gear porn shot of it sitting in front of my monitor.
Jun 19, 2015 at 10:47 PM
p.5 #6Canon FDn 20mm f/2.8 and 24mm f/2.8 on A7R
I read about the FD 20 2.8 here some time ago when Fred initially posted, so I picked one up. I have been really pleased. Despite owning the 28 FE WA converter and the CZ 16-35 FE, I find myself reaching for this lens more. Not sure, but I feel it the less sharp and contrasty of the 3, but I like the colors the best, and the rendering overall. I have been meaning to do a comparison shoot of the 3, but I live out of a Honda Civic currently, so not sure that will happen. I did take the 28 FE WA converter on a two week trip with me, but the built in hood and no filters screwed it up. The WA is really sharp and contrasty, but distortion is significant. I am not as technical as most shooters, so their reviews are probably more helpful anyway.
I find I don't really shoot the FD 20 at 2.8-5.6, whereas the other lenses I will. I really like the way the FD lenses handle greens and reds. My FD 80-200F4 and 85L are similar.
I find I don't really shoot the FD 20 at 2.8-5.6, whereas the other lenses I will. I really like the way the FD lenses handle greens and reds. My FD 80-200F4 and 85L are similar.
Jun 19, 2015 at 11:12 PM
p.5 #7Canon FDn 20mm f/2.8 and 24mm f/2.8 on A7R
retrofocus wrote:
. I suggest you add at the end of your review as alternatives also the very good performing Cosina-Voigtlander 21/1.8 Ultron lens.
Just added. My quick search did not find that much info about it, so my assessment is mostly based on this set: https://www.flickr.com/photos/hhackbarth/sets/72157638018708395 . If you disagree please tell me
kwalsh wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to publish that review! Very helpful!
One comment, it is essentially impossible to evaluate corner sharpness without lateral CA correction. I completely understand that in a review we want to comment on and potentially illustrate how bad lateral CA is on a given lens, but it really should be corrected for sharpness examples. Consider essentially every major camera manufacturer now software corrects lateral CA and nearly every user who understands how to use their RAW converter applies software lateral CA correction for legacy lenses too. In the end for a practical evaluation of corner sharpness reviews...Show more →
I think you are right and I added one version without CA to the review. Thanks for the input
. I suggest you add at the end of your review as alternatives also the very good performing Cosina-Voigtlander 21/1.8 Ultron lens.
Just added. My quick search did not find that much info about it, so my assessment is mostly based on this set: https://www.flickr.com/photos/hhackbarth/sets/72157638018708395 . If you disagree please tell me
kwalsh wrote:
Phillip Reeve wrote
Oh an I just finished my review: Canon FD 2.8/20One comment, it is essentially impossible to evaluate corner sharpness without lateral CA correction. I completely understand that in a review we want to comment on and potentially illustrate how bad lateral CA is on a given lens, but it really should be corrected for sharpness examples. Consider essentially every major camera manufacturer now software corrects lateral CA and nearly every user who understands how to use their RAW converter applies software lateral CA correction for legacy lenses too. In the end for a practical evaluation of corner sharpness reviews...Show more →
I think you are right and I added one version without CA to the review. Thanks for the input
Jun 22, 2015 at 12:52 AM
p.5 #8Canon FDn 20mm f/2.8 and 24mm f/2.8 on A7R
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I think you are right and I added one version without CA to the review. Thanks for the input
Thanks, super helpful! Much easier to evaluate the extreme corners now. Looks surprisingly good in the corners at F/11. Thanks again, I know how much time and effort doing a review takes.
I think you are right and I added one version without CA to the review. Thanks for the input
Thanks, super helpful! Much easier to evaluate the extreme corners now. Looks surprisingly good in the corners at F/11. Thanks again, I know how much time and effort doing a review takes.
Jun 22, 2015 at 06:04 AM