Yes, I loved the FD 35-105/3.5 on my AE-1P, so I converted one a while ago to EF mount (actually 2, but the first was a dud).
It is just as good on my 5D as it was on film, although I am much more of a prime user now than I was in my younger years, so I don't use the 35-105 much. I'll dig up some samples later...
Bifurcator wrote:
Here's another from the same:
100% Crop:
Great series. I also have that lens and have really liked working with it. Have you tried the 2x-A converter on the 300mm f/4? I just got one off ebay to try on that lens. That will be quite a supertelephoto setup on the GH2, effectively a 1200 f8 for less than $250.
Click here for the 100% version using the Canon 2x-A doubler (Image # 2).
I think the Canon 2X-A is a fun toy but when I pixel-peep the results it looks very close to the same as if I had just used (good) software to enlarge the image to 200%. If it's a subject that I can oversample and stack then some actual enhancement can be realized but otherwise I think it's not really worth the difficulty and light-loss it introduces. Maybe one of those $300 APO 2X Telcons are better, I dunno.
When you get yours post some test results. More tests make for more accurate assessments - and it's fun!
Here's an older one (I think). The Canon FD 24mm F2.0 all taken at F/2.0. I have to say I'm a bit surprised at how good this lens is. I thought for sure there would be CA with extreme bokeh like this. But it's clear, contrasty, and very little CA at all. Nice bokeh IMO too! I included a 100% crop after each image - taken yesterday.
Here's a few from the FD 135mm f2 on 5D
All wide open since I havent finished the aperture linkage yet. Not really fussed about it either, I only bought the lens for its max aperture
One from the lunar eclipse on the 21st Dec, hand-held at 1/50th.
This little guy turned up in our garden on boxing day and happily hung around since. Kind of ironic actually since our cat (a stray who turned up and never left) died on xmas eve and next thing we have a quail move in
empire - great shot of the quail, sorry to hear about your cat.
i seem to be very absent minded lately and have been screwing up shots, this time though the screwup at least produced some interesting (to me) test shots. i was taking a panorama of the chicago skyline near sunset with the canon FL 55mm f/1.2 on my NEX and i didn't notice that the lens was set to auto. i ended up taking the pano at f/1.2 instead of f/5.6 as i intended. so i got my first glimpse of how the lens performs at infinity wide open (don't know when i will ever shoot that way again). it turned out to be surprisingly sharp all things considered. the pano (4 shot stitch) actually looks decent enough for medium sized prints: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5207/5308328327_3cc4e96b30_o.jpg
and the 100% crop (standard lightroom landscape sharpening applied): http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5289/5308933036_05dbcbd97c_o.jpg
the spherical aberration is pretty bad, but there is a lot detail present. since it is a shot of chicago from 8 miles away there is obviously some haze muddying things up too.
tudedude wrote:
I'm liking the look of the 55 FL, does the FD version of the 55 differ in look?
i believe they have the same optical design (should verify that), but updated coatings would probably give different/better color and more flare resistance.
sebboh wrote:
i believe they have the same optical design (should verify that), but updated coatings would probably give different/better color and more flare resistance.
The early version of the FD 55mm f1.2 was optically identical to the FL version, but the later FD version is optically different...I think they included an aspherical element in the later version?
Would'nt know if they changed the coatings at the same time but they probably did as the later version has S.S.C on the front.
I would imagine the later version is an improvement over the FL, probably being sharper wide open than the FL and with less flare but the bokeh may be worse?
)
)
