Canon lenses = Ancient History?

That's a shame as I understand that leaded glass has some good optical qualities.

There is/was a benifit to the weight and price of the newer plastic 50/1.8, but in terms of handling, it really isn't as good. No focus scale and the manual focus ring isn't much to talk about. On the other hand, it certainly maintains decent image quality and has an incredible price/performance ratio. I'd still prefer have the metal mount version, though.

condyk wrote:
I wish I had a silent USM motor on my fridge

Mine makes some really odd sounds. But it does have the newer scroll-type compressor rather than the older type. This is said to be more energy-efficient.

I've never seen it for sale in the states either. I have a subscription to it. It is one of the best photo mags out there.

One thing about the list, though, it states in the footnotes that lenses listed in "Pale" type are discontinued. Unless my eyes deceive me, there's no pale type at all in the lens list.

I have a confession to make. I started this thread to stir the pot a little. I wanted to learn from my fellow forumers about lens technology, and learn I have.

In no way was I putting down Canon lenses, for that would be plain dumb. I left my Noinks in the cold solely because of Canon lenses. Now if I can only find a way to secure one of those big whities.

And they're trying their level best to match them with non-leaded glass. Changing to a glass with different properties would require re-designing the lens, not just the manufacturing process for the given element.

It's just as good at f/16 too. Your point is well made though, the variation in quality on this lens is way too much to risk buying one without trying it in the shop first.

The "heavier" the glass, the better ! Thats why thorium and lanthanium glass was so good... unfortunately it was also slightly radioactive

Buze of the Glowing Glass Order

foxbat wrote:
It's just as good at f/16 too. Your point is well made though, the variation in quality on this lens is way too much to risk buying one without trying it in the shop first.

You mean like I did?

That to me is evidence of a pretty poor lens. The diffraction at f/22 should be quite damaging--the aperture is only 0.9 mm in diameter at f/22 on a 20mm lens. That tells me that the lens faults are worse than the effects of severe diffraction. Not a great recommendation!

The Flektogon design came out in the early 50's, concurrent with the Distagon and the Angenieux. Coatings made it possible--before coatings were commerically available, wide-angle lenses had too many air surfaces and were ruined by flare and reflection (that was also the reason the Planar designs, though formulated in the 1890's, were not viable until the early 50's). Later design approaches and computer modeling had their biggest effect with retrofocus wide-angle lenses and with zooms. Normals and telephotos were largely a solved problem by the early 50's, but wides didn't get really good until much later. They are still getting better, but that is showing up as being wider and wider.

Rick "who owns two medium-format Fleks, also variable" Denney

On the other hand, the Flektogon 35mm f2.4 is just the contrary, it's a *fantastic* lens. It is such a gem !

You're mixing and matching lens technology and the digital revolution. They are not necessarily the same.

The only electronic revolution in the lenses is AF & IS. Everything else is back in the 60's. I would agree, that now, most lenses could have IS as an option. Outside of that, I don't know of much that would make the process "cheaper".

Cost going down happens BECAUSE yeilds are up, and the 14mm was obviously never that much in demand, also it's very difficult tro make any significant improvement on a lens like that without costing a LOT more, whhich isn't wrth doing as even less people would buy it , whereas new zooms cover that FL,( or neaer enough) and often with better quality. That means to even sell ANY of those old lenses now people need a good reason NOT to get the zoom instead.

Ha, intriguing thought!

My 85mm f1.8 was purchased in 1983 and has been used fairly regularly ever since. After 12 years of being hauled around and being used/stored in all kinds of unfavourable environments it's still preforming well - not bad! I've often wondered, however, if Canon does any kind of 'silent updates' to its lenses as improvements in manufacturing techniques become available - or is my lens exactly the same as the ones they are selling today? (I guess the box design has changed from the my original which has one corner set at an angle).

This is a great discussion with many interesting points. I must admit I loved my old FD lenses with their smooth and damped focusing rings, but have to agree with the earlier point that this would probably make it difficult for the autofocus motor to turn.

Well the L USM's have a well damped focus ring and a fast AF system, best of both worlds. Some may argue the cost is high, I'll argue add up the price of all the EF consumer primes in the 24-70 f2.8 or faster range and suddenly it doesn't look so bad to carry around one superb lens. That is unless your cat sees all the eggs in one basket and takes your L out of use for you....

I'm pretty sure Canon doesn't update the IS in lenses for a few reasons:
1. to prevent customer confusion
2. to help the lenses retain their value
3. to not incur any additional R&D/Manufacturing/QC cost for a lens that will sell without it