Canon lenses = Ancient History?

Ooops, sorry to hear that.

My film setup, which dates from the late 70s, consists of a canon A-1, plus 28mm, 50mm and 135mm lenses. All the lenses were fairly cheap at the time (I couldn't afford the expensive ones back then either!), but have a lovely quality about them. Looking back at prints taken with this setup, I'm not sure that I'm getting as good end results with digital - not necessarly anything to do with sharpness or contrast etc, just that the FD lenses seemed to produce a particularly 'pleasing' print.

I think my FD 135mm f3.5 is my favourite. It is small, light, has a nice built-in hood that slides out and was fairly inexpensive at the time. The lenses or my A-1 haven't had much use recently, but all have spent time in a rucksack being hiked around from the cold of the Alps to the heat of Africa and lots more in between without ever letting me down. Not bad for non-pro consumer kit.

pro, bah....pro is the user not the gear. Hence why L stands for luxury and why Canon didn't call them P glass :P I say have fun, buy a roll of film and use it during the holiday gift unwrapping just for kicks

Good idea! Must remember to pick up a couple of rolls of film tomorrow, lol

There's no way a zoom or even a small collection of zooms could do what my lenses do for the same money.

To wit: No zooms are as fishy as my Zenitar, as fast as my 50/1.4 and 85/1.8, render backgrounds as smoothly as the 135/3.5 Sonnar, and so on. I'm old school: I remember when f/2.8 was NOT considered fast, heh, heh.

For the difference in price between the 20-35 I own and the 17-40L, I was able to buy the Zenitar, the Sonnar, and one of those other two EF primes. In that context, the 20-35 is just fine.

Rick "who thinks that what a lens can do is as important as how well it does it" Denney

I said EF zooms didn't I? Don't recall seeing a fisheye in the 24mm EF range, don't recall 85 or 135 being in that range either. If I recall the regular non-L EF's would be for this range, the (24-28-35-50). All may be faster (aperture) but you'll be hard pressed to find anyone that states these completely blow the 24-70L away at those focal length. It's a superb optic and convenient tool for the price. Yes a zoom is a compromised lens, however, I don't think this one is very much of one. Plus the 70mm is pretty sweat as well...I'll keep looking for the EF prime in that range. Add in the weather sealing for those that value it and the USM-AF system and it's fair priced optic.

Mr "who never tried to include all lenses evermade on earth in his statement" Chad

I wasn't really arguing against your statement, but against the underlying point. Okay, let's go out and buy the 24/2.8, the 28/2.8, the 50/1.4, and the 85/1.8. Those are the non-L primes in the approximate range of the 24-70L. They add up to about the same, I guess, though I haven't checked the price for the zoom.

But there's a reason people who own the 24-70/2.8L also often end up buying the 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8--they are much faster by over one to two full stops which brings with it more opportunies for selective focus. So, your choice is for many folks a false choice--they end up with both.

My example was a little weird, but it made the same point. For focal lengths where the wide aperture wasn't the issue, I made room in my budget for more specialty optics by NOT getting an L zoom that covered a particular range.

You are correct that zooms are compromises, but not because of image quality. Computer design, advanced coatings, floating elements, special glasses, and so on, have made that possible. The reason they are compromises is that focal length flexibility isn't the only flexibility people need for many situations. They also need speed, or a particular rendering quality, or light weight (I once had to pack a camera bag for going to New Zealand that weight less than 11 pounds total), or something. Because of that, zooms don't always replace their prime equivalents even when their sharpness is all that could be hoped for.

By the way, I don't find that the focus wheel on my 70-200/4L is noticeably any smoother or more well-damped than on my 85/1.8 or 50/1.4. All are good considering that the focusing is required to be fast and loose for the focus motor. And none of those are on the same planet as any of my FD zooms or primes that relied on brass and aluminum threads and lots of high-viscosity grease--with resulting damping that would stall any modern focus motor, or eat batteries by the bucket.

Rick "who already had a moderately high-end zoom and a sharp macro lens that covered 50mm, but who still saw the need for the 50/1.4" Denney

What I'd like to remind people is that a "medium focale" zoom is mostly equivalent to 5 to 10 paces anyway. So with a 50, just move back 5 paces back and you'll have that "30ish" framing, and move 5 paces forward and you'll have even more than 70mm equivalent.

So, just put on a prime and move your ass. When you realize that, you start thinking that AF might not be strictly necessary after all (unless fast moving objects are around..), and that maybe, for your photography, you possibly could get excellent result in that same place with a 1935 camera... and then you'll realize you are free.

Camera/lens are tools for people who see images around themselves to take them away with them. One doesn't focus on the *tool*, otherwise one gets bloody fingers, in case of a hammer.

Buze the Irradiated

You have a hard time getting your signature to fit on your checks don't you?

LOL

MD "who for some strange reason thinks rdenney pays by cash" JAK

That is highly dependent on the subject, distance to subject, and objects surrounding the photographer. Moving back only 5 feet will not allow a 70 mm lens to accomodate a wide building 30 feet away. But zooming to 24 mm will. As well, moving an inch or two will make a drastic difference in a tight near-macro situation. And of course, if stepping back two paces puts a tree branch across your subject or places you into the water, it might not be a good idea. The zoom often gives you flexibility to shoot in positions that would either not be possible or would require a great deal of lens-swapping to achieve.

Freedom has its price.
Actually, I'd probably enjoy dabbling with the manual stuff a bit, but I have found that the camera consistently focuses better than I can unless I diddle around with it for a very long time. Sometimes that's OK, other times, it's not.

Camera/lens are tools for people who see images around themselves to take them away with them. One doesn't focus on the *tool*, otherwise one gets bloody fingers, in case of a hammer.

Buze the Irradiated

Indeed, they're tools. And toys. And some are more useful than others for specific tasks.

Never.

Rick "who thinks 'ouch' doesn't take much space" Denney

You're killing me Rick. You are the only person I know that can refer to himself in the 1st and 3rd person at the same time. LOL

BTW, I do agree with all your points about the prime lenses and the superior apertures and performance they provide, no doubt. I was mainly trying to address the concerns of many (not specific to this thread) that feel the 24-70L is over priced (not that I find the lens a bargain by any means) but I think it's price is fair conpaired to the alternatives in the market place.

My one question for your manual primes however, why a Canon DSLR then? As I see it given the lenses you chose you really could have used any DSLR provided an adapter was available. My main reason for going Canon was my buddies had Canon gear, simple as that really, I could swap gear. Many may find that stupid but that's the reason for my Eos plunge.

Well Canon EF is the mount that allows one to adapt the most other lens; thre are endless possibilities, and the Canon lens are good too if you need AF. Also the Canon bodies still work perfectly with all-manual lens, including metering, thats *really* cool...

If Zeiss made a DSLR, it would cost the price of 2 cars (they just released a a "new" 35mm film rangefinder that costs almost the price of a 5D )

The bad thing is that 1.6 camera don't really allow comfortable focusing with their sucky viewfinders.

Now, full frame digital with a 24mm distagon I'll take any day!

Its goods lenses dont get better that fast lets say I brought a 70-200 f2.8 IS and a new 1.0 version came out, my lens would get cheap!