canon a-1 50mm lens

"PhotoMan" wrote in message
...

"PhotoMan" wrote in message
...

"teflon" wrote in message
...
On 19/12/04 7:10 pm, in article
t, "drunk with no
name"
wrote:

how much faster is the 1:1.0 over the 1:1.9

It would be just under two stops faster.

Canon doesn't, and never has made 1.1 or 1.9 lenses.

oops - make that 1.9 - forgot the EF 1.0


Essentially, though, you were right, since he was asking for lenses for a
Canon A-1, an FD mount camera.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:mwuxd.60718$ka2.17792@fed1read04...

What do you feel you gain from carrying the others, rather than simply
stopping down your fastest 50 to 1.8 or 2?


The slower lenses introduce less distortion, specifically chromatic
aberration. They are also sharper and have less straight-line distortion.
Pentax specifically noted this in one of their lens data sheets from 1975.
They advised that the 50mm f/1.4 was not a good lens to use for slide
duplication, and they recommended substituting the 55mm f/1.8 or f/2.0
versions.

My Pentax 50mm f/1.4 had the infamous radioactive rear element, from their
having used the rare earth element Thorium in the design. The particle
breakdown over the years has resulted in a brownish-yellowish cast. One of
these days I will use an ultraviolet light to bleach it out. But the 55mm
normal lenses 1.8 and 2.0 do not have this problem.

Erwin Puts, on his Leica site, notes that some types of distortion increase
by a factor of NINE, when comparing an f/1.4 lens with a f/2.8 version!

Despite its shortcomings, my f/1.4 lens has gorgeous bokeh, and it is my
first choice when photographing for shallow depth of field. When I intend
to shoot at smaller apertures I use the 1.8 or the 2.0 instead.

I would not ordinarily do this with lenses at today's prices, but I have
acquired my SMC Takumar normal lenses (all 6 of them) at an average price of
about $60.00 apiece. At prices like those, why not get all of the normal
lens versions?

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:mwuxd.60718$ka2.17792@fed1read04...

What do you feel you gain from carrying the others, rather than simply
stopping down your fastest 50 to 1.8 or 2?


The slower lenses introduce less distortion, specifically chromatic
aberration. They are also sharper and have less straight-line distortion.
Pentax specifically noted this in one of their lens data sheets from 1975.
They advised that the 50mm f/1.4 was not a good lens to use for slide
duplication, and they recommended substituting the 55mm f/1.8 or f/2.0
versions.

My Pentax 50mm f/1.4 had the infamous radioactive rear element, from their
having used the rare earth element Thorium in the design. The particle
breakdown over the years has resulted in a brownish-yellowish cast. One of
these days I will use an ultraviolet light to bleach it out. But the 55mm
normal lenses 1.8 and 2.0 do not have this problem.

Erwin Puts, on his Leica site, notes that some types of distortion increase
by a factor of NINE, when comparing an f/1.4 lens with a f/2.8 version!

Despite its shortcomings, my f/1.4 lens has gorgeous bokeh, and it is my
first choice when photographing for shallow depth of field. When I intend
to shoot at smaller apertures I use the 1.8 or the 2.0 instead.

I would not ordinarily do this with lenses at today's prices, but I have
acquired my SMC Takumar normal lenses (all 6 of them) at an average price of
about $60.00 apiece. At prices like those, why not get all of the normal
lens versions?

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 06:28:52 +0000, Jeremy wrote:

I have fourteen SMC Takumar prime lenses, six of which are in the normal
focal range. It would cost a fortune if I had to duplicate that inventory
using, say, Carl Zeiss or Leica manual lenses at today's prices. I couldn't
do it in the Pentax range because they aren't making many of those manual
lenses in the focal lengths I have now. Everything today is zoom
lenses---uugghh!

I would have said something similar a few months ago, but I have been
lucky enough to obtain some of the best zooms around recently, so I have
found myself using my manual focus FFL lenses a lot less.

The zooms I am referring to a

Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 EDIF
Angenieux 28-70mm f/2.6 AF
Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 EDIF VR

All I am looking for now (to complete the picture) is a 2x converter for
my 70-200mm f/2.8 and a really nice fisheye. I would also like a nice
lightweight film body to have as a backup to my D70 but I really don't
like the F80.

Oh well...I digress...

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 06:28:52 +0000, Jeremy wrote:

I have fourteen SMC Takumar prime lenses, six of which are in the normal
focal range. It would cost a fortune if I had to duplicate that inventory
using, say, Carl Zeiss or Leica manual lenses at today's prices. I couldn't
do it in the Pentax range because they aren't making many of those manual
lenses in the focal lengths I have now. Everything today is zoom
lenses---uugghh!

I would have said something similar a few months ago, but I have been
lucky enough to obtain some of the best zooms around recently, so I have
found myself using my manual focus FFL lenses a lot less.

The zooms I am referring to a

Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 EDIF
Angenieux 28-70mm f/2.6 AF
Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 EDIF VR

All I am looking for now (to complete the picture) is a 2x converter for
my 70-200mm f/2.8 and a really nice fisheye. I would also like a nice
lightweight film body to have as a backup to my D70 but I really don't
like the F80.

Oh well...I digress...

"Mark?" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

Canon recently discontinued their 50mm f1 L lens...
I guess it was just too much of a niche lens (not to mention super
expensive) to be worth producing. Add to this that the 50 1.4 non-L is
excellent, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a real need for the extra
stop...not to mention all the complications of shooting that wide open.


Its odd that there isn't a niche industry around producing such lens -
after all, the lens makers don't have a monopoly on the glass (or rather
buy the glass from teh same people a 3rd party would), optical design
software is fairly well available...

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"Mark?" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

Canon recently discontinued their 50mm f1 L lens...
I guess it was just too much of a niche lens (not to mention super
expensive) to be worth producing. Add to this that the 50 1.4 non-L is
excellent, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a real need for the extra
stop...not to mention all the complications of shooting that wide open.


Its odd that there isn't a niche industry around producing such lens -
after all, the lens makers don't have a monopoly on the glass (or rather
buy the glass from teh same people a 3rd party would), optical design
software is fairly well available...

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"Roxy Durban" wrote in message
news

I would have said something similar a few months ago, but I have been
lucky enough to obtain some of the best zooms around recently, so I have
found myself using my manual focus FFL lenses a lot less.


My particular style of photography works best with the normal lens. I have
become so sensitive to the apparent perspective distortion issue that even a
moderate wide angle 35mm lens is unacceptable. That foreground just becomes
too big--and it throws the whole image out of whack. Especially when
shooting cityscapes, the sight of a street that is too broad relative to the
buildings is troubling to me.

I suppose I should consider myself lucky, as my lens requirements are so
simple to achieve.

I really do not like taking photos of things that are distorted by the lens
to create "interesting angles." It's a personality thing--I am a "bottom
line" kind of guy, and I am somewhat of a minimalist. I want a clear,
undistorted depiction of the scene--one that can be used as a historical
reference--and for me, the normal lens rules. I use my photography hobby to
freeze time more than to create works of art. I am a lousy artist, but am a
fairly decent documenter of places and things. It only took 40 years of
mediocre shooting before I developed my current style.

Maybe I should have taken a class, rather than reinvent the wheel. But at
least I have developed a personal style--one that evolved out of my own
experience--rather than having mimicked someone else's work.

"Roxy Durban" wrote in message
news

I would have said something similar a few months ago, but I have been
lucky enough to obtain some of the best zooms around recently, so I have
found myself using my manual focus FFL lenses a lot less.


My particular style of photography works best with the normal lens. I have
become so sensitive to the apparent perspective distortion issue that even a
moderate wide angle 35mm lens is unacceptable. That foreground just becomes
too big--and it throws the whole image out of whack. Especially when
shooting cityscapes, the sight of a street that is too broad relative to the
buildings is troubling to me.

I suppose I should consider myself lucky, as my lens requirements are so
simple to achieve.

I really do not like taking photos of things that are distorted by the lens
to create "interesting angles." It's a personality thing--I am a "bottom
line" kind of guy, and I am somewhat of a minimalist. I want a clear,
undistorted depiction of the scene--one that can be used as a historical
reference--and for me, the normal lens rules. I use my photography hobby to
freeze time more than to create works of art. I am a lousy artist, but am a
fairly decent documenter of places and things. It only took 40 years of
mediocre shooting before I developed my current style.

Maybe I should have taken a class, rather than reinvent the wheel. But at
least I have developed a personal style--one that evolved out of my own
experience--rather than having mimicked someone else's work.

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
"Mark?" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

Canon recently discontinued their 50mm f1 L lens...
I guess it was just too much of a niche lens (not to mention super
expensive) to be worth producing. Add to this that the 50 1.4 non-L is
excellent, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a real need for the extra
stop...not to mention all the complications of shooting that wide open.


Its odd that there isn't a niche industry around producing such lens -
after all, the lens makers don't have a monopoly on the glass (or rather
buy the glass from teh same people a 3rd party would), optical design
software is fairly well available...


I suspect that it is related to the availability of better, faster films.
Those extremely fast lens designs are expensive to make, and produce
relatively inferior quality images. Not much of a market for that sort of
thing.