File :-(, x, )
bring back the 80s Anonymous
ef 50/1.8
ef 24/2.8
ef 35/2.0
ef 50/2.5
ef 135/2.8

where is the canon i used to love ;______;
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelFinePix F30Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution229 dpiVertical Resolution229 dpiImage Created2007:01:21 21:12:55Exposure Time1/10 secF-Numberf/3.7Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/3.7Brightness3.5 EVExposure Bias1 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length14.10 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width600Image Height400RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
saging gear threads nao!
>> Anonymous
I think they still make all those lenses.
>> sage sage
sage?
>> Anonymous
lol fail
>> Anonymous
sage all you want

these are the lenses that made canon the company they are today

if they had failed, there would be no EOS and no EF
>> Anonymous
sage for troll thread
>> Anonymous
saging doesnt help
it just bumps the thread....
>> moosejaw !!r6M6yacQNza
Why would you want optics from the 80s? I mean shit, it's nearly 2010, the distance we've come in terms of optical performance is astounding...

ps. failtroll.
>> Anonymous
>>203746
0/10.
>> Anonymous
holy fuck, how did you read this as trolling?

this is nostalgia
>> Anonymous
>>203747
No.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>203747
It's ironic considering those primes are of FAR better quality than most consumer zooms now...you're new to this, aren't you?
>> moosejaw !!r6M6yacQNza
>>203757

No? How the fuck can you disagree with that when it's quantifiably verifiable fact? The quality of the glass not to mention the construction of the lenses of now absolutely eats anything that came out of the 80s by a long way, and you'd be a fool for not accepting it. That's like saying Kevin Bacon wasn't in Footloose.

Psssh, fucking Johnny-come-latelys 'round these parts.
>> Anonymous
>>203735
>>203731
>>203730
>>203728
>>203759
>>203747

samefag troll doesn't know shit
>> moosejaw !!r6M6yacQNza
>>203758

Expecting a zoom to perform on the same level as a prime is just fucking moronic, always has been, and always will be. Who even mentioned anything about zooms anyway?
>> Anonymous
>>203759The quality of the glass not to mention the construction of the lenses of now absolutely eats anything that came out of the 80s by a long way

The 50mm 1.8 I is better in image quality and build than the 50mm 1.8 II.

You already lost.
>> Anonymous
>>203747
LOL, so true! I bet those cameras don't even have face-recognition built in! Man, nostalgiafags make me laugh.
>> moosejaw !!r6M6yacQNza
>>203762

It also cost twice the list price too. Dollar-for-dollar what is out today absolutely murders anything around then.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>203761
Fucking idiot...
While primes are still far better, zooms are practically the standard now for amatuerish photographers. These primes are obviously of better quality.

Also...a lot of these designs are still available in some form and are still recognized as nice lenses. They haven't changed since the 80s because they haven't needed to change.

You're seriously an idiot. New lenses are fine too, but they don't "eat" these older primes by any means assuming they're well taken care of lenses.
>> moosejaw !!r6M6yacQNza
>>203769
Because something is considered "standard" doesn't always make it comparable, especially in the world of photography. And yes, while they still perform fine today if they've been taken care of over the years (that's the beauty of doing things right the first time), to go dollar-for-dollar and take into account optical purity modern lenses have shown a fairly good improvement. over the older models. Also, the AF motors of more modern lenses (especially in the primes) tend to be a fair bit quicker and quieter now than they were from what I've seen in my own experience.
>> Anonymous
Question for those with classic Canon prime experience. Which performs better optically/mechanically: 24mm f/2.8 or the 28mm 2.8? I have the 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.8 MK1 and am looking for a wider prime for a crop censor (don't need ultrawide, just something below the 50mm focal length). I ask because I see plenty of whining and complaining about the 24 and 28 being outdated and outmatched by modern zooms (but I don't feel like shelling out 1000+ for zooms in this range) and was just wondering if anyone had some valid points or experience to say if one is generally a "better" lens than the other.
>> Anonymous
All of these are still available. The 50 being the MK II version though the Canon you love it still basically here. nothing to cry about.
>> Anonymous
>>203774

Does it have to be one of those two?
>> Anonymous
>>203774Which performs better optically/mechanically: 24mm f/2.8 or the 28mm 2.8? I have the 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.8 MK1

optically

50/1.8 = 24/2.8 > 35/2 = 28/2.8 > 28/1.8
>> Anonymous
>>203790
Too bad the 24 2.8 is the most expensive one of the 'low tier'. Good thing it's better than the 28 1.8, but too bad it's not as fast either : (
>> Anonymous
>>203796

get the 28/2.8 then

the 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2.0 are all the same more or less
>> Anonymous
>>203799
What about 35 F2 vs 28 F2.8? I like the F2 speed, but what's your take on that?
>> Anonymous
>>203801

you already have the 35mm you said

i personally prefer the 24/2.8 because it's the closest to 35mm for crop

the 28/2.8 is just a slower, wider 35/2
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>203726
screw that fancy af shite. FD ftw
>> Anonymous
>>203805
No, I'm somebody else, sorry I didnt clarify.
>> Anonymous
>>203807

35mm is faster and will give you a tighter view, which works out well for a more personal composition

28mm is wider and slower, it's not dramatically different but you can tell, again, i prefer 24mm because it's near 35mm, so between the two, i prefer the 28mm
>> Anonymous
>>203809
Thanks, Ill research further to see which angle I prefer
>> Anonymous
>>203806

good night sweet prince ;_;
>> Anonymous
>>203811

there is also the sigma 30/1.4, but it is fairly expensive, bulky, for crop only and it's a sigma
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>203814
I know. I'm still hauling around me EEE'd T90 even though I could probably get a $50 replacement on ebay.

also: 135mm 2.0 FD and 200mm 2.8 FD's: best goddamn FD primes ever.

/nostalgic gearfaggotry

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 10DMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaSerial Number0220104338Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2002:04:13 12:51:44Exposure Time1/8 secF-Numberf/16.0ISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/16.0Exposure Bias-1.5 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length58.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width600Image Height395Image Number103-0398
>> Kavbar !bhcZKibP7.
>>203815
Plus there's a little distortion and the corners won't sharpen no matter how far you stop down.
That said, the center resolution is awesome.
>> Anonymous
slipknot is my fave band.
>> Anonymous
>>203847
lol, choo fuckin kidding me?

ever actually used this lens?
lol at it actually having no noticeable distortion and another lol when the corners sharpen up as well as a damn 50 1.4...
>> Kavbar !bhcZKibP7.
>>203857
Yes, actually, my sister uses one on her XT which I've commandeered over many weekends. You're right though, the distortion isn't applicable unless you're shooting a brick wall. FWIW, my 55/1.2 is sharper in the corners, but then again, my sister's lens has definitely seen better days in it's 2 years of use. She's told me she may send it in for a decentering defect.