> Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 14:39:00 -0800 (PST)
> From: Robert Meier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: FD vs EOS
>
> >From time to time I hear from people swearing on the
> high quality of old lenses. I wonder if these claims
> are really true?
Some are, some are not.
> I agree that the heavy lenses built with metal and
> glass make a more solid impression then the light
> lenses made of plastic.
That is one thing. Almost all consumer grade lenses are
of very poor mechanical quality in comparison.
> But what about the optical quality?
There is no difference in the old and the new 1.2/85 mm L,
and most L series of lenses keep their position very well,
but there are good examples of excellent quality in FD
lenses, that is unparred by today.
> So for example how does an FD50/1.4 compare to an EOS50/1.4.
The FD was much better in mechanical quality, and the
optical quality was a little better. Not much, but....
> Or a FD70-210 macro to an EOS70-210/3.5-4.5
The FD 4/70-210 zoom has been a very very good lens. There is
nothing comparable in price, mechanical and optical quality.
The new 70-200 *might* have the same optical quality, but
the price tag has an extra zero.....
Especially for this lens I have been considering to get
me a F-1N again, because I miss this one very much.
> or EOS75-300IS?
There has been no IS, and there has been no 75-300 for FD
as far as I know. But compared to the Fd 4/70-210 all the
EF 75-300 lenses are pure crap.
--
Michael Quack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.photoquack.de
Sei offensiv, verängstige Dein Umfeld, z.B. durch die
Forderung: "Show me your pictures, please!"
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
