> Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 13:26:45 +0200
> From: "Vesa Perala" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: FD vs EOS
>
> According to Canon Camera Musem it looks that:
>
> - - FD series came on the market around 1971.
> - - They started to use markings S.C. and S.S.C. arount 1973.
> - - FDn (new FD) came around 1979.
> - - Autofocus EF came about 1986 ?
Perfectly correct.
> - - Does(n't) S.C. mean single and S.S.C. mean multicoating?
It does. Spectra Coating vs Super Spectra Coating.
> - - S.C. was used in the "consumer" lenses,
Er.... no. It was used in the best lenses.
Remember, this was the dawn of coatings....
Later when multi coating became available, there was
nothing else. But in the beginnig the lenses were
relative to their time exceptionally good.
> The rest were S.S.C. After 1973.
Yes. And this was the beginning of the time when lenses
were made that still are excellent to current standards.
> - - I'm not sure if I believe this but I have heard "someone"
> mention that the new-FD lenses were all multicoated.
That is right. With the introduction of new FD canon
dropped branding their lenses SSC because all lenses
were multicoated after that.
> - - I have seen Canon mentioning somewhere that the EF-lenses
> use "S.S.C." coating (who knows if it is the same as in
> the FD-series).
Approximately. The technique is almost unchanged, but a
production run renders better percentages of good quality
lenses today.
> I agree the opinion that overall the current optical design
> (with lots of computer processing power) creates optically better
> lenses than what previously was possible.
Not really. it creates cheaper production processes and
more compact, lightweight lenses, plus compensation of
lost resources like glasses with highly poisonous ingredients
banned today.
> I believe coatings haven't changed a lot and mechanically
> the new lenses give worse impression.
Yes, sadly enough.
> Also I believe all EF-teles (non-zooms) starting from 135mm are
> better or equal to the FD-lenses,
Sadly enough: No. I have never seen anything as sharp as my
old FDn 3.5/135 mm telephoto in EF, and the EF 2.5/50 mm compact
macro offers handling advantages, but the FDn 3.5/50 mm macro
was the better lens both for mechanical and optical reasons.
> If we want to compare EF75-300 zoom to FD300/5.6 the latter
> might win (no experience in either)?
Experience in both. The new zoom is pure crap in comparison.
> I feel the FD Ls keep up very well with EF-serie Ls.
Not just keep up, they often beat them.
--
Michael Quack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.photoquack.de
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
