peterm1
Veteran
Yes, I agree and one specific lens I have been tempted to buy recently is the Canon FD 200mm f2.8. (But I missed out to an eBay sniper who outbid me in the final few seconds of a recent auction "battle"). Its a gorgeous piece of glass, usually available at a price somewhat less than Nikkor equivalent (180mm) given FD is a somewhat orphaned format and also because it does not quite have the same reputation as the Nikkor. But there are also plenty of others that I lust after.
Till now I have mainly bought FL lenses as I had a hankering for their somewhat olde-timey character but more recently the FDs are appealing to me more an more.
Skiff
Well-known
Every manufacturer has some excellent lenses in his programme, and some which are not so good.
As you already have a Nikon F100 - which is compatible to manual focus Nikon AI / AI-S and Zeiss ZF / Milvus lenses - it makes sense to stay with Nikon.
And you don't need another camera: The F100 works very good with manual focus. Because of its better viewfinder even better than lots of former manual-focus only cameras. I have one, too.
Just tell us which focal lengths you need, and we can give you recommendations for very good (manual focus) lenses for your F100.
DMA1965
Established
They both have great build quality and excellent glass. Both have specific lenses that are legendary. Nikon has the 105 mm f2.5 and canon has the 85mm f 1.2, both legendary lenses.
What I have noticed however is that Canon lenses are more prone to haze than Nikon. In fact, I have never seen a hazed Nikon lens.
What I have noticed however is that Canon lenses are more prone to haze than Nikon. In fact, I have never seen a hazed Nikon lens.
Robert Lai
Well-known
My Nikkor 24 mm 2.8 AI that I bought used flared horribly.
When the focusing dried up I had the lens serviced.
The tech told me that there was a lot of internal haze in the lens elements which explained my flare problems. Also there was sand in the helical so the previous owner must have made a lot of pictures on a hot beach to cause all of these issues.
When the focusing dried up I had the lens serviced.
The tech told me that there was a lot of internal haze in the lens elements which explained my flare problems. Also there was sand in the helical so the previous owner must have made a lot of pictures on a hot beach to cause all of these issues.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
One kit to rule them all by Johan Niels Kuiper, on Flickr
ºSony A7
ºTamron Adaptall 17mm 3.5 (type 51B)
ºCanon TS 35mm 2.8 S.S.C.
ºCanon FD 50mm 1.2L
ºCanon FD 85mm 1.2L
ºCanon FD 135mm 2.0
Getting the same lenses in Nikon mount nowadays is still slightly more expensive, but price levels are comparable since the Sony FF cameras hit the market.
Yet, three years ago this was a no brainer, I got the Canon mount lenses.
Three of the Canon lenses over the course of months came off RFF cheap (one needed service), one came off eBay (sniped it cheap on Xmas morning 7 am, thanks a lot) and the Tamron came cheap off a national vending site.
I also got a 55mm macro, a bellows and a 'film stage' for Canon so I can use the A7 to shoot my 35mm negatives. Much faster than scanning them...
Fraser
Well-known
the G lenses should be compatible with f100.
harpofreely
Well-known
I doubt you'll ever find a conclusive argument as to which of the lens lines is "better," so I suggest you approach this from the perspective of what you want to see in a camera body.
I have a few dozen Canon FD lenses including some standouts like the 35mm f2 "chrome nose" and FDn 135mm f2, and FDn 24mm f2, and have always been happy with them. There are very few "dogs" among the FD primes, and as others have pointed out, they still tend to run a little cheaper than the Nikons.
However - I pretty much only use them on my Fuji X-E2 w/ Metabones Speedbooster, because I find most of the Canon FD film bodies to be problematic in one way or the other.
Canon made relatively few FD bodies with aperture-priority exposure. The most important are the A-1, New F1, and T90. The T90 is a lovely, versatile machine but working examples are getting scarce. The New F1 is a beautiful machine as well, and IMHO one of the greatest manual exposure 35mm SLRs of all time, but aperture-priority exposure requires an ugly AE prism that is also getting scarce and expensive. That leaves the A-1, which gets the job done but is plasticky, over-complicated, and often needs a minor repair to address "shutter squeak."
If you know that you are going to be shooting primarily the 50mm focal length and aperture-priority AE is important to you, consider taking a look a the Minota X-570 and MC Rokkor 50mm f1.4, which can be picked up cheaply and has a great feature set. The lens is very Leica-like in it's rendering.
If you are looking to shoot primarily shutter-priority or program AE and want to stick with Canon FD, consider the humble and homely T70, which is cheap, reliable, takes AA batteries, and has a huge, bright viewfinder - one of the best MF SLR finders I've seen.
I'll leave it to others re: Nikon as I've little personal experience there.
I have a few dozen Canon FD lenses including some standouts like the 35mm f2 "chrome nose" and FDn 135mm f2, and FDn 24mm f2, and have always been happy with them. There are very few "dogs" among the FD primes, and as others have pointed out, they still tend to run a little cheaper than the Nikons.
However - I pretty much only use them on my Fuji X-E2 w/ Metabones Speedbooster, because I find most of the Canon FD film bodies to be problematic in one way or the other.
Canon made relatively few FD bodies with aperture-priority exposure. The most important are the A-1, New F1, and T90. The T90 is a lovely, versatile machine but working examples are getting scarce. The New F1 is a beautiful machine as well, and IMHO one of the greatest manual exposure 35mm SLRs of all time, but aperture-priority exposure requires an ugly AE prism that is also getting scarce and expensive. That leaves the A-1, which gets the job done but is plasticky, over-complicated, and often needs a minor repair to address "shutter squeak."
If you know that you are going to be shooting primarily the 50mm focal length and aperture-priority AE is important to you, consider taking a look a the Minota X-570 and MC Rokkor 50mm f1.4, which can be picked up cheaply and has a great feature set. The lens is very Leica-like in it's rendering.
If you are looking to shoot primarily shutter-priority or program AE and want to stick with Canon FD, consider the humble and homely T70, which is cheap, reliable, takes AA batteries, and has a huge, bright viewfinder - one of the best MF SLR finders I've seen.
I'll leave it to others re: Nikon as I've little personal experience there.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
I don't want to put this off topic but the F100 certainly does not have a better viewfinder than previous manual focus cameras. For lenses, especially zooms, with max apertures between f/2.8 and f/5.6, the F100 does have a better VF. But for manual focusing lenses faster than f/2.8, a coarse grain screen with a split image focusing aid and maybe a microprism ring are far superior.
As for G lenses on the F100, they should work perfectly, every one. If they sont, the contacts on both camera and lens should be cleaned or the camera needs deeper service.
Phil Forrest
raid
Dad Photographer
I have the Canon FD 200/2.8 IF. It is a relatively speaking "not-so-large" lens for a 2.8 max aperture. It can be focused smoothly and easily.
raid
Dad Photographer
I favored the Canon cameras over Nikon cameras at the time when only Canon had built-in spotmeters. I needed to have a spotmeter for ultra-accurate metering with slow transparency film then. Nikon cameras had average meterin and no spot meters then.
Skiff
Well-known
My own experience is different: I get a more precise focussing with the F100 and manual focus compared to my older cams like FA and FE2. Maybe because of the brighter viewfinder. But I get definitely more keepers with the F100. But the highest keeper rate in manual focussing I get with the F6.
Steve M.
Veteran
Actually, a Canon FD 85 1.8 will take much better portraits than a Nikkor 105 2.5 lens, and is one of the "best bang for the buck" portraits lenses you can find for a SLR. It is one of life's great mysteries to me how the 105 Nikkor ever got known for portraits, as it is way too sharp and has ugly bokeh, both qualities you don't want in a portrait lens. Even a Canon "beer can" 135 2.5 takes much better people shots.
To be factual, the 105 Nikkor has never been known as a portrait lens, it was known as a photojournalist lens, and for that it worked very well. Sharpness was OK for that, and no one is concerned about bokeh when you're taking a photo of some ravaged soldier or napalmed civilian in Vietnam. Back in the day, almost every photojournalist shot Nikons because the cameras were almost indestructible.
The H 50 2 lens is one of the few that Nikon produced w/ beautiful bokeh, and it truly is a gem of a lens. Alas, it's too short for portraits unless you shoot it on a digital camera w/ a crop factor. I used to shoot mine on a Canon AE-1 w/ an adapter, which got interesting looks from photographers when they saw that AI prong on it!
To be factual, the 105 Nikkor has never been known as a portrait lens, it was known as a photojournalist lens, and for that it worked very well. Sharpness was OK for that, and no one is concerned about bokeh when you're taking a photo of some ravaged soldier or napalmed civilian in Vietnam. Back in the day, almost every photojournalist shot Nikons because the cameras were almost indestructible.
The H 50 2 lens is one of the few that Nikon produced w/ beautiful bokeh, and it truly is a gem of a lens. Alas, it's too short for portraits unless you shoot it on a digital camera w/ a crop factor. I used to shoot mine on a Canon AE-1 w/ an adapter, which got interesting looks from photographers when they saw that AI prong on it!
presspass
filmshooter
I used four Canon primes - 20, 35, 85, and 200 - with two original F1s with motor drives for newspaper work for eight years. Never had a problem with binding, despite heavy use and sometimes miserable weather. Nor did I have trouble with the breach lock lenses either failing to mount or falling off. Then again, I was used to how they worked. The difference in focusing direction can still be an issue if, for instance, you shoot Leica rangefinders. That makes the Canons easier focus when you switch systems. Also used a couple of As and a T90. Again, no problems.
That said, my manual focus SLRs are now Nikons, usually a pair of F2s and pre-Ai lenses. It all comes down to cost and personal choice.
That said, my manual focus SLRs are now Nikons, usually a pair of F2s and pre-Ai lenses. It all comes down to cost and personal choice.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
It's probably because the original 10.5cm Nikkor from the rangefinder days was a true Sonnar formula and was second to none in portraiture. The new 105mm lenses, especially from Ai on to the current crop are incredibly sharp to a fault. I love my AiS 105mm but it could use a bit of Vaseline or defocusing for better portraiture to hide the fine details of skin that go with being human.
Phil Forrest
Phil Forrest
raid
Dad Photographer
Both of my Nikkor 105/2.5 are Sonnar models; one for Nikon SLR and one in LTM.
the Canon film bodies take take more lenses via adapters,
likewise Nikon F lenses are more adaptable to different film bodies.
both lens families of course are adaptable to mirrorless bodies.
likewise Nikon F lenses are more adaptable to different film bodies.
both lens families of course are adaptable to mirrorless bodies.
aizan
Veteran
almost all new f-1 bodies come with the ae finder. the plain finder is the one that's hard to find.
Gregm61
Well-known
Sure, if you are a Canon user, all Nikkors are dogs, and vice versa, LOL.
You do know, this was the 1970's and 1980's best version of the similar modern "film vs. digital" which/who is best, right?
There is no one right answer here. They were both professional systems and so had the full gamut of lenses, from the uber expensive and nice glass, to the not-nearly-so-nice and pretty darn cheap to cover all of the market lines.
Today you have look both at the original specs to see what was good and what wasn't back then, along with what the particular lens you are looking at now has gone through the first 30-40 years of its' life, which could have been not so good.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
This Nikon vs. Canon debate should get knocked out pretty quick. <G> It only took around 25-30 years last time for it to finally die down with no conclusion.
Then we could move on to if you should squeegee your film or not after it came out of the PhotoFlo.
Finally, if we still had daylight left, we could decide which was better: film or digital?
Then we could move on to if you should squeegee your film or not after it came out of the PhotoFlo.
Finally, if we still had daylight left, we could decide which was better: film or digital?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bob,
Nah. Let's get down to the REALLY important stuff. Is Version 3 or Version 4 of [insert lens here] better?
Cheers,
R.