Other exceptional lenses in FD mount are the Tamron SP 28-80mm f/3.5 (27A) Macro and the Tamron SP 35-80mm f/2.8 (01A) Macro. Both are exceptional and affordable although the word got out on the 35-80mm so it often sells for around $500 or so. :0

If you know what the numbers at the bottom mean you will be impressed just by them alone:
01A: http://adaptall-2.org/lenses/01A.html
27A: http://adaptall-2.org/lenses/27A.html


Here's some shots with the 27A:


28mm f/4


55mm f/4


80mm f/4 - which is wide open for 80mm on this lens (it nudges via zoom to f/4.2 I think).



That flower is approximately 1.5cm ~ 1.7cm so I guess this little guy is about 8mm ± 2mm, in body length.


The following look as if they've been sharpened after reduction but they haven't. This is what the lens renders like:

I just won Vivitar 55mm 2.8 Macro made by Komine at $44.65. Original front and rear caps and a original case.

It's Konica AR mount. FD mount version was priced ridiculously high. I really like AR adapter. It's pretty solid and there's no play. Here comes macro!!!

I got you all beat. Behold the magnificence! Brand New Rokinon 70-180mm F 4.5 Canon FD Lens

Bought it "Brand New" off ebay for around $30 shipped. OK seriously, I have zero camera experience and I was literally buying random cheap lenses, just to have them and try them out. It was new and there's a reason it's never been sold. Ultimately it useless indoors on the GH1 becaue of FPN. This produced the worst FPN indoors I've yet seen. Out doors it's decent, but I haven't used it much.

got outbid on the Vivitar Series 1 105mm Macro - damn!
next would be the 90mm ...

some "lens test footage". No piano score though ...



GH2 and Canon Macro Lens FD 50mm f3.5

(the test was, how much shake does the lens take before it disintegrates. Next time I'm going to build a wind breaking tend around my friends the plant louses)

>About Vivitar 55/2.8 made by Komine, does the mount type matter on optical performance? e.g. FD, AR, F.

I think not. Just choose reputable seller and lens in good shape.

I've got an FD 55mm F/1.2 and an FD 24mm F/2.8

The 55mm is a wonderful lens (WAY HEAVY THOUGH!) and still looks pretty good wide open in low light, and has amazing depth of field and bokeh. The 24mm F/2.8 is sharp, but the image looks kinda "boring" to me. I'm glad I have it though, as the 55 is a very long lens on the GH2 and not great in many situations where a wide angle would be better.

Now if they made a 20mm f/1.2 I'd be one happy camper indeed. ;-)

I bought the Tokina 80-200 f2.8 because it's faster. But the quality is not as good as the Canon i suppose, although reasonable.

thanks for the tip, Vitaliy! Sure enough my family will embrace another lens or two at home :-) "look, dad has a new nose!" "no, its just another lens" ... well, so be it.

Everyone is in need for speed thus f1.2 and f1.4 lenses are never cheap. Sometimes crazy over priced. The Canon FD macro 50 mm f3.5 is slow for a 50. Its a special purpose lens (macro). I got it very cheap and I always was putting the FD 50mm f1.2 or the Olympus 58mm f1.2 in my bag unless I took some time to play with the f3.5 macro. This lens produces so clean and sharp images that I now never use a f1.2 unless I really need the speed. However I can't tell if the macro beats a stopped down f1.2 lens.
Anyway I don't care about sharpness that much. The correction of chromatic abbreviation, coma and astigmatism is for me the key to good image quality and that seems to be where those high end lenses shine (not most of the expensive Canon L glass though!). The Canon FD 50mm f3.5 seams to be well corrected. As well as the Olympus OM 28mm f3.5. Also one of my favorites.

Another thing why the Canon macro excites me is macro film making. I'm new to this genre. The GH2 is so good for this task. Macro lens, GH2 in 720 60p plus 1:1 crop mode and you are in another world with very small gear! I will upload some footage I shot soon ...

>AT-X TOKINA 24-40/2.8 FD mount

I only read many threads about it, so info not from me directly, but as I understand this lens is not remarkable.
Build quality is good, as always in AT-X range, but sharpness is below average.
Better look at modern lenses like Tamron 17-50mm or Tamron 28-75mm (for Nikon or Pentax).
To compete with modern bad or average zooms you normally need best old zooms.
For primes it is not so clear.

Want to add other useful info.

If you want tele zoom with very good image quality and extremely well build, look at Canon FD 80-200mm L F4 .
It is push-pull zoom, I think that it is on of the best, if not the best of them.
Not cheap (from manual F4 zooms only Contax Zeiss T* 80-200mm goes for similar prices).
But if you are ok with F4, you are covered.

http://www.fdreview.com/lens-review.php?itemid=122

My limited expirience with this lens proves that it is all true that you'll read in small user reviews.