F2 Is Good For You! FOUR F2 Vintage Lenses For £30!

[@arcanics1971]

This show is dangerous. I keep trying to tell myself I don't need any more 50s and here you are, Nigel the Devil, tempting me again. I've got a couple of 1.4s and I do love them, but yes I agree that F/2 really is the sweet spot: enough speed for anyone and great images to boot. I have the SMC Takumar 1.8 55mm (which I assume is not far different) and it is a wonderful piece of glass. Probably my favourite of all my 50s. Now; let's see if I can stay off eBay after watching this! :D

[@barrycohen311]

I have the same 58mm SMC. Insane lens. Insane.

[@zenography7923]

Who was it said that the best way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it? Maybe they were right!

[@thegroove2000]

I'm the same. Just ordered 2 film cameras to go with my other bodies. HELPPPPP!!!!!!!.

[@HumanClouds]

The Minolta MD 50mm f2 is another great bargain, as is it's brother, the f1.7. I agree that f1.8-f2 is the sweet spot in normal use.

[@zenography7923]

I've shot that one a while one a while back - it's a beauty. Thanks for looking in Bert!

[@GeorgeK356]

I have a theory that I'm testing. I believe that the modern mirrorless camera sensors get more out of these vintage lenses than film did back in the day. I've shot hundreds of frames of film and duplicated the shots with the vintage lenses on the Fujis.Without exception the digital shots are better, they combine the best of film AND digital. The colour rendition, the clarity, the feeling of "spaciousness" in the image is not apparent on film as it is on digital. Great episode again, Nigel

[@zenography7923]

I think that would be a really good episode - a direct comparison between film and digital. Hmm...

[@unbroken1010]

Some times. Depends on the lenses and their resolving power A bit clinical. The digital is most likely baking in computation. Not always a good thing.

[@punkrachmaninoff]

@@zenography7923 This is a good idea.

[@MichaelRusso]

I have to agree. My Pentax manual K lenses with my Fuji-E3 in B&W are amazing.

[@cine-ish]

It's not surprising that digital is objectively better than film when utilising older glass, I feel alot of it is just purely down to the technological advancements and the fact that you don't lose quality the same way you do with the various processes used to get a film image into digitisation

[@jpaluh]

Thanks!

[@zenography7923]

Thanks man, appreciated!

[@michaelfieser]

I've had a copy of the Pentax 50mm f/2 A for nearly 40 years. It came with the ME Super I got for my birthday in 1983. It has served me well and despite its age it still has (surprisingly) pristine glass.

[@zenography7923]

I'm glad your pentax kit is still giving good service - you've clearly looked after it well!

[@jameswburke]

I also got an ME Super back in 1981 for my photography degree course. The kit lens was a 50mm f1.7 SMC Pentax. Such a lovely sharp, small lens which I still use on my Sony A7 bodies. I more recently bought the Pentax 50mm f4 macro (actually 1:2) which is the sharpest lens I've ever had.

[@williambolton5679]

I was never a fan of the "normal" focal length and have always preferred something a bit wider. However, I've managed to collect more 50mm lenses over the years than any other focal length. Not including my current favorite, the Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8, or the Konica Hexanon 45mm f1.8, I have eight 50's, nine if you include an AF Minolta 50mm f1.7, which include the two macro-Takumars, the Takumar f1.4, the Industar 50-2, two CZJ 50mm f2.8's, a Carl Zeiss 50mm f2.8, and the Pentacon 50mm f1.8. Since you include the 55mm Taks, I have the f1.8, the f2, and the f2.2. My last purchase, very recently was for a second auto-Takumar 55mm f2 because I watched a Japanese video blog in which it was claimed that that particular lens is thought to have been made by Tomioka. I have seen that comment made by someone else but can't find anything definitive, so it remains a rumor. However, the lens is a great piece of glass, extraordinarily sharp with wonderful color and bokeh, so maybe it was Tomioka-made. So, which of the strictly 50's is my favorite? I guess it's a toss up between one of the CZJ Tessars made around 1957 which is all silver, has a 40.5mm filter size and a dozen aperture blades, and the Zeiss Tessar which was removed from a fixed lens Zeiss Ikon Contessa LK made in the early 60's and fitted with a 3D printed e-mount. I'll shoot with them again when I get tired of the 40.

[@zenography7923]

You have some very nice lenses there, but the Konica 40 would be near the top of my list! Enjoy.

[@zenography7923]

You have some very nice lenses there, but the Konica 40 would be near the top of my list! Enjoy.

[@creepyoldhouseexplorersclub]

I am blown away with the rich color rendering of the Carl Zeiss Jena RED MC PANCOLAR 1.8/50mm - M42 - Found out about it on your channel

[@zenography7923]

It's an incredible lens - enjoy!

[@dinoddd007]

My Nikkor Non-AI 50mm f2 H Lens is very good. The focusing ring is extremely smooth, the tank-like build quality is outstanding, and the colors from it are very rich.

[@patrickmckeag3215]

Another great video. Thanks. In my opinion, very fast lenses are over-rated. A good F2.0 or F1.8 lens is all you need for great background blur and anything faster just makes the DOF so shallow that it's actually not very useful. For example, in my portrait shots, I'm stopping down to around F2.2 so that the person's face is totally in focus.

[@sakeboersma]

I have a slightly different lens from Olympus. The Zuiko Shift 1:2.8 35mm. This 'shift' allows you to shift your image left or right (or up and down) without moving the camera. We used to use them when we performed endoscopies with Olympus endoscopes and an Olympus OM1 on top of it. When everything was still analog… After my art academy I became a (male)nurse with a specialization in endoscopy.

[@nsilva800]

The SMC takumar 55mm F2 i had was really sharp with a cold lovley colour rendition

[@zenography7923]

That little Tak is a very hard lens to beat!

[@ArminHirmer]

very nice. I have just the helios 44 58/2, for the rest I love the Tessar 50/2.8 and my tiny Industar61 55/2.8 and I have to admit because of you I got now the LBA :D

[@zenography7923]

You have a nice collection there, enjoy!

[@ArminHirmer]

@@zenography7923 haha thanks to you. I sit there like a nerd watching your videos and take notes, instantly after I go on ebay....

[@sakeboersma]

The Olympus OM-System Zuiko Auto-S 50mm 1:1,8 I bought it in the 80’s and still use it!!! Great quality and solid little lens.

[@zenography7923]

Oh gosh, that's a wonderful lens, one of my favourites for sure!

[@yesman4120]

I don`t have a dslr, but I like to watch this videos, relaxed and interesting)

[@zenography7923]

Thanks, glad you enjoyed it!

[@hardwickpete]

I have the 55mm f2 Takumar. Excellent lens, slightly radioactive, well my copy is . Great vid

[@zenography7923]

It seems it is a little radioactive - still, a little caution (don't hold it directly to your eye for example) and all should be well. Can't beat a bit of thorium for image quality!

[@Photovintageguy]

Longer lenses like135 and 200mm can be higher aperture, and still get blur. Just picked up a Minolta 200mm mc pe f4.5 plenty of blur, sharp across the frame open, and contrast, nice accurate color. Very light weight for 200mm. Min focus distance is just average. I paid $20 and it was absolutely mint. While not this cheap usually, they are not much more.

[@arcanics1971]

Yes, especially with some distance behind your subject you can get some really good blur on longer focal lengths at quite slow apertures.

[@jeghedderhenrik]

iagree, that specific 200 4.5 is wonderful, sharp as the newer minoltas, and the colours are pure gold. i got mine for 15 pound, and its hardly newer been used. its like new, and lubricated and the test label is still sitting on it

[@Photovintageguy]

@@arcanics1971 at 200mm and even f5.6 to f8 at about minimum focus, i get only about a few inches in focus meaning foreground and background are quite blurry. Lack of dof tends to be the be the problem.

[@Photovintageguy]

@@jeghedderhenrik i see some bad pictures from it on flickr but I think its the cameras, the raw files actually have very fine color pickup, but if it done wrong you don’t get it. Part of the sharpness I suspect is the tiny color details. Although they take very good BW. I’m a bit confused. And the coating just looks different, very different sheen on the front lens. Not quite modern, or vintage looking.

[@MANZANOADRIAN]

What's another 200mm competitor

[@barrycohen311]

I have the Oreston. Excellent lens.

[@zenography7923]

It really is!

[@grahvis]

As far as I can see, the problem with the aperture ring on the Pentax A lenses, is the material. If it is gripped tightly between finger and thumb, there is a very slight distortion which causes the binding effect. With finger and thumb wrapped around it, holding it lightly, it turns quite smoothly. However unless it's wanted with its A setting for a Pentax camera, the answer is to get the M version, where the problem doesn't exist. The M version also gets a higher rating on the Pentax forums, though I doubt the difference is particularly noticeable, if at all.

[@zenography7923]

It's a surprisingly clonky aperture ring, although it does do the job!

[@grahvis]

@@zenography7923 . It is plastic, unlike on the M lens where it is metal.

[@OccultDemonCassette]

Pentax-M series is one of my favorites. Beautiful build quality and super compact.

[@osliverpool]

The Takumar 55/2 was the first SLR lens I ever owned, in 1969. Sadly I don't still have that original one, but I do have another now - it's one of my favourite ever lenses. And yes, the old Takumars were of the best mechanical quality of any SLR lenses I've ever used.

[@zenography7923]

A good Tak 55 is hard to beat, no doubt about it!

[@streetlegal008]

Reason for giving an old manual focus lense a try isn',t I don't think, so much for image sharpness as they aren't going to match the overall imaging performance of a modern lens - but for the different 'feel' that they can bring to images - a bit softer, a bit less 'contrasty' - a different kind of rendering of colour. That is what got me into the Pentax M series lenses.

[@zenography7923]

Far more character than a modern lens, no doubt about it!

[@kyushalimit5931]

Great vids! keep them coming, watched almost all of them.

[@snowietropicaldae]

Picked up a Helios 44m to use with my Z6ii in a whim and now I find myself watching your videos while thinking of what other lens to buy. Really love your content!

[@zenography7923]

Thanks, glad you're enjoying the channel!

[@MichaelRusso]

Love my 50mm f/2 (f/1.7). I also recommend the slightly longer lenses. the 55mm.

[@zenography7923]

Agreed, 58 is pretty nice too!

[@Stewz66]

I suppose if I had to pick my favorite inexpensive f2/50mm it would be the Zuiko. Compact, great color rendering. Always satisfying images.

[@zenography7923]

I've never used the f2, it must be a later zuiko? The 1.8 is a lovely lens though, it's probably the same one I would think. Thanks for looking in!

[@Stewz66]

@@zenography7923 oh, I thought we were calling 1.8s 2's! Lol... I never miss an episode!!! 🙂

[@perin99]

Great video, thank you. If I'm allowed an extra 8mm then my favourite cheap 50 is the KMZ Helios 44M. I got a mint one on a broken Zenit for £15. My previous favourite cheap 50 was a Super Takumar like yours. I tested mine and it is radioactive - more so than most 🙂

[@zenography7923]

I love the Helios 44 too - I have an earlier version that's nicer than the Biotar it's based on!

[@leonasj9633]

small radioactivity around 5-6cm distance from lens only.it is zero for human health

[@kryststar6800]

Sweet, thank you :)

[@zenography7923]

Thanks for looking in!

[@philhodgkinson1460]

I have mentioned before I have the same f2 55mm super takumar which too has had a hard life the A/M SWITCH is broken but operates in auto just fine... really excellent optic... Thanks Nigel....

[@zenography7923]

It's really quite outstanding, head and shoulders above many of the rest. Enjoy!

[@philhodgkinson1460]

@@zenography7923 thanks

[@leonasj9633]

just ordered super macro takumar 50/4 and zenitar m 50/1.7

[@zenography7923]

Two fantastic lenses - enjoy!

[@chrisnovakowski9827]

A couple other fantastic 50mm f/2 vintage lenses are the well regarded Ricoh Rikenon 50mm f/2 & the controversial Nikon Nikkor-H Auto 50mm f/2. Both of these lenses produce great results & are at a wonderfully low price point.

[@Magnetron692]

Hi Nigel, many thanks to the presentation of these nice lenses! Best wishes, Ralf

[@zenography7923]

Thanks Ralf, glad you enjoyed it!

[@Magnetron692]

@@zenography7923 I did. You're welcome!

[@DJBastor]

What an awesome lens review. I love your videos.

[@zenography7923]

Thanks so much, glad you enjoyed it!

[@DJBastor]

@@zenography7923everytime I hear your voice I got goose flesh :)

[@scrptwic]

The Pentax A lenses indicates you can set the Apature on a control wheel in the camera on a Pentax camera . I have found my Pentax 50 mm 1.7 lenses to be sharper than my 50mm 2.0 lens but mine is not the A lens mine is a much older lens

[@zenography7923]

It sounds like you have one of the Takumars maybe?

[@scrptwic]

@@zenography7923 I have a Takumar 50mm1.4 Radioactive lens a Pentax / Honeywell 50mm2.0 manuel lens a Pentax 50mm 1.7 autofocus lens and a Pentax 55mm 1.8 Manuel focus lens. I have a number of Takumar M42 screw mount lenses 35mm3.5 and a 135mm 3.5 all came with metal lens hoods along with a Pentax Spotamatic film camera as a package deal

[@neilpiper9889]

I use a K mount Ricoh Rikenon f2 on my Petri GX1 35mm camera. A very small and light combination.The Camera is a Cosina CT1 a rebadged for Petri. The sharpness and bokey is phenomenal with the Ricoh f2 lens. I use it with Fuji Supra extra 400 negative film. Just as an aside, surely these lenses can only be properly tested on full frame digital cameras without any adapters? like a Pentax K1 in my case.

[@zenography7923]

You're right, the full character of these lenses can only be seen on a full frame camera - all images in this video are shot on Sony A7 full frame.

[@neilpiper9889]

@@zenography7923 Does the adapter have any glass in it?

[@michaelboonphotography3014]

I have a Pentax A 50mm f/2. . I was lucky My cousin recently gave me a Pentax K1000 camera with that lens on it. Both in excellent condition. I bought an adapter and use it on my Canon digital camera's too. It's a great little lens.

[@zenography7923]

It really is - enjoy!

[@duringthemeanwhilst]

nice video as ever :-) I use a Canon FD 50mm f1.8 - what's f0.2 between friends (the model with the aluminium locking ring) adapted to either my Fujifilm GFX100 or X-T4. It's great fun to shoot, with really good IQ and surprisingly little vignetting on the GFX.

[@zenography7923]

That sounds like a nice lens - enjoy!

[@ingowalkerling5141]

I use Canon FD lenses with all the different apertures they turned out... f1,8 / f1,4 / f1,2 and f1,2 L. I think the sweetspot ist the f1,4, as Canon regarded this lens as the standard specs lens for the whole FD lens system. Color balance, contrast and resolution were oriented at this lens, and those who shoot slides and presented this in an slide show were grateful to get no "cuts" in image look.

[@zenography7923]

The FD 50mm 1.4 is one of my favourites - a really beautiful lens and much nicer, I found, than the 1.8. I think the rendering of the 1.4 is a little nearer to modern rendering than some of its vintage contemporaries though.

[@skytrooper506]

I've got a bunch of early Nikon lenses from the early 60's, pre AI, I've never really done anything with them. I guess I should give them a go.

[@zenography7923]

I think you might be pleasantly surprised!

[@Analogbrain]

A very nice episode, Nigel! Other very nice lenses in this category are the Pentax smc 1.7, the Minolta Rokkor 1.7, the Mamiya 1.8/2.0/2.2, and last but not least, the Canon FL/FD/FDn 1.8

[@zenography7923]

Thanks for the tips Kalle!

[@blueridge8992]

I shoot with Fujifilm cameras and their premium f1.2 and f1.4 lenses are incredibly expensive. For my modest budget: F2 it is! I occasionally have to play with subject-background spacing but overall my results with their f2 primes are fantastic.

[@zenography7923]

Modern lenses are nice, no doubt about it, but how good can a lens really be? Many of the film lenses can provide equally good results even in terms of sharpness, and background blur is often delightful. there's a lot to be said for the idea that lens design has already peaked, at least in terms of optics.

[@blueridge8992]

@@zenography7923 Being in a modern camera body and lens ecosystem definitely has its advantages. Exif data transferred from the lens, aperture and manual focus adjustment from the thumb dials on the camera (or via USB when tethering to MacBook or gimbal), weather resistance, autofocus motors are always getting faster and quieter, and lens durability is just as high as the 20+ year old tanks but the modern stuff often weighs 50% less. I don't have any $30 lenses but all of my Fuji f2 primes were between $175-300 so it's not like I'm breaking the bank for modern conveniences either.

[@bradl2636]

Nikkor 50mm f2 AI is my favourite but I like the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 Series E, Nikkor 50mm f1.8 AI-S JDM version, Pentacon 50mm f1.8 and of course the CZJ Pancolar 50mm f1.8 and the Leica-M 50mm f2 Summicron. Tons of options out there.

[@zenography7923]

Indeed - we're spoilt for choice!

[@davidpostma9862]

Hi Nigel. Try the Yashica 50mm f 2. ML. I don’t see my name on the Patron list. Dave Postma

[@zenography7923]

Dave, so sorry - I've just added it. Not sure what happened there, but it's fixed now and thanks for letting me know. I've yet to try the Yashica f2 - I'll look out for one.

[@davidpostma9862]

@@zenography7923 these Yashica 50 mm f 2 sell for $15 to $25.00 us.

[@alexblaze8878]

FYI: There were 5 cosmetically different versions of the Super Takumar 55mm F2. Your’s is the earliest version with the small “R” on the depth of field gauge. It was produced in 1962 and 1963 and is supposedly the most collectible of the 5 versions. It’s very likely this lens is a “crippled” version of the earlier Super Takumar 55mm 1.8 as it has a small circular screen inside the lens preventing the aperture blades from opening to 1.8 even though the aperture ring will turn to the 1.8 position. If you have one of the 55 1.8’s you can see for yourself that the aperture ring goes to the same position on both lenses even though the 1.8 printed number has been removed on the F2 lens. Marketing a crippled lens that is technically identical to its larger-aperture predecessor is not uncommon among lens manufacturers of the 60s and 70s. The likely reason for this is to sell their excess F1.8s in stock as a supposedly slower version at a cheaper sale price.

[@zenography7923]

I've heard it's the same lens, but crippled or not, it's quite something!

[@unbroken1010]

Good for them no waste 😃

[@alexblaze8878]

@@zenography7923 agreed!

[@Skipsul]

One of my faves is my Elmar f3.5. Sharp little lens.

[@zenography7923]

I've heard it's nice - never tried it though.

[@jameswburke]

Love the Pentax sharpness and overall 3D pop. Had a 50mm f1.7 since 1981 and still using it on my Sony bodies. I do have a couple of Vivitars, (28mm and 70-210) but the Series One versions, which were aimed at pro users and which are not that cheap these days. If I go on holiday, travelling light, I'll only bring a 50mm.

[@zenography7923]

It's really all you need! Thanks for looking in James.

[@RemainEvil]

I absolutely love your videos ! Ever since I discovered your videos I’ve become enriched with vintage lenses. I recently purchased a Helios 44-2 , Takumar Super multi f1.4 , Minolta 58mm f1.8 1st gen. Ever since I’ve been shooting with these lenses , my quality has shot up along with character.

[@zenography7923]

Glad you're enjoying those lenses moderns are nowhere near them for character. Glad you're enjoying the channel too!

[@blood_n_guts_murphy]

On paper I agree with what you said at the start about f2. In reality the few f2 lenses I have had have been worse than f1.8 lenses at equivalent wide apertures. F2 lenses are cheaper so it makes sense they use slightly better class for the faster ones. I am going to give one or two more Takumar f2 lenses a try. Usually I shoot 50s around f2.2 i.e. stopped down just a bit. That 1st lens' pancake size is a nice bonus. I am right that the Super Takumar f2 lenses are the same as the f1.8 lenses, but with the aperture simply restricted? Think I may have heard this once and they look the same size. I may have had a slightly smaller Auto Takumar f2 once, but haven't had an f1.8 Auto Takumar. I would enjoy a video about Pentax Vs Takumar lenses as the latter seem nicer in every way, except perhaps maybe Pentax lenses have SMC more often.

[@zenography7923]

Yes, the Tak 55 f2 and f1.8 are exactly the same lens!

[@CircuitBoardcokr]

For me, the most lovely one is pancolar 50mm f2, which is earlier version of pancolar 50mm f1.8

[@zenography7923]

The Pancolar f2 is closer to the Biotar than a Pancolar in character, at least that's what I found. A beautiful lens indeed!

[@CircuitBoardcokr]

@@zenography7923 another good knowledge from you. thanks!

[@punkrachmaninoff]

You should review the Pentax-A lenses on the Pentax K3. It is my favorite camera (besides my X100V). A-Series lenses with iffy aperture rings like those are best left on the A setting on a digital body. The Vivitar 24mm f2.0 RL (also A and fully electronic) and the A/50/1.7 make a very portable top notch manual focus kit.

[@zenography7923]

I've often thought of looking at the Pentax digital cameras - I'll look out for one, thanks for the suggetsion.

[@punkrachmaninoff]

@@zenography7923 The trusty former flagship Pentax K5 is very affordable right now - an even better deal if you can find one with one of the Limited lenses or an F or FA autofocus prime in the kit, then sell off the zooms and lower the cost. Body only you can find one for next to nothing though. The Pentax files really do have tremendous dynamic range and a special color science also - better than Nikon or Sony colors, inferior to Fuji. The K5 is nice, but the K3 is nearly perfect - I would go as far as to say it is one of the best cameras ever made (as a hobbyist reseller I have tried quite a few cameras). $20 says I sell the A7R3 and the X100V before I sell that winter friendly K3. I live in Canada, I can wear the K3 around my neck all winter with any manual prime and the only thing that will be damaged after 6 months of ‐30°C are the SD cards (I am not joking, I cracked an SD card last winter...)

[@jimgraves4197]

4 excellent choices, Nige.

[@zenography7923]

Thanks Jim, glad you enjoyed it!

[@thomaseriksson6256]

I'm using a Zeiss Planar 50mmF1.4 but I used to have a Nikkor 50mmF1.8 and that was a good lens so 1.8 is the sweet spot.

[@zenography7923]

I think it pretty much is!

[@thomaseriksson6256]

@@zenography7923 My other Zeiss lenses has F2.0 and they work well too. I have the 18mmF3.5 that I used on D300 DX (as 27mm on a D700) I got a 28mm F1.4 E to have the same Focal length on D700/D800E. I have not tested 18mm yet on the D700. I may get the Zeiss 15mm i I can find a 2nd hand.

[@leonasj9633]

what vintage lens from fast normal is sharpest wide open without glow? i have super takumar 8element 1.4/50, smc takumar 1.4/50,carl zeiss jena 1.8/50 pancolar, helios 44m-7,industar 50-2,zenitar 50/2 and every must stop down 1stop to get contrast sharp picture.only helios44m and zenitar 50/2 is usable wide open from my set.

[@crazygeorgelincoln]

The exata lens looked tempting, I already have the other 3! I think grouping lenses by weight or diameter could be fun. Or Maybe another factor like polished nose or zebra markings.

[@zenography7923]

Thanks for the thought George!

[@unbroken1010]

I got a Sears 2 8 that is actually awesome.

[@zenography7923]

I've heard that's a nice one - I'll look out for one.

[@alexblaze8878]

I’ve got the super Takumar 55mm f2 and I frequently shoot with it. My 50mm 1.8 Nikon (AF-S) is technically sharper at F2 but the Takumar gives better bokeh.

[@zenography7923]

The Takumar does give lovely blur, interesting that it's nicer than the Nikon!

[@alexblaze8878]

@@zenography7923 yes definitely. I’m a Nikon fanatic but when it comes to most of the types of bokeh we like, many of the vintage m42 lenses give better results. Edit: to simplify compatibility I stick primarily with the m42 mount of vintage lenses. To be fair I haven’t tried the Zuiko 50mm F2 (or ANY of the Zuikos for that matter.)

[@robertmeyerson1618]

Takumar 55mm f2 is also radioactive. Love the lens, though... I just don't sleep with it.

[@zenography7923]

Indeed!

[@jpaluh]

Do you have lens that has half stops?

[@zenography7923]

Some have half stops, some even have third stops, just depends on the lens. Thanks for looking in!

[@perko4590]

Does radiation matter? Pentax 55 f2 is said to be radioactive, are any of the others radioactive?

[@zenography7923]

Personally I don't worry too much - don't hold it too close to the body and never to the eye and I don't think there's too much to worry about.

[@perko4590]

@@zenography7923 thank you for replying to my comment. Just so you know I watch most of your videos and have bought many vintage lenses because of them. And that's a good thing in my opinion.

[@perin99]

I would avoid leaving a radioactive lens on a mirrorless camera when not in use. I suspect that it may degrade the sensor over time.

[@robinj.9329]

Absolutely nothing wrong with f/2. When the first f/2.8 lenses arrived on the scene, they caused a sensation and "Revolutionized" the photo industry. And before that? It was f/3.5 ! Once you've learned how to really use what you have, your doing great. Just enjoy the experience.

[@zenography7923]

I couldn't agree more! Thanks for looking in.

[@WychardNL]

I would like to sell my Canon FD 100mm F2.0 lens (used on a Canon T90). How much could it be worth (in €) ?

[@arcanics1971]

In the UK, between £30 and £60. I've seen them go for as little as £15 and as much as £80 but they generally go around £40- at least when I've been watching.

[@mach999]

Canon FD 100mm F2 is well over $1000. The F2.8 is around $50.

[@somethingsafoot]

Gonna have to call the police on you. You pretty much stole that 50 F2 in its original packaging for 30£ 😂

[@zenography7923]

It's strange, it was sitting on ebay for days and it seems no one wanted it. It came with a Pentax zoom too!

[@Sodacake]

no one really needs f2, especially for video. have you ever tried pulling focus on f/1.4 wide open? on full frame? nightmare.

[@zenography7923]

Never tried it, but it must be very tough to do. I know exactly what you mean!

[@dizzybuizzy9347]

Anything beyond 1.4 is a waste...

[@GeorgeStar]

Jupiter 8?