I don't think i have seen mentioned that the coatings on the old FD
series lenses (regular series, not SSC or L or whatever-I don't have
experience with these FD models) were very poor compared to coatings at
the same time by pentax, nikon, etc (I have read that this is because
canon refused, or perhaps wasn't offerred, to license all or a portion
of the SMC technology from pentax as nikon and other manufacturers did).
Todays coatings are quite good on my L series lenses and on my 100/2.8
usm macro. I also imagine that they are much better on the more
consumer level lenses. Still, I recently read that they fall behind
pentax's current coatings, but they should be much better than canon's
lenses in the late 70's or 80s.
Also, I think we are seeing much more use of aspherics today, but also,
much cheaper methods of producing aspherics (molding and plastics even)
than what most likely used to be always ground aspherics. I don't know
about this point of how they used to produce aspherics vs. newer
techniques, but I am sure more lenses are getting them these days.
One other thing about new vs. old lenses. On the Schnieder website,
they refer to several lens designs that they cannot produce anymore
because they cannot make the same glasses. I don't know if it is
because of environmental regulations, or what, but does this lack of
manufacturable glass types affect canon as well (in schnieder's case, i
think they were referring to lens designs several decades old, so maybe
this isn't an issue for lenses between the late 70's and today)
Mike
Michael Quack wrote:
> >
> > >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.
>
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
