Talk:Canon FD
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Should there really be any need to have a separate article for every single FD lens? There's an "article" link for each entry, and that just seems like massive overkill to me. I'd suggest that if a lens needs more discussion (like the Canon FD 35-70 mm AF lens, for example), a paragraph about it can be added below the table where it's initially listed. Could we merge the 35-70AF lens page here, and get rid of all those links?
Also, according to my brochure (Canon publication C-CE-1551 1086B100, copyright 1981) and the few listings I've found on the web, the 100mm f/2.0L and the non-L 150-600mm f/5.6 lenses didn't exist. I added the ones that weren't listed, but didn't want to delete the others for risk of removing legitimate information. Can we find some citations for these? Wwagner 19:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree with getting rid of the links and merging articles. Despite wide-spread belief: red links are not Bad Things.
- I believe I got most of the information off of the Canon FD documentation project. Cburnett 01:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, I checked all through the FD Doc Project data (wow, that's a great source!), and there is no mention of either of the lenses I mentioned above. The only hint of the 150-600 non-L is right next to a picture clearly showing the red line around the lens barrel (indication of an L lens), and the lens is referred to as an L elsewhere in the same document. Nothing I found over there mentions the 100 f/2L at all. To make a long story short, I'm gonna get rid of 'em from the page. Wwagner 23:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Photo of Mount
It would be nice if someone could take an upload a photo of the FD lense mount. LexieM 06:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
