I am pretty new to photography , so bear with me a bit.
How can a view finder be bad? it seems so simple to me that it seems that it would be hard for a company to make a bad viewfinder. What makes Canon VFs worse? I have a EOS Film SLR from to late 90's and I don't really see anything wrong with the VF except for surface scratches.
By FD lenses being gorgeous do you mean you like the way they look or like the way they perform
I really don't care all that much about a complicated layout as I wont be using a vintage camera for any thing that needs me to be quick. In fact a complicated layout just seems like an opportunity to really learn the camera and slow down to try to really take good shots.
Scenario: I am on a photography hike mission and I have my EOS hanging from one shoulder and my vintage on the other. A mountain biker comes shredding down the trail or a deer bounds through the trees. I grab my EOS and quickly get a pic. I turn a corner to see a beautiful landscape in front of me. I spend 10 minutes setting up my equipment to make sure that shot is the best it can be.
Since I already own a Canon EF mount camera, it is only logical to me that a FD to EF adapter would excel over a Nikon to EF or others to EF. I do know adapters aren't the best quality optics, and I haven't done much research on this.
Also, I want my camera to be a piece of art when it is sitting on my shelf. The Canon is the best looking to me. The Nikon looks okay, but the Pentax and the Minolta look boring IMO
I know I sound really biased, but I tend to be that kind of way.
So back to my main topics. If I do go with a canon, what lenses to buy. The 100-300mm is out due to some research saying the 80-200mm and 70-150mm were superior. the 70-150 is also out because I want that extra 50 mm. So now it is the 28mm vs the 50mm and the 35-70mm vs the Tokina 35-105mm F3.5-4.3 tokina