50mm 1.4 SSC (old FD) critique

I've taken a bunch of photos with this new (to me) lens. I'm wondering if there

is an odd quality about it.

 

Take a look at the photo.

 

Is it just me, or does it have quality (I'll try and explain) of something you

might see in a brochure of a magazine - I don't feel any connection to the

image even though I was there. A kind of flatness. I'm not doing a good job of

explaining, but I'd be interested in your comments. (And extra points if you

can guess the location.)

 

And BTW, it's a great forum and I'm glad I found it. I'm having more fun with

with my FD gear, than I've had in ages.<div></div>

I have found mine to be an excellent lens, mine was (I don`t know if they all are) leaning a touch to a very slightly warm colour rendition which may have that old-timey Kodachrome mag-photo look if you really squint and want to see it. This is of course completely obliterated in 1 hour lab prints and not even relevant in scans. I also found that the B&W results where perhaps a touch more contrasty than the nFD lens I currently use - but and its a big BUT, these are old lenses, God only knows what happened to them over the years and my examples may not be indicative of the whole breed.

Also, judging any of this from a scan on a monitor... well, that`s just silly. Take some slides and see what you think in a dark room with a nice 30+ inch projected image:)

There's a difference between shooting in flat light and shooting with a lens that gives "flat" results.

I think both Jeff and Peter have hit correct. The light (as shown by the flat low cloud cover and the lack of anything but the lightest of shadows showing in the darkest of places) Is very flat that combined with the scan can easily give a low contrast shot.

 

Were you using a hood? I have found that while most people understand the need for a lens hood in bright light they tend to miss the importance of a hood even in very flat light. A hood will almost without fail in any kind of light increase the contrast of a photo.

 

It has since I got on the internet in 1999 amazed me that people ask others to assess any aspect of a photo past the composition and subject matter. Since no two computer monitors unless directly matched to each other are going to show a photo the same.

 

On my desk sitting 3" apart I have the monitor I'm using now a 7+ year old Gateway 17" flat CRT and a 3 year old ViewSonic Pro Series P95f that is calibrated to my Canon Photo printer. If I were to bring your photo posted here up on both monitors they would look very different.

 

And now as Peter mentions you ad in what ever setting were in the Konica Fuji Kodak Brand X processing machine that printed your photo and then the Epson, Canon, Nikon, Brand X flat bed or film scanner or built into the processor machine scanner and what ever changes you made in your computer as you posted the image here.

 

It's kind of hard to imagine that it would be a problem with your lens.

Yeah, it's the flat light. I really like mine with B&W film though. Very sharp with great bokeh.

The scanner also appears to have a very limited Dmax

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6901128-lg.jpg"></center>

 

Hi David, my old breechlock 50/1.4 wide open seems contrasty enough, even with some sun in its eyes. I used Kodachrome 200 for this pix, what did you use? As Mark noted, individual computer monitors will show dramatic differences in contrast. Double points if you can guess the location and era of the pix. Regards.

John,

 

I'd say between '83 & '87, DC.

John, mid 70's on the left coast, SF. Back then it took awhile for this crazy stuff to go cross country. Regards.

I was going to say London (because of the punk), way off.

 

I think you are all correct about the low contrast / flatness. I think the reason it looked wrong to me is that I don't remember the light being flat. And compared to my digital P&S the image is sharp and different.

 

I appreciate you cannot judge much from a digital image - I was just interested in your comments.

 

BTW, the photo is at La Rambla in Barcelona. And regarding lens hoods - I've discovered I desperately need one in Dublin to keep the drizzle away.<div></div>

Well,

 

I was off by 10 years and 3000 miles. However, there was a punk/hardcore scene thriving in DC at the time of that photo.

 

Best,

John

David, I'm sure, based on your pix, you've used some other camera systems, how does the old Canon 50/1.4 compare? I have two other lens favorites, which are reasonably available, 200/4 and 100/2.8, all BL.

 

John, once in awhile, I used to work around the SF area in that time frame. To bad those guys an gals didn't 'fade away' someplace. I wonder what they are doing now? Probably dot.com execs. Chuckle.

Some Canon lenses give a very distinctive look to their pictures ... like old pastel watercolors. Two that I have in mind happen to be the FD 50mm f1.4 and the older 35mm f2.8 Serenar. I know some might freak when I say this, and the results surprise me also, because Canon is supposed to work very hard to build its lenses to have consistent color signatures across the whole line of lenses. But I have not found it to be so.

 

I compare color pictures shot with my old screw mount Canon 50mm f1.2 to those shot with an FD 50mm f1.4 and then again to those shot with an FD 50mm f3.5 Macro and the color renditions are all different. The rangefinder 50mm f1.2 is my favorite for natural shots with warmth and glow. The FD 50mm f1.4 makes shots that look like old watercolors or paintings ... a very distinctive effect. The 50mm breach-lock Macro is unbelievably sharp, but with a natural and modern look to its pictures ... it produces results that can be hard to tell from modern Leica shots.

 

For what it's worth, the FD 50mm f1.4 has never been a favorite of mine. I've always preferred the Macro and even the FD 55mm f1.2, which also produces more natural color. In rangefinder land, the old 50mm f1.2.

I almost never find myself with the need for that much speed, my best results using a 50 have been with the f3.5, which is hard to beat at f5.6. I've saved my f1.4 SSC to use with a bellows setup. The subtle color differences have easily been corrected using digital tools, even with my new FD35 f2 concave, the color hasn't been a problem with todays world of cool tools.

Bottom line is, too many variables to judge from a thumbnail by a dozen people most likely seeing a dozen different pictures. I would keep shooting - I have a sneaking suspicion the lens is ok:)