Jump to content

Canon FL 55mm 1.2 or 58mm 1.2 any sharper than FD 50mm 1.4 wide open?


gabriel_gerena

Recommended Posts

What's your source?

 

The FL 55 /1.2 is very good in its own right, with really pleasing image quality. As to beating the FD (or FL) 50/1.4 in

wide-open resolution that's a brave claim! The older 58 I think will be less competitive, and the vast majority of those

found today will have strong yellowing from the glass' actinide content. This can be bleached out with some success by

ultraviolet exposure, but that's its own thread...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have the 55/1.2 FL. It isn't as good at or near wide open as the 50/1.4 FLII or any of the 50/1.4 FD lenses. I recently had a first version 50/1.4 FL overhauled and will do some shooting with it soon. If you are shooting at a closer range and can close down you will find that thr 50/3.5 (FD SSC or New FD) is sharper than all of these. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p >If you can find one, maybe consider the FD 55/1.2 aspherical. I've owned the aspherical and the 50/1.2L and consider the 55mm to be a better lens, especially when shot wide-open. The differences between the two lenses are slight, but they are noticeable. The only negative about the 55mm aspherical is it's size and weight. It's a substantially larger lens than the 50/1.2L. Just something to consider.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim, I tend to agree that the 55 Asphericals were snappier, with a little busier bokeh maybe; I have both an FD 55 f1.2 AL SSC

(with gold stripe) and FD 55 f1.2 SSC ASPHERICAL, the former somewhat yellowed and the latter essentially clear. It's

astonishing to read the original prices of these lenses: the first, FD 55 f1.2 AL, with hand-ground aspherical element, was

¥ 145,000 in 1971! Its successor, the AL SSC, also hand-ground, ¥ 147,000 in 1973. Prices dropped a lot for the FD

55 f1.2 SSC ASPHERICAL of 1975, ¥ 80,000. When the New FD 50 f1.2 L appeared in 1980 it cost ¥ 90,000. I'll leave the

adjustments for inflation to someone else, but it's clear these Asphericals were well beyond the reach of most! Today they

remain splendid jewels of Canon history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The 58/1.2 lens (R or FL) is full of aberrations in general. Which doesn't mean it's a useless lens. Quite the opposite, you can get a very peculiar look with it. I never owned one but experimented with one. Loads of coma aberration!</p>

<p>The FL and FD 55/1.2 lenses (non-aspherical) are of exactly the same optical design. I don't think that they can match any of the 50/1.4 FDs wide-open. However, i owned one and it's an excellent lens, my favorite FD lens. Bokeh is really smooth; resolution is very usable at f1.2 and once stopped down a little bit (f2.8) is an impressively sharp lens. Also, i like the look of 55mm focal length better than 50mm. Contemporary is the Nikkor 55/1.2 which is unloved by Nikon-ians, while the 55/1.2 FD is usually well liked by Canon-ists.</p>

<p>The FD version is multicoated, and i think the FL version was multicoated as well -- one of the first FL lenses (or pehaps the only one) to have multicoating. The front lens has a strong red reflection. Beautiful.</p>

<p>The aspherical FD 55/1.2 has been described by leica specialist Erwin Puts as superior to any Leitz offering at the time and probably the "best normal lens in the world."</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>It's astonishing to read the original prices of these lenses: the first, FD 55 f1.2 AL, with hand-ground aspherical element, was ¥ 145,000 in 1971! Its successor, the AL SSC, also hand-ground, ¥ 147,000 in 1973. Prices dropped a lot for the FD 55 f1.2 SSC ASPHERICAL of 1975, ¥ 80,000. When the New FD 50 f1.2 L appeared in 1980 it cost ¥ 90,000.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Prices dropped big-time when Canon developed their special aspherical surface grinding/polishing machine. This is when they also brought out the 24/1.4 aspherical and 85/1.2 aspherical. </p>

<p>I bought my 55/1.2 aspherical (used) many years ago. I primarily use it for portraits and shoot it wide-open or at F2.0. It requires careful focusing, but if you nail it, the resulting image is truly special. As i mentioned before, the only downside is it’s size and weight. This is a big lens!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...