Canon FD Lenses

<p>I currently own a Canon A1 and was wondering if anyone had any recommendations on great "Sharp" lenses. I own a FD 24mm S.S.C and a basic 50mm FD 1.8. Im happy with my 24mm but are looking or something better in the 50mm range because I find my 1.8 very soft. I have been trying to do research and it looks like most people with this camera use the 50mm 1.4. I was wondering if the 50mm 1.2 or the 55mm 1.2 are worth the money? Or there any other brand of lenses that can fit the canon A1? Any help would be great.</p>

<p>Here's a link - scroll down to Canon FD lenses, and compare sharpness both wide open and stopped down about 2 stops. http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylens.jsp</p>

<p>Hi Daniel,<br>

I would recommend the FDn 2/35mm. Rumors say, that older versions should be slightly better, but as I sayed, rumors, and, because of the age, possibly more issues (e.g. yellow tinting because of radioactive elements). The lens is not cheap. Should be well maintained and adjusted to the body for perfect performance. 35mm are very versatile for many duties. Use of the lens hood BW-52A is mandatory.</p>

<p>Daniel, you're on the right track, but you need to ask yourself some more questions. Such as, will you be buying primes only, or will you also add zooms to your collection? What are your maximum and minimum desired focal lengths? What sort of budget do you have to work with?</p>

<p>The FD 50mm f/1.4 is a great lens, whether SSC or New FD. Actually, the f/1.8 is also excellent. Yours might have suffered some damage or been put back together wrong by a previous owner. As for an f/1.2 lens. this is a luxury that is not really necessary unless you really like available light photography. But just to let you know, I have a few -- an FL 55/1.2, FD 55/1.2 SSC and an 85/1.2 SSC Aspherical. The 55's have very good sharpness, even wide open.</p>

<p>I like 24mm much better than 28mm. So a basic kit of primes for me would be a 24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, 100mm f/2.8, 135mm f/2.8, and 200mm f/4. Relatively inexpensive, but all of the optics are top-notch, especially if you get the nFD 135 and 200.</p>

<p>If I were to add zooms to the mix, I would go with a pair of aftermarkets. For years, my basic carry kit was an F-1 with a Vivitar Series 1 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5 and a Tamron SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4. I would add an occasional prime to the kit as needed, usually something on the wide end, like my nFD 24mm or my cool old FL 19mm f/3.5.</p>

<p>I have the Canon FD 50mm f1.8 S.C. and 50mm f1.4 S.S.C. lenses and had the 50mm f1.2L lens, and I do find the 50mm f1.4 S.S.C. to be slightly better than the f1.8 version, but not drastically, and found the 50mm f1.2L to be slightly better than the f1.4 version, but not better enough to justify the cost difference. And all three lenses were either bought brand new, or overhauled by Ken in California, so they were all to factory spec.</p>

<p>I think if you pick up a 50mm f1.4 S.S.C. or New FD version, you should be good to go in the 50mm focal length range.</p>

<p>Your 50 1/8 is probably damaged. Pick up a new one (cheap) or a 50/1.4.</p>

<p>I'll put in another plug for the 50/1.4. It has a tried and true design (in fact, it's optical formula is the same as that of the 50/1.4's from other manufacturers such as Nikon, Minolta, and Pentax).</p>

<p>I also have a 50/1.2 L, and had a 55/1.2 SSC Aspherical, but the 50/1.4 clearly delivers the best ratio of cost to performance.</p>

<p>I used the FD 50/1.8 SC for thirty years and it was never unsharp.</p>

<p>There is virtually no difference in sharpness between the 1.8 and the 1.4 versions in real life situations, so I think you just got a dud. These lenses are dirt cheap, so another one shouldn't cost more than $15. I would just buy another one unless you need that extra speed. The 1.4 is a fine lens for sure, but I have some excellent shots from my 1.8 too. if you like smoother bokeh, the 1.4 is better.<br>

When you get to lenses like the 55 1.2 you are paying for the 1.2 aperture, not sharpness. </p>

 

<p>If you want a great medium telephoto - the 135mm f/2.0, although big is a wonderful lens. I had to sell mine after a couple of years to raise some cash for a family emergency, and replaced it with a smaller lens, but I do miss that extra stop of rendering and the sharpness from the get go.</p>

<p>The 50mm f/1.4 in either SSC or FDn are top notch lenses. If you want a f/1.2 lens then get the "L" version. The sharpest Canon lens I've used is the 24-35 "L" zoom, outstanding at each FL. It was replaced by the 20-35 "L" and is even better. The "L" lenses are pricey but well worth the cost.</p>

<p>In my opinion the best "bang for your buck" in the Canon FD 50mm lens range is the 50mm f1.4.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"rumors, and, because of the age, possibly more issues (e.g. <strong>yellow tinting</strong> because of radioactive elements)" <em><strong>Sven S.</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not an issue with this beautifully built & performing lens. <br>

I personally UV bleached mine with a 'cheap' Ultra Violet LED light unit bought from Ebay; no more amber cast...</p><div></div>

<p>If that 1.8 is "Very Soft".....there is something wrong with That Lens.</p>

<p>I own a full drawer of Canon FD lenses.<br /> I now use them on digital (Sony A7R mainly).<br /> My favorites are (sorted per focal lens): <br /> - nFD 20-35 3.5L (Good ultra wide lens)<br /> - nFD 28 2.0 (very very sharp when stopped down, much better than 2.8)<br /> - nFD 35 2.0 (very very sharp when stopped down. 2.8 is not bad either, but 2.0 is better)<br /> - nFD 50 3.5 Macro (excellent macro lens)<br /> - nFD 85 1.2L (my precious...)<br /> - nFD 85 1.8 (excellent portrait lens... if you don't have the 1.2L)<br /> - nFD 80-200 4.0L (man, this lens is SHARP! (Almost )no chromatic abbrration either)<br /> - nFD 100 2.0 (another excellent portrait lens. Probably sharper than 85 1.8)<br /> I also own the FD version of the 35 2.0 but do prefer the new one - even if difference in pictures is hard to see.<br>

Amongst those, if I sort per decreasing usage frequency:<br /> 1. 85 1.2L<br />2. 20-35L<br />3. 28 2.0<br />4. 80-200 4.0L<br />...<br /> <br /> Then come some other lenses that I like too, but less so:<br /> - FD 20 2.8 (be carefull with flare and vignetting)<br /> - nFD 24 2.0 or 2.8 (less impressive than the 28 2.0)<br /> - FD or nFD 50 1.4 (that's a 50mm, soft wide open, sharp when closed down.)<br /> - nFD 500 Reflex (a lot of fun)</p>

<p>What I don't own and would like to test:<br /> - nFD 50 1.2L or older FD 55 1.2L<br /> - nFD 24 1.4L<br />-nFD 135 2.8<br /> Any fluorite lens >= 300mm</p>

<p>I used to have a 200 4.0 and it was good too<br /> I also remember I had a lot of fun with an AE1 and a 2-rings nFD 80-200 4.0 NON-L (Not on a par with the L for sure, but still quite good)</p>

<p>Some lenses I own that are good but have too much chromatic abberation for modern standards (A7R is 36MPixels), but may still be good enough on an A1:<br /> - nFD 135 2.0<br /> - FD 400 4.5</p>

<p>Then I also have other lenses, but those I never use:<br /> - (n)FD 50mm 1.8. (You find them for free. But coating is not as good as the 1.4, and you see the difference on the photos)<br /> - FD 135 2.5 (an older lens, with older coating too. The 2.0 is better)<br /> Different Canon nFD non-L zoom lenses (not up to what we expect today in terms of zoom range and/or sharpness)</p>

<p>That's it.</p>

<p>Note that, in general, I prefer the newer nFD to the older bayonnet.<br /> That's easier to change lenses.</p>