Jump to content

Canon FD 50mm lens choice


ivan_gninenko

Recommended Posts

Hello once again,

and this time we're gonna talk about 50mm FDs. Thanks to you that I got 100/2, it's terrific lens, now I think about getting new 50mm to

replace basic 50/1.8 that I have. Of course, at first I've taken a look at 1.2 lenses, but all of them are really damn pricey for me, especially

if you take current dollar exchange rate into account (maybe the only thing I could hardly get is 55mm ssc version). Also a lot of good has

been said about 1.4 in one of the recent topics. To be honest, that's not really a question for me, since this is a choice between about

$100 and $700, but still, I am really curious about what can 1.2 give what 1.4 cannot besides one stop bigger aperture, and conversely,

why is 1.4 better (I hope that it at least is not much worse, because you always doubt when something is too cheap). I appreciate your

advices and opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Well, I have the Nikkor 55mm f/1.2 and it made good sense and gave me good service through decades of work with films like GAF 500. Those days are gone for digital, but if you want to do low light work with film, there is still a place for ultra-fast lenses. However, while they are not exactly "one-trick ponies", they are really specialized lenses for a few purposes: low light, super thin DoF, etc. You might look at the Nikkor, for that matter, as it can be cheaply adapted for stop-down shooting on FD-mount bodies. It may be cheaper than the Canon equivalents.</p>

<p>For most people the difference between an f/1.2 and an f/1.4 is not significant, and the f/1.4 lens is very likely, theoretically, to be better for non-wide-open shooting. I have the nFD f/1.4 lens and it is my favorite lens for FD-mount shooting. Wonderful 'bokeh', nice and sharp, just plain one of the best 'normal' lenses I have in any mount.</p>

<p>On the other hand, there's nothing wrong at all with the FD 50mm f/1.8 lenses. You might also enjoy something like the fine 35mm f/2 for more 'variety'. ;)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ivan, I'm glad you're enjoying the 100/2!<br />The FD and New FD 50/1.4 are genuinely excellent and not so expensive. In fact, even if you had a 1.2 lens the 1.4 is still extremely useful when that faster (and heavier) lens is simply overkill. <br />Another more affordable 1.2 option is the Canon FL 55/1.2, a really fine performer with very pleasing bokeh- some say it's amongst the best at background rendition. On your AE-1 it requires stop-down metering but automatic diaphragm action is maintained. Its focusing ring will also turn in the same direction as other Canon lenses, not the wrong way like a Nikkor.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Generally speaking the wider aperture lenses have better resolution wide open than their smaller aperture cousins. The 1.2 comes in 2 flavors, the L version, according to mir.com uses an aspherical element to eliminate flare and improve contrast wide open, and the floating system elements maintain image quality throughout the focusing range - all this comes at a steep price. The regular 1.2 uses premium glass to achieve good image contrast and sharpness wide open, and is 75gm lighter than the L version. The 1.4 was noted for its excellent color rendition and was used as a standard in the color category against which other Canon FD lenses were measured, and is 80gm lighter than the regular 1.2.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Let me put it to you this way. If your photos are good enough to need the difference between a 50mm f1.4 nFD and a 50mm f1.2L nFD then you should start selling your photos and move to modern equipment.</p>

<p>The 50mm f1.4 nFD is razor sharp with excellent correction and color</p>

<p>I have owned ALL the canon 50mm lenses from the 1950's Chrome rangefinder version on up through to the 50mm f1.2L nFD and the 1.4 gives up nothing in image quality the advanced amateur photographer could need. <br>

IMHO<br>

YMMV</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly what I thought you'd say, guys. :) You're right, I've been trying to jump over my head with this 1.2 here, I

guess. I am an amateur yet, but who doesn't want to feel pro with his expensive lenses at this point? This is honestly just

silly. Well, thanks everyone, I'll go find a good deal with 50/1.4. Probably going to ask about wide angle lenses next time

around. Have a nice day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ivan, do as I have done. Buy a good quality 50/1.4 and enjoy it, but keep your eyes peeled for a 1.2. I have three now. A 55mm f/1.2 FL lens I bought for cheap from a camera shop because it wasn't even FD, but FL. A chrome-nose FD 55/1.2 (1st version) that I bought off eBay as part of an outfit and didn't pay a premium for it because the seller had mis-identified it, but I was able to see what it was from closely examining the photos. And most recently, I came across an ad in Craigslist, same thing -- the seller was selling a "camera" that included the lens -- a 55mm f/1.2 SSC. He was given the camera, an old F-1 in decent shape, and didn't know anything about it. Picked up the camera and lens for cheap.</p>

<p>Just a note on the history of the 55mm f/1.2 and later the 50mm f/1.2. It first appeared as an FL lens, replacing the earlier 58mm f/1.2. The chrome nose FD 55/1.2 is, as near as I've been able to determine, based on my own testing, the same optical formula as the FL lens. The SSC lens came later, with improved coatings, but as near as I can figure, still with the same optical formula. And then there was the top-of-the-line SSC Aspherical, which definitely had a new optical formula, sister lens to the 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical. Then with the mount change to the nFD mount, the optics were reformulated with the 50/1.2 and 50/1.2 L<br>

Here's my views on fast glass like the 55/1.2 (standard and Asph) and 85/1.2 Asph (and later L) -- Canon engineered these optics to perform well wide open, but without giving anything away when the lens had to be stopped down. All of my fast FD glass, incluuding my 85mm Asph, exhibit outstanding sharpness and contrast from wide open all the way down. And the 50/1.4 SSC, which is my typical go-to normal lens, is just simply fantastic. Wide open, it exhibits wonderful bokeh, yet it's tack sharp with great color and contrast.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As other members have written on this thread the best bang for you're buck is the FD 50mm f1.4, unless you habitually photograph black cats in coal mines, and the f1.2 is very little faster than the f1.4 for the great difference in cost. The 50mm f1.8 is a very good 6 element lens that can be bought these days for buttons, but is only single coated as all Canon 50mm 1.8 lenses were, the FD 1.4 is a 7 element double gauss design http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-Gauss_lens that's multi-coated and superb.</p>

<p>http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/50mm.htm<br /><br /></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Well how I look at it, Ivan, is this: Pre-visualize. A great picture is a great picture and it doesn't matter what camera or lens it was taken with. I've seen some great pictures with a 35 mm Holga, and I've seen great pictures with a 8x10 Diedorf. What they all have is vision from the photographer and all that equipment disappears. Now, I've had great experience with this forum and everything these guys say to you is absolutely spot on. It's where your budget is. The 50/1.4 FD is such a bang for the buck I cannot see you not being happy with it. If you want to get the 1.2, do it, I'm sure it's a great lens. Me, I'd rather do something else with $700. FD gear isn't worth that kind of money in my opinion. I'm sure you'll get along with any lens you get. </p><div>00d1Ru-553412184.jpg.032eb5857ac92e4edea7286c60dbd355.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

nudge

 

defending a 1.4 as if it's slower, therefore viewed inadequate and as if the only practical use for wide-open is speed and light only, DOF and the control or isolation happens to be a major reason to some people unless you read threads where these one-upmanship and insecurity issues reveal themselves best? 1.2 lenses are rated soft by 75% of the comments who in fact have no concept of razor thin DOF and focus isolation to begin with. Defending the 1.4 nFD over feelings of being inadequate to a 1.2 doesn't serve them justice, or make the 1.2 what it never was either.......nFD 50 1.4 is the only lens any manufacture ever created to be the standard bearer for color throughout their entire product line, which makes any Canon 1.2 subordinate to this one? Reference lens... they call it at Canon, says a lot for me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I own both the 50mm f1.4 nFD (have owned maybe 5 of them over the years I also own a 50mm f1.2L nFD I have owned the older versions I have owned the 55mm versions heck I own a 50mm f1.8 Canon in LTM and the 50mm f1.2L is a better lens F stop to F stop then the F1.4 That said the F1.4 is as I said an extremely good lens. And unless your spending your day shooting some sort of test pattern over and over your going to be very happy with one as long as its in good condition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had my fair share of 50mm f/1.4s and f/1.8s in both nFD and breech lock mount.

 

None of them are bad, and are probably better lenses than I am a photographer.

 

I no longer actively use my FD equipment(aside from running a roll through my T90 or one of my F-1Ns from time to time, and trying to remember to work the T90 shutter once a month or so) but don't recall seeing any appreciable difference between any of the lenses when I was actively using them. I scanned several transparencies that were shot in my T90 10+ years ago, but I didn't note the lens on any of them. Most likely it was an nFD 50mm f/1.4 for the ones shot with a 50mm, but I had two of them at one time(I sold one about a year ago-someone came into the local camera store looking for an A-1 for their son, and wanted an f/1.4 specifically-since the shop didn't have one in stock I parted with one).

 

When I look at a transparency or a negative shot in my FD equipment and see any noticeable problems, it usually is something that's not the camera's fault-specifically missed focus or motion blur(more often the latter).

 

The f/1.4 is a much more solid feeling lens, and the f/1.8 has a noticeable amount of plastic(in both breech lock and nFD). This isn't necessarily a bad thing, though, and the f/1.8 particularly on a light A-series body makes for a nicely handling camera that won't break your neck or back. These days my lightweight, single lens MF film kit is likely to be something like a Nikon FM2n and AI-s 50mm f/1.4, and even though that's a lightweight combo it's still heavier(and ultimately probably not as capable as) the A-1 and 50mm f/1.8 breech lock that I used to tote around everywhere and shot thousands of frames on.

 

One thing to bear in mind is that the f/1.4 lenses had the better S.S.C. coating. I do recall it being a BIT more flare resistant and a bit more contrasty in high-contrast situations than the S.C. coated f/1.8, but overall the difference is mostly minor and splitting hairs. I seem to recall discussions on here or possibly the Yahoo FD group that the S.C. coating isn't necessarily a pure single coating(like the "budget" Nikon Series E 50mm f/1.8 that was contemporary to the nFD 50mm f/1.8) but rather is an "intelligent" selection of only using multi-coating where it would be beneficial. I don't know how true that is, although I like how the red S.S.C. letters look on the breech lock f/1.4.

 

I only had one f/1.2 lens for the system-an FL mount 55mm. It was overall fairly low contrast with loads of spherical abberation wide open, although it did clean up nicely when it was stopped down. The Auto-Nikkor-S 55mm f/1.2(fluted focus ring, AI-converted) I have now looks very similar. From everything I've seen, the 55mm f/1.2 Aspehrical and later 50mm f/1.2L cleaned up these problems for the most part. I'd expect better contrast, even if not better correction for spherical abberation, on the 55mm f/1.2 FD S.S.C.

 

I had good luck with the 55mm f/3.5 Macro(nFD) also, although ultimately sold it because I preferred the working distance of the 100mm Macro and found it too slow for a "normal" lens with Velvia(which I was shooting a lot when I owned it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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...