Jump to content

Canon nFD 50mm f/1.2 Lens Tests


petergarafalo

Recommended Posts

Hey all!

I'm new to photo.net, am just getting into vintage lenses, and bought my first Canon FD lens!

 

Below is a test of a Canon nFD 50mm f/1.2 i got on eBay with a preinstalled Edmika EF mount for $375. I mainly shoot video on EOS cameras and am interested in getting a set of Canon FD's.

I have learned a lot about the Canon FD system from these forums on photo.net, so I hope you all can get something out of these lens tests I conducted!

 

I did a series of tests comparing the Canon nFD 50mm f/1.2 (with Edmika EF conversion) against:

-Canon EF 50mm 1.4 USM

-Canon nFD 50mm 1.8 (with Vello FD-EF adapter)

-Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L USM (@50mm)

-Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM (@50mm)

-Canon nFD 35-105 f/3.5 Macro (with Vello FD-EF adapter)

testing center sharpness, bokeh and edge sharpness

Shot on a Canon t4i and Canon C300 (for video)

 

Full resolution stills can be found here:

Flickr: Canon FD 50mm f/1.2 Lens Tests

Youtube (video shot at f/1.2 on a C300):

 

 

 

Results:

 

While I was impressed with the vintage Canon FD glass overall, it definitely has its imperfections, as expected with any vintage glass.

 

2037135593_1Test2-5012at1_2.thumb.jpg.95ff022dea9130e9ebb6cd1e5bbf9858.jpg 382331561_2Test3-5012at1_2.thumb.jpg.125f39c076b1a37564f9c24b4fc1b8b5.jpg 635550898_3test1-50mm12at12.thumb.jpg.7bc49308f8b10584943f8479b21ea237.jpg

 

Sharpness: As you can see, the sharpness of the modern Canon EF lenses is clearly superior to the Canon FD glass (proper conversion or cheap adapter). The Canon L series performed the best, but even cheaper modern canon glass like the EF 50mm 1.4 does a better job of retaining sharpness. This softness is expected and may be the “milky” look most enjoy from vintage glass, but it was a little concerning considering the EF 50mm 1.4 is a notoriously soft lens already. What was surprising to me, however, was that at f/2.8, the Canon FD seems to be the sharpest of the bunch in the corners…I would expect the complete opposite. Maybe my tests were flawed in some way?

[Check my Flickr collection for full high-res images: Canon FD 50mm f/1.2 Lens Tests]

 

1402045519_450mmlenscomparisons-2.thumb.jpg.33a8ab652218d3c875e02847c9c95c52.jpg 540693611_450mmlenscomparisons-3.thumb.jpg.a090f770f9998aeea7ecbd733a877667.jpg 1620330768_450mmlenscomparisons-4.thumb.jpg.1dbea48329c2c89b2e823abbe6f88b06.jpg 111066099_450mmlenscomparisons-8.thumb.jpg.69a78bacb50ead2f0e20ca989bea8be8.jpg 512548531_450mmlenscomparisons-9.thumb.jpg.26acf53cc0d729ba76dc52cb7f96579e.jpg 879901701_550mmlenscomparisons-1.thumb.jpg.379cd4fd512e2767f5b18c8cb370a5bf.jpg

 

Vignetting: As expected, the Canon L series glass performed the best in terms of vignetting, but in the FD's defense that can be cleaned up a bit in post and is part of the character I like from the lens. Take a look at the bottom right of each image (top: Canon FD 50mm 1.2, bottom: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L

 

1500138849_5012at1_2.thumb.JPG.6f5b51efaee99a3642791345cdac1a18.JPG 290091743_Test3-2470at2_8.thumb.jpg.3ee653f76c73279a533c4b722c1b863d.jpg

 

Chromatic Aberrations: best visualized from the exterior building shots. In these photos you can see that wide open, the FD 50mm 1.2 has some serious purple fringing in the highlights. So does the EF 50mm 1.4 for that matter. In both cases, this fringing is eliminated at 2.8, but compared to the L series, this is very noticeable. Maybe this is less of a modern construction/coating difference and more of the optics of fast canon lenses? I noticed while focusing that there is also a red/green shift on either side of near/far focus in the highlights. This is best shown in the keyboard sample photo. I noticed this more in the Canon FDs, but while pixel peeping I observed this phenomenon with all my canon glass.

 

IMG_2376.thumb.JPG.8bfa369ff39e30601d4f40de6c08f1ea.JPG IMG_2391.thumb.JPG.8d800d4c590cd7394731b31745fa211d.JPG

 

Bokeh: if you want giant, beautiful, blooming bokeh, then a 1.2 lens easily takes the cake. The bokeh on the EF 50mm 1.4 and EF 24-70 2.8 was nice, but this is where that extra 1/2 stop makes a difference. However, when stopping down I much prefer the 8 bladed aperture of the 24-70 to the 6 bladed hexagons of the 50mm lenses.

 

1206624404_450mmlenscomparisons-5.thumb.jpg.0244cb7d5e7b12dae9e2b51dc86af86d.jpg 1660756411_450mmlenscomparisons-6.thumb.jpg.3ff688b001433825a806ad4e4a581a3f.jpg 2022159242_450mmlenscomparisons-7.thumb.jpg.ea7f270627af9cfdad5bb1e504ecf4ca.jpg

 

Final thoughts: While sharpness was slightly disappointing when put under a microscope, I didn’t notice it while recording video in 1080p. I consider the softness part of the character of the lens and part of that "vintage" look. This could be flattering for example when resolving skin tones on digital sensors. The other “imperfections” were negligible or expected as part of the vintage lens character. However, the chromatic aberrations and specifically color fringing wide open is very concerning and might limit me from using the lens wide open in certain high contrast situations. This lens is still stops faster than my current go to f/2.8 lens line up. Moreover, most of these imperfections are eliminated by stoping down to f/2.8. But it disappointing not being able to use your new lens to it’s fullest potential.

 

 

In conclusion, this lens is an incredible value and check all my boxes. It’s fast, cheap, compact, ergonomic, and has tons of character. I love using this lens while shooting video and am loving all of what I'm seeing in the monitor (and 90% of what I see blown up in the edit). There are certainly better performing vintage lenses on the market, but if you're thinking about investing in the Canon FD system as part of a vintage lens set (as I am), you better be prepared to take the bad with the good.

 

- Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With Canon FD lenses I found, over the years, that getting the best in their lineup and closing down 1 stop provided spectacular results. I've sold most now, but kept a few just because they were soooo good.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the post.

 

While home testing can rarely do more, at best, than test a sample of 1 (one, count it), it is still useful.

 

For these older lenses, it is really all that is possible.

 

For current lenses, probably the only tests (IMHO) that deal with things like sample variation are those done by Lens Rentals.com.

Optical Limits (formerly Photozone.de) is among the best for single-item testing.

 

For that matter, many of the older Nikon and Canon 'prime' lenses haven't evolved all that much, while newer extreme lenses and zooms are "yugely" improved

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

You mentioned you used these as your test cameras: "Shot on a Canon t4i and Canon C300 (for video)"

 

The t4i has Canon's 1.6x crop body sized sensor and the C300's is only slight larger at 24.6 x 13.8 mm. Either way, they are not full frame by any stretch. So any reference to "corner sharpness" in your tests must bear in mind that your cameras aren't even approaching the corners that these lenses are covering. You must use a full frame camera to evaluate any of these lenses corners.

 

Just sayin'

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
You mentioned you used these as your test cameras: "Shot on a Canon t4i and Canon C300 (for video)"

 

The t4i has Canon's 1.6x crop body sized sensor and the C300's is only slight larger at 24.6 x 13.8 mm. Either way, they are not full frame by any stretch. So any reference to "corner sharpness" in your tests must bear in mind that your cameras aren't even approaching the corners that these lenses are covering. You must use a full frame camera to evaluate any of these lenses corners.

 

Just sayin'

Very good observation. I could not agree more. With crop sensors you barely feel any of the character of the lens. I hope to test this again along with some new purchases on an A7s soon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

This sort of testing could drive someone around the bend :]

 

I generally find lens tests no help at all (sorry). I'm after the best IQ, which is more about character and bokeh. Sharpness means little to me, and generally, the older FD glass has superior IQ, especially with film, but with digital cameras as well. I just go by what my eyes see, as it's a visual thing. For what it's worth, few fast lenses are noted for sharpness, their forte is being able to get a shot in very little light.

 

I wish I could get some of these wonderful FD lenses adapted to my Nikon camera. I prefer Canon FD glass, but also very much prefer the Nikon film bodies. As it is, I have to get by with adapting Leica R glass to the Nikon......fantastic lenses, but FD glass is more for my budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I could get some of these wonderful FD lenses adapted to my Nikon camera. I prefer Canon FD glass, but also very much prefer the Nikon film bodies

 

My tastes/experience run the other way. I love Nikkor glass (some of it anyway); but, although I was a Nikonista for many years, I have come to prefer the Canon EOS operating system.

 

Much of the Nikkor 'system' will adapt pretty easily to Canon FD or EF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
Hey all!

I'm new to photo.net, am just getting into vintage lenses, and bought my first Canon FD lens!

 

I did a series of tests comparing the Canon nFD 50mm f/1.2 (with Edmika EF conversion) against:

-Canon EF 50mm 1.4 USM

-Canon nFD 50mm 1.8 (with Vello FD-EF adapter)

-Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L USM (@50mm)

-Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM (@50mm)

-Canon nFD 35-105 f/3.5 Macro (with Vello FD-EF adapter)

testing center sharpness, bokeh and edge sharpness

Shot on a Canon t4i and Canon C300 (for video)

.../...

 

- Peter

 

Thank you Peter for the tests. I will have in some days a FD 50mm I.8 SC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps next week I can grab a similar roll of film and shoot it in front of my Christmas tree lights with the Canon FD 55mm f1.2 SSC Aspherical with Edmika mount on my Canon 5DSR to try to give some comparison. It is extremely sharp for a f1.2 lens, wide open. Can try my FD 50mm f3.5 Macro with a superslim adapter, but this is not very fair considering how sharp it is. Will be fun to see though. One day I will borrow my nephews EF 24-70/2.8 L and EF 50/1.4 for reference.

 

 

I know these are single lens tests but that is all we are going to get and at least it gives some reference point. I do not show people what my Nikon 105/1.8 AI-S does because I am pretty sure the lens is compromised. Nice soft bokeh but almost un-useable centre sharpness right up to f5.6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Well, I finally got around to trying to test my Canon FD 55mm f1.2 SSC Aspherical in a similar situation. They are of course not directly comparable images, but you should be able to get some indication of its performance. The subject, film box and roll, are 5 feet in front of the lights, and at minimum focusing distance from lens, at about 2 feet.

 

 

I threw in the Canon FD 50mm f3.5 Macro for comparison at f3.5. Not really fair considering how sharp the Macro is. I do prefer the bokeh of the Macro over the Aspherical at f3.5 but of course that is because the Macro is wide open so no effect from the shape of the aperture blades. These were taken with a Canon 5DSR on a tripod at ISO 100. The Aspherical has an EdMika mount and the Macro is mounted with a superslim adapter. The Macro had to be about 1 inch closer to the subject to get focus at about infinity. I have copied and pasted the OP's image for comparison. I am afraid I have not taken the time to test all apertures, nor did I post cropped enlargements of each image.

 

 

The 5DSR has resolved the onion rings in the out of focus points of light and artefacts within those lights in both the Macro and the Aspherical lenses.

 

 

I corrected the CA in the Aspherical and I could see no CA in the Macro, so left it as is. I adjusted exposures, contrast, and enhanced colour slightly. No sharpening.

 

1504535_2af98c733a2a0da3fc0ab5bb0cee7d65.thumb.jpg.71de11ccc1a60e9a985f8f08eefca8eb.jpg 305531709_5DSR462955mmf1_2.thumb.jpg.057fd57e04fb46a910d2084406328172.jpg 2024325558_5DSR463455mmf3_5.thumb.jpg.6eb8911c013fdd8adae99aae27a69b98.jpg 1242944779_5DSR463250mmmacrof3_5.thumb.jpg.453d741c43104482ebeb9af3e93dba50.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Viewing these on my phone I am quite surprised that the Aspherical is almost as sharp as the Macro at f3.5. They both caught the hair attached to the top corner of the roll of Fuji film. The focus point of all three shots is just slightly different, but does not affect overall impressions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can keep on saying it, but I don't know why. The 50mm 1.2 L is only 5 to 10 years younger. It was well documented by Erwin Puts that the Aspherical (he did not mention the blue one) is superior to all of Canon FD 50 and 55mm lenses. He went so far to say that the Aspherical was overall better than the Leica Noctilux 50mm f1.2. Pretty good rating. Mine is in exceptional condition so not heavily used, and I finally have a fast lens that is actually sharp wide open! Took me six other choices over 35 years to finally settle on this one.

 

 

The aspherical elements create the onion ring effect and less smooth bokeh but I can live with that for actually being able to use it wide open. I highly suspect that this lens can compete easily with any from today, many of which are far more expensive.

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...