Canon FD 55mm F1.2 SSC, Non SSC?

<p>Dear all,<br>

I am currently owning a Canon 50mm F1.4 SSC lens and I love it.<br>

I am not considering a 55mm F1.2 SSC and non SSC. I was informed that the images taken at most apertures for SSC version is soft. Is this true?<br>

Would I be better off sticking to my existing 50mm?<br>

Thanks in advance!</p>

<p>Michael</p>

<p>If you like the results from what you already have, why are you considering something else? You say that you are "not" considering the 55/1.2 SSC, did you mean you are "now" considering it? The f/1.4 was considered the standard for color against which other Canon FD lenses were measured. The f/1.2 came in 2 versions, the regular and the aspherical, which purportedly had better contrast, spherical aberation and coma correction. I doubt it was markedly softer at most apertures than the f/1.4, but quite possibly at the wider apertures it was. If you haven't checked this site for information on Canon lenses, you might want to befoe making a switch: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/earlyfdlenses/50mmfd.htm.</p>

<p>To augment what Stephen has said, the difference between the FD 55/1.2 SSC and non-SSC is at most in their coatings; they share the same optical formula (7 elements in 5 groups). The 55/1.2 Aspherical, which also comes in two versions, has a different and superior optical formula (8 elements in 6 groups, with an aspherical element). </p>

<p>The non-Aspherical is reputed to be quite soft wide open (although I've never used one), while the Aspherical is quite sharp wide open. The New FD 50/1.2 L is also sharp at wide apertures (it, too, has an aspherical element and 8 element/6 group formula), and to my eye has more pleasing bokeh than the Aspherical.</p>

<p>If you're interested in shooting at very wide apertures, the Aspherical or L would be a good choice, but otherwise I'd just stick with your 50/1.4.</p>

<p>In general, the FD 50mm f/1.4 SSC will be as sharp or sharper at all apertures than the FD 55mm f/1.2 (chrome nose or SSC). At smaller apertures, the optical performance should be nearly identical. High speed lenses will invariably be softer at maximum aperture unless they are specifically designed for optimum performance wide open. The tradeoff would be poorer performance at smaller apertures. The only reason to replace your FD 50mm f/1.4 with an FD 55mm f/1.2 is if you do a lot of shooting at maximum aperture at low light levels and/or to get shallower depth of field.</p>

<p>The only way to get superior performance at maximum aperture with a high speed lens is to use lens elements with aspherical surfaces and/or special types of glass. Of course, the Canon FD 55mm f/1.2 AL and Aspherical lenses are much more expensive than the standard FD 55mm f/1.2. And with its adaptibility to digital cameras, even the market value of the standard lens has increased significantly.</p>

<p>By the way, the original chrome nose version of the FD 55mm f/1.2 introduced in 1971 has the same SSC coating as the later version (explicitly marked "SSC") introduced in 1973. There should be no significant difference in optical performance between the two versions of this lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>By the way, the original chrome nose version of the FD 55mm f/1.2 introduced in 1971 has the same SSC coating as the later version (explicitly marked "SSC") introduced in 1973.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for the clarification, Gordon. I wasn't sure.</p>

<p>BTW, for the record, "softness" in lenses of f/1.2 or faster at full aperture is not a "flaw" -- it is a "feature". If you don't need to pack every photon possible onto the film or sensor, you don't need a lens of this sort. Things have improved since the day of the Canon 50mm f/0.95, and it is amazing how well modern super-bright lenses do, but they are made for people who really need this sort of thing and who will not cower at the sight of a little "softness".<br>

If you have to ask about its 'sharpness,' you probably don't need one. ;)</p>

Funny! "Need" being associated with vintage photographic equipment.

<p>Hey, no carping about "<em>need</em>" -- many of us actually use these things.<br>

As a matter of principle, I'd hate to see someone take a nice f/1.2 lens off the market and keep it on their shelf!</p>

<p>Thanks for all your advice. Actually, I intend to keep my 50mm F1.4 and possibly get either a 55mm F1.2 or 50mm F1.2 . To me, the possibility of using vintage lenses on modern camera bodies brings back many happy memories of the good old days where you actually turn the dial to focus on film cameras!<br>

Thanks for all the clarifications on the types of 55mm F1.2 available. Just curious, for a 50mm F1.2 compared to 55mm F1.2, would the image quality be similar or close? Usually I shoot wide open at max aperture so image quality and sharpness would be a priority. So far I have tried portraits and my puppy (after 2x crop factor on Oly = 100mm), the results have been very good and bokeh is excellent.</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Michael</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just curious, for a 50mm F1.2 compared to 55mm F1.2, would the image quality be similar or close?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have a FDn 50/1.2 non-L and have found it to be a very good lens, but I don't use it anymore since I have an L. It appears to have a slightly different optical formula than the 55/1.2 non-aspherical (7 elements in 6 groups vs. 7 in 5).</p>

<p>Generally, the newer fast primes have more pleasing bokeh than the older ones, but the L primes are sharper wide open. Once they're stopped down a bit, it's a wash.</p>

<p>My 50/1.2 non-L is in beautiful condition. Send me an e-mail if you might be interested in it.</p>

<p>I may be of some assistance here. First of all, I must most strenuously disagree with anyone who argues that the old FD (or FL) 55mm f/1.2 lenses are soft, regardless of the aperture they are set to. Anyone with a soft f/1.2 lens has a bad copy, in my view. And I base this statement on the three Canon f/1.2 optics I own.</p>

<p>I own three FD 50mm f/1.4 SSCs and a chrome nose one, as well as a chrome nose 55mm f/1.2 and an FL 55mm f/1.2. I also own an 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical, but that is for a separate topic. I acquired the 50/1.4s over the past several years as I've bought Canon outfits here and there. I picked up the FL 55mm when I bought an outfit of lenses that included a couple of others I really wanted and the FL ended up being part of the deal. At the time, I didn't hold out much hopes for it. As for the FD 55mm, I sort of lucked into that one. I just recently bought a Canon outfit on eBay and the seller did not include any information on the lens. I was able to ferret out that it was a 55/1.2 through very careful examination of the auction photos, and was the only bidder on the outfit, so I ended up picking up the FD 55/1.2 for a song. I love it when that sort of stuff happens.</p>

<p>I have used my 50/1.4s rather extensively with my FD film cameras, but not so much the two 55/1.2s. But I have done comparison tests on the FL and FD versions of the 55/1.2 and as near as I've been able to determine, they have identical optical formulas. Performance of the two lenses in normally lit situations is identical. Canon's Camera Museum tends to confirm this, showing both the FL and FD 55/1.2 as having 7 elements in 5 groups. Other than the difference in construction between an FD and an FL lens, I suspect the only other difference between the two is the coating formulation.</p>

<p>My experiences with the 50/1.4 SSC lenses is that they are very impressive optics wide open. In-focus areas tend to be tack-sharp with rich color saturation and deep contrast, and out of focus areas are the creamy sorts of bokeh everyone prefers. In my comparisons of the 55/1.2s, I have found them to be not quite as sharp wide open as the f/1.4 lenses, but the bokeh are noticeably creamier.</p>

<p>"Not quite as sharp" tends to be a somewhat relative term, however. They are plenty sharp wide open, in my view. Don't let anybody try and convince you otherwise. Here are a couple shots I took with my old <strong>FL 55mm f/1.2</strong> set <strong>wide open to f/1.2,</strong> mounted to my EOS DSLR using an FD-EOS adapter, with the corrective glass element removed, turning the lens into a macro-only optic.</p>

<p><em>FL 55mm f/1.2, Holly leaves, ISO 100 @ f/1.2:</em><br /> <img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/55fl_hollyleaves_1_2.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <br /> <em>FL 55mm f/1.2, Spider webs spun through holly leaves @ f/1.2:</em><br /> <img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/55fl_spiderwebs_1_2.jpg" alt="" width="1182" height="835" /></p>

<p>Photo.net resizes photos after they've been uploaded. The above two are 100% crops of the original images and about twice the size of the images as they are displayed here at the forum. You can view the un-resized photos here:</p>

<p>http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/55fl_hollyleaves_1_2.jpg<br /> http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/55fl_spiderwebs_1_2.jpg</p>

<p>I probably could have come up with an even sharper set of comparison photos, but this is what I have handy. The first of these two photos provides for a brilliant 3-D effect in my opinion.</p>

And you can bet that some of the wide-open "softness" attributed to fast lenses comes from inaccurate focusing by its

user- these optics won't excuse less than stellar technique like slower designs might. Bring your "A" game, and expect a learning curve!

<p>Boy howdy, Rick! My 85mm Aspherical was my first f/1.2 optic. When I took it out for the first time and shot a roll of film with it using my AE-1 Program, I was -- well, let's just say, less than impressed. Most of my shots were out of focus. And of course, I was trying the lens out wide open. What I found was that 1) the AE-1P's standard focusing screen wasn't able to handle f/1.2 lens speed -- focusing was extremely difficult with the standard screen because the microprisms just sat there, and 2) the depth of field with a f/1.2 lens wide open is about as deep as a piece of paper is thick. So the <em>slightest</em> amount of movement on the photographer's part will result in a soft image. Both of the above shots were hand-held and I could see the image going in and out of focus as I <em>breathed.</em> I usually don't bother holding my breath when I take a photo, but sometimes I have to when shooting with an f/1.2 lens.</p>

<p>Thus, when somebody complains about a fast lens not being very sharp, look to the complainant first before blaming the lens.</p>

 

<p>Well said, Rick and Michael. It's much like in the shooting sector when someone complains in print that his new $300 Nikon rifle scope is a piece of junk because it "groups all over the place". Yeah, sure Pal.<br>

I have found since 1974 that any fast Canon FL or FD glass can outdo me!<br>

Michael, I thought you should know that I still reference your 1991 Price Guide. It's good to have you on the FD forum.</p>

 

<p>Wow, Heinrich, the 1991 edition was my first with Amherst Media (I self-published three editions before the Amherst one). That's a trip in the wayback machine, for sure.</p>

<p>As for being on the FD forum, Canon FD was my first 35mm system (an AE-1 with a New FD 50/1.8) and I've just always had a soft spot for it. So it's good to be here. Feels like home. :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yep. I bought it in 1991 for Canon info, and have used it continuously since. And then just a couple of weeks ago someone GAVE me a rather clean Nikon F3, so I'm using it to learn about all that surrounds an F3. But with six or seven FD bodies and many lenses, I don't think I'll venture very far beyond a 50mm AIS. It's too late in the day!</p>

<p>There is only one FD 55/1.2 (non-aspherical) lens, even if it's not marked SSC. They are all multi-coated. I think the FL 55/1.2 was also one of the first multi-coated Canon lenses, even if it is not marked "SSC". <br>

The 55/1.2 is sharp. For a 1.2 non-aspherical lens it was state of the art. Wide open performance is of low contrast but good resolution. Stopped down to f2.8 or narrower apertures, it has <strong>KILLER</strong> resolution with high contrast.<br>

I recall having seen a comparison of the Canon FD 55/1.2 with many other normal prime lenses including some leica and nikon f1.4, f2.0 and f2.8 lenses. The FD 55/1.2 had the boldest contrast and the highest color saturation of them all, while having good resolution.</p>

 

<p>* forgot to add, on a FD lens test formerly available on the web, at f2.8 the FD 55/1.2 outresolved (in line pairs per mm) both the f1.8 and f1.4 canon old-FD lenses, with 120 lines at the center. F5.6 was optimum aperture with 120 lp/mm at center and 107 lp/mm at the edge. I still recall the figures by heart!</p>

Flavio, are you sure it wasn't the 55/1.2 Aspherical which posted the amazing performance? I recall one being tested by

noted Leica authority Erwin Puts and he was extremely impressed, even to the point of saying it might've been the

world's best normal lens at the time.

<p>I have used a 55/1.2 SSC for many years, and then I replaced it with the sharper 50/1.2L. The 50/1.2L is also much smaller and lighter. ALL FD lenses became SSC coated, and Canon dropped the SSC label. It does not mean that old lenses with SSC were special.</p>

<p>I have used a 55/1.2 SSC for many years, and then I replaced it with the sharper 50/1.2L. The 50/1.2L is also much smaller and lighter. ALL FD lenses became SSC coated, and Canon dropped the SSC label. It does not mean that old lenses with SSC were special.</p>

<p>I have used a 55/1.2 SSC for many years, and then I replaced it with the sharper 50/1.2L. The 50/1.2L is also much smaller and lighter. ALL FD lenses became SSC coated, and Canon dropped the SSC label. It does not mean that old lenses with SSC were special.</p>

<p>I'll be the first to admit that the FD 55mm f/1.2 is <strong>big</strong> lens. And heavy. And yes, the 50mm f/1.2L is more compact. But it is also quite pricey. An alternative is the FL 55mm f/1.2. It is quite a bit smaller than the FD 55/1.2 -- and lighter as well. And since it's basically the same lens, but just with the FL stop-down coupling, there is really no reason not to consider it.</p>

<p>Even though having both an FL and an FD 55/1.2 is redundant, I'm keeping my FL copy. I've decided to convert it to EOS mount. I believe Ed Mika makes a non-destructive EOS conversion kit for the FL 55/1.2, which I might spring for. It's a bit pricey, though. I have a lathe and a milling machine, and if I can find a good set of DIY plans for the conversion on the 'net, I might just give it a try myself.</p>

<p>Thanks for reporting those resolution numbers, Flavio. Those are amazingly good numbers. I can't recall ever seeing a lens with resolution numbers that high before. If I see a lens with resolution numbers in the high 60s, to me that is an outstanding lens. But to have numbers that are almost double that figure? Geez, that's unheard of!</p>

 

<p>I'll be the first to admit that the FD 55mm f/1.2 is <strong>big</strong> lens. And heavy. And yes, the 50mm f/1.2L is more compact. But it is also quite pricey. An alternative is the FL 55mm f/1.2. It is quite a bit smaller than the FD 55/1.2 -- and lighter as well. And since it's basically the same lens, but just with the FL stop-down coupling, there is really no reason not to consider it.</p>

<p>Even though having both an FL and an FD 55/1.2 is redundant, I'm keeping my FL copy. I've decided to convert it to EOS mount. I believe Ed Mika makes a non-destructive EOS conversion kit for the FL 55/1.2, which I might spring for. It's a bit pricey, though. I have a lathe and a milling machine, and if I can find a good set of DIY plans for the conversion on the 'net, I might just give it a try myself.</p>

<p>Thanks for reporting those resolution numbers, Flavio. Those are amazingly good numbers. I can't recall ever seeing a lens with resolution numbers that high before. If I see a lens with resolution numbers in the high 60s, to me that is an outstanding lens. But to have numbers that are almost double that figure? Geez, that's unheard of!</p>

 

<p>Sorry about the double post above. The message's editing time had expired before I could do anything about it. I wanted to post an image of the FL 55mm f/1.2, but it wasn't on the computer I was on last night. I've fixed that now. Here's an image showing four optics: The Vivitar Series 1 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5, the FL 55mm f/1.2, my FD 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical, and a Vivitar Macro teleconverter. Notice that the FL 55/1.2 isn't much bigger than the Vivitar Macro 2x, which is big for a TC, about the same size as your average 50/1.4. So, as you can see, the FL 55/1.2 ends up being one of the most compact f/1.2 normal lenses around. And it's usually considerably cheaper than the FD 55/1.2 . . . I mentioned that already, didn't I?</p>

<p>Also, if you're interested in a non-destructive way to adapt a fast normal lens to your EOS DSLR, Ed Mika does indeed make an adapter kit for this lens. It is reversible if you want to retain the original lens mount. It's a very well made adapter, but it the price is a bit steep. You get what you pay for, I guess.</p>

<p>Update: I've just learned of the existence of a late FL 55/1.2 which appears to be virtually identical to the FD 55/1.2, including its larger size. It can be distinguished from the one shown below by the rubberized ring around the focusing collar. Your average FL 55/1.2 has a metal focusing collar.</p>

<p><img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/lenses1.jpg" alt="" /></p>