Difference between SSC lenses and nFD?

<p>Hi.<br>

Got into the FD system by accident.One night I had an impulse and bought in an auction a T90 serviced with 4-5 lenses.<br>

I liked them so much and the pictures came out so great that I bought last month everything from 7.5 to 300 .<br>

I bought the black new FD lenses as the seller told me that is what I need for my T90.<br>

I saw that there are SSC lenses prior to these ones.My question is :are there any optical differences between them(meaning the optics changed in the same focal length).And what other (maybe) only SSC lenses are not perpetuated to the new nFD and are worth it.<br>

Also which other body should I buy eventually for the SSC lenses?I am enjpying them beyond words.I take one with me every day in New York City and shoot before and after work.<br>

Thank you,<br>

Mihail</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Mihail,<br /> Welcome to the wonderful world of Canon FD! Like you I'm a recent convert to FD (also with a T90 but I also have a Canon A1).<br /> First, quick clarification - by SSC do you mean the lenses with the old breech lock mount? Because my understanding is that all nFD lenses are SSC-coated, other than the nFD 50mm f1.8. So there should be no coating difference between the lenses.<br /> That said, my understanding is that there isn't much in the way of optical differences between the lenses - the difference lies in the build quality and the mount. All breech lock FD mount lenses will work with your T90, its just that the nFD mount works like a bayonet mount so its easier to mount one-handed. This is of course a general statement, and there might be differences in the case of particular lenses where Canon might have changed the optical formula when they came out with the nFD version - I'll leave it to the experts on this forum to comment on that.<br /> As far as other bodies go, you can use any FD body with a breech lock (old FD mount) as well as an nFD mount lens. If you are interested in other bodies, the ones that generally get recommended around here are the AE1Program, the A1 (I have an A1 as well), the F1n and the New F1. They each have their relative merits, and which one you choose seems to depend on convenience factors (the A1 is a little fiddley) your style of photography, level of automation required (the AE1P is shutter priority and full program only) and whether you want a professional "system" camera or not (the F1 is a system camera and its level of automation depends on which accessories you have with it).<br /> Have fun with the T90! I love mine, but you should be sure to use it regularly in order to avoid the EEEE error (just Google that to see what I'm talking about).<br /> Kayam<br /> P.S. - anyone else please feel free to correct me if I've said anything wrong above.<br>

P.P.S - Mihail, lovely pic.</p>

<p>a good look at the Canon Museum site will help you understand the various lenses. Some changed some were dropped some added some stayed functionally the same between the two mount types.</p>

<p>And yes there are older ones to seak out</p>

<p>the 35mm f2.0 S.S.C. with the concave front element.<br>

the 50mm f1.2ASP<br>

the 100mm f2.8 S.S.C.<br>

the 135mm f2.5 SC<br>

Are all lenses to find a reason to own.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hello Mihail,<br>

By and large, there is no real optical difference between: chrome nose, SC, SSC, or nFD. If the lens is in good shape, buy it and use it. You'll be glad you did.<br>

Ansel.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>From what I know, all later FD lenses (the ones without chrome mounts) are SSC coated. And many new FD lenses have difference optical design. I think the new FDs have better image quality, but their plastic rear mounts (even for 300/2.8L) look so cheap. I used to have both an old FD and a new FD lenses fall off my camera bag. The rear mount of new FD broke but the other one didn't.</p>

<p>You cannot generalize about the integrity of the mount with New FD lenses. During their production lifetime, Canon began to further distinguish between a more consumer-oriented lens lineup alongside a more professional lineup. They have of course continued this approach in the EF lens line. Plastics also began to be a viable (if not fantastic) alternative for inexpensive lenses, so Canon exploited them.</p>

<p>The net result is that most of the New FD mounts are perfectly adequate, while some of the less expensive consumer-targeted lenses are more failure prone. Yes, in a laboratory test, you can probably prove that an SSC-era breechlock mount is stronger, but in ordinary, nonabusive use, the new mount is fine. The only consistent exceptions are the plastic-mount consumer lenses, and there are not very many of those in the line.</p>

<p>I own all but four of the New FD lens types ever produced, so I can speak with firsthand experience.</p>

<p>Offhand, the only potentially troublesome plastic mounts I can recall are on the:<br>

28-55 f/3.5-4.5<br>

35-70 f/3.5-4.5<br>

28-85 f/4</p>

<p>I had a 35-70 that broke when the camera strap let my A-1 hit the ground. I caught it just as it impacted. The A-1 got a concrete bruise on one bottom corner, but the plastic screw bosses in the lens either broke or stripped.</p>

<p>The 28-85 had a history of broken mounts, so much so that it was once difficult to find a sound example, and the supply of parts was long ago exhausted. I bought one broken, and was told by the repair shop that I got the last replacement piece they would ever get. That particular shop used to reinforce the mount somehow.</p>

<p>I've used FD for about 25 years, began with entirely New FD lenses, later added an assortment of breechlock lenses, and have followed FD on the internet for a good 10 years now. It's been interesting to see the rise of urban legends about the lenses and cameras, especially in the last few years as one group of users has gained a pretty extensive knowledge, another group of new users has come forth, and the direct contacts we once had with Canon insiders and even older users have waned. The legends are tending to label things in absolutes--good versus bad mounts, lenses, bodies. It was never that simple. The top-line bodies none of us could afford in the 80s are now the standard recommendations, and so the consumer bodies have begun to take a bad rap (though that trend has reversed of late on this forum). What was, a few years ago, a limited issue concerning the ruggedness of the mounts under severe professional usage--I remember a professional's report about a new-mount lens breaking during a rough whitewater rafting shoot--is now morphing into a legend that the new mounts aren't good. Soon, people will all be thinking that the new mounts are poor across the board. Too bad I already bought those . . . their value ought to plummet as their reputation suffers.</p>

<p>I have a shortwave receiver built in 1954. I can barely lift it. I need help to get it onto a high shelf. It will withstand a collapse of the house. It's wonderful, but it's overkill from a standpoint of need.</p>

<p>As one of the last bastions of knowledge about FD, I think we need to be careful not to distort or exaggerate.</p>

<p>-----</p>

<p>About coatings: the earliest FD lenses include some Spectra Coated lenses, S.C. for short. Shortly thereafter, most but not all of the breechlock lenses were upgraded to Super Spectra Coating, S.S.C. The name rings advertised this by showing the abbreviation. The long-established fact is that all New FD lenses except the 50/1.8 were Super Spectra Coated, though it was no longer such a selling point that it was engraved on the lens.</p>

<p>About optical designs: some lenses did change between breechlock and New FD versions. Not all. Some lenses were never offered as breechlock lenses.</p>

<p>About functionality: both mount types are functionally identical. The camera will never know the difference. If it says FD, it's FD.</p>

<p>Other differences between new and old: filter sizes, hood sizes. New FD lenses are typically smaller, lighter, focus closer, and often have smaller minimum apertures. Again, some lenses were only developed after the new mount came out.</p>

<p>-----</p>

<p>Unless you're planning to make huge enlargements or digital scans, I believe that you will be hard pressed to note any significant difference among the various FD lenses under realistic conditions. Most differences under more extreme conditions will involve image quality in the corners of the frame and/or at maximum aperture. I recently shot two identical images with my 300/4L, seconds apart, using a very stout tripod in bright sunlight. The first is so sharp it's frightening. The second is noticeably unsharp. Technique is (nearly) everything.</p>

<p>-----</p>

<p>I just held my 300/2.8L in my hand. There is no plastic to be found in that mount. The aperture ring is plastic, but that's not the mount. Like all the FD supertelephotos, it uses six screws to secure the bayonet ring, instead of the three used in the smaller lenses--and the mount only has to support the camera body in this case.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Very nice work Alan!</p>

<p>I've owned many FD and at least one SSC lens and NEVER had a problem with a mount. I will say, however, that the latest FD lenses have 3 benefits:<br>

1. You can change with one hand. With the SSC, it's a little trickier to rotate the collar, and when mounting the lens the collar has to be precisely aligned. FD is much easier.<br>

2. Many of the popular FD lenses use the same 52 mm filter instead of the 55 used by the SSC.<br>

3. The FDs are lighter.<br>

I did feel, however, that the FD lenses were not as well made. The aperture rings were not as precise, and lacked that nice metallic feel. The FD rings will often go beyond where they're supposed to. Drives me nuts.<br>

Scott</p>

<p>Thank you all for the advices.Alan : it was like I was reading a history book. Kayam :thank you so much for the body suggestions.Mark:amazingly after I read your suggested SSC lenses I start looking for them.<br>

I don't believe that I looked more than 5 minutes and saw one guy who was selling all of them (except the 55mm ASP) together with two F1's(one new one old) ,a Canon FD book, three more lenses not in the list,screens,etc.All mint for a mere 400.Of course I snapped it.Somebody out there really want me to shoot with these guys</p>

<p>Here's a link which should be immensely useful to you:http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/index.htm</p>

<p>My impression of Canon's FL and early FD lenses is that all were of high build quality. The mere fact that some lenses would be used mainly by "consumers" and not professionals did not cause Canon to skimp on their construction. In large part, this is true of the New FD lenses, too. Where the latter fall down is mainly in the aesthetics of plastic vs. metal. Even in the breech-lock FD era, some lenses such as the 50mm/1.8 FD SC were transitioned to plastic.</p>

<p>Thre is one minor funcitional difference between the nFD and breechlock lenses: for those cameras that have the capacbility (such as the New F-1), the nFD lenses allow the f-stop to be displayed in the viewfinder.</p>

<p>To me, New FD lenses usually require more fussing to attach with a certain scratchiness to the evolution I do not personally care for. Breech-locks seem smoother and easier to align, and the self-starting variety literally suction cup themselves to a camera body.</p>

<p>Mihail,<br>

I know I've seen that picture before somewhere. Have you ever published a series of pictures on the 85 or 135 soft focus capabilities?<br>

<br /> Congrats on getting into the FD system so completely.. I have to meticulously research my lenses and bodies before even attempting to justify their cost. Business, you know. But truly, there is nothing quite like jumping into this old Canon maual focus stuff. It just never lets go!<br>

Also, the older breechlock SSC lenses tend to sell for less than the nFD. Most of mine are all breechlock, except the 500 f/8.</p>

<p>If you go to KEH.com and check out Canon manual focus lenses they distinguish the New FD mount from the older mount by using the title FD SSC or FD BL and New FD lenses are simply titled FD. BTW, KEH is a great place for picking up FD gear at reasonable prices.</p>

<p>Congrats Mihail! Sounds like you scored a nice FD haul. This whole BL vs nFD things has been going on forever. They're all good, but MarkW hit the nail on the head with his list. That SSC 135mm f/2.5 is simply wonderful. I hope you will post some images here. Good luck and Good Light to you.<br>

I also hope <strong>all </strong>the wonderful FD forum members not only post more images themselves but show support and encouragement to those that do with the same vigor, intelligence and generosity that technical information is shared.</p>

<p>The 135mm/2.5 lens actually had an SC (not SSC) coating, since that was all it needed.</p>

<p>Hi Mihail, and welcome to the Canon FD community.</p>

<p>I've been shooting with Canon FD since 1982, FL since 1984. It's always been a great system for me, and I have the images to prove it.</p>

<p>There's one lens not on Mark's list that should be: the FD 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical. This is a legendary optic, considered by some to be the best 85mm Canon has ever made. I don't have the perspective yet to weigh in on this debate, but since I recently bought one I do plan to put it through its paces, and judge for myself. Early indications are that it is a quite remarkable lens.</p>

<p>Anyway, to me there are a number of SLR standouts in the Canon line. I prefer the old stuff. My favorite FD camera of all is the original F-1, second model. I learned the basics of photography using an FTb, so it always will have a special place on my list as well. The New F-1 is also a great camera, built just as ruggedly as the original, but with more metering and exposure options than the original and a better motor drive option. The EF is also special, mostly because it came from the same era, but also because it was Canon's first camera with exposure automation. Of the automated models, your T90 tops the list, but the T70 and A-1 are also excellent performers. To me, the T70 has the edge in the metering department, where the A-1 has the edge in other respects -- like accepting the motor drive MA, which makes it more capable in active environments than the T70.</p>

<p>Anyway, enjoy your gear, and don't forget that you can shoot FL lenses too. There's some really nice FL lenses around too.</p>

<p> </p>