FD 50mm 1.8 vs 1.4

I have both of these lenses in the last version boyonet style mount.

I read the article on the new EOS lenses of the same aperature and am

wondering how the old ones compare. I just purchased the 1.4 and was

using the 1.8 for years. How does the 1.4 compare in terms of

contrast, color, and sharpness over the 1.8? Some stores I've talked

to say optically they're the same sharpness, other then the 1.4 has

more speed and closer focussing. I picked up the 1.4 for $89 Canadian

and its in excellent shape. I did notice a bit of a yellow tint,

maybe yellow-green, looking at pavement with my eye and then through

the viewfinder. The 1.8 was similar, but I don't think it was quite

as yellow. Anyway I have 30 days to check this lens out. I'm just

wondering to return it if its not much of an improvement over the

1.8. The 1.4 seems to have good press on here from what I've seen.

Any comments?

Just to confirm what the age of the lens is (if anyone knows), here are the numbers on it. Serial number: 5997828. And on the back of the lens is X315. I am using a Canon Sky 1-A filter on it as well. Will this filter decrease the optics of the lens? I was told by one guy that if you insist on sharpness, use the lense without a filter all together. The lens cap on this lens also looks newer then the one I had on my 1.8 lens. How does the 1.4 compare to the newer EOS models and the L series lenses of all years?

Scot who care just burn film with them if you like the photo's your happy if not then YOU are either taking thewrong Photo's or doing something wrong. The Canon FD mount 50mm lenses are all excellent optic's How they compare to the EOS line Haven't got a clue and could careless. Don't own a single autofocus anything.

 

If you want a comparision of the 50mm f1.8 nFD 50mm f1.4 nFD 50mm f1.2L nFD and 50mm f3.5 Macro nFD go to:

 

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/starka/test.htm

 

Happy happy,

 

Mark W.

I just want to be sure whether this lens is a step up from my 1.8, or else I'll just take it back. I always thought the 1.8 was a little soft. Also any idea on the age of the 1.4?

Check the <a href="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/index.html">Canon Camera Museum</a> for details, but the f/1.4 was the lens by which Canon measured the rest of the line. I have f/1.8, f/1.4, and f/1.2 50mm lenses, and the faster lenses focus closer but are heavier. Of course, you also get the brighter viewfinder image with the faster lenses.

Hi Scott......You're asking a lot from an $89 lens, you want it to be comparable with the L series and EOS lenses? I would too. I wouldn't own one if it didn't compare at least at some aperture. Obviously the L lens is faster, better when wide open and better built. I can't speak for the EOS lens.

 

I can write a whole litany of things on the 50 f/1.4 but to sum it up in my terms it goes like this. Shooting something with a lot of detail, which demands a high resolving lens, or shooting black and white film there will be [no] difference between the f/1.4 and f/1.8 lens. Shooting something that has little detail or is not demanding of resolution, like smooth surfaces, that also contain vivid colors, the 50 f/1.4 wins hands down, IMHO. Sharpness and contrast are comparable. (that was kind of abbreviated)

 

Shoot the f/1.4 at the park, in the middle of the afternoon, make sure you point the camera at the sun too. Shoot the lens wide open 10:00 pm down town. It won't take much film to see an improvement, again not saying the f/1.8 is bad or anything the f/1.4 is better, IMHO.

 

The yellow tint is probably from your viewfinder, if anything the f/1.4 is cool or blue-ish to me. The older 50 f/1.4 SSC is indeed warmer. X3 on your white stamp indicates a build date approx. March 1985.

Scott, I have both the FD50/1.8 and the FD50/1.4 lenses. You will see very little difference in optical quality when stopped down to f5.6 or more. Above that the 1.4 version is slightly better. But not so much that you will see any difference on small prints. On enlargements you will see some difference, then maybe even in the F5.6 or smaller shots.

 

So the difference in optical quality is there, though small. The 1.4 gives you a brighter viewfinder and closer focussing.

 

By the way, I do have the EF50/1.4 (for EOS) too and I can't see any difference between both FD and EF lenses.

The 1.4 is definately better than the 1.8 at f1.4!!

 

Joking apart, the 1.4 is in my opinion sharper at most apertures and has a better colour balance and contrast. (At least mine does)

 

The EF 1.8ii is a nasty plastic thing with an ancient focussing motor which is both terribly slow and terribly noisy. Manual focus is a nightmare due to the tiny plastic focussing ring. Optically I would guess it is pretty similar to the FD 1.8 as image quality seems pretty similar.

 

There is a review of the EF 1.8ii in the equipment sections of photo.net.

 

Try some high contrast shots with the 1.4 and the same with the 1.8 and I am sure you will see the advantage of the faster lens.

 

The yellowish tinge you saw in the viewfinder is I think on the focussing screen. (You've not stored the camera body in a smoking room have you?) The 1.4 would normally give a slightly cool blue-ish tinge by most accounts.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Joe

I'll probably keep the 1.4 since it wasnt that expensive really. But I had to cancel a shoot since buying it. My dilema is this- I have a T-90 which need fixing (about $300 Canadian), Im using an AE-1 at the moment, an ok 17-28 lens, and now the 1.4 50mm. I've been debating to switch over to autofocus like an Elan 7, but that means I have extra expense of buying new lenses and the camera body which is higher in cost then fixing my T-90. But my zoom lens is hooped which means replacing it. So I can't decide to update my old system or go the new route with more options. Getting a new EF 1.4 50mm will run me $599 Canadian which is a heck of a lot more then the $89 bucks I paid. And parts for the T-90 will be a problem should it need more in the future. But getting a 17-35mm lens is gonna cost me. I'd hate to have to carry both systems for photos. Oh and I can still get a bellows for the FD system. Decissions decissions. I'm kinda on a budget too, but would like to go new if I could. I also have a P67 I need lenses for too :P

Scott,

I presently use T90 and 6 FD lenses, mainly wide angle to short tele, for travel. I use an EOS3 with mainly tele to super-tele for wildlife.

 

I owned FD50mm f1.8, and presently own FD50mm f1.4 and EF50mm f1.4. I have very carefully tested all with 12 pound tripod, TMAX100 film, lens test chart, many, many rolls of film doing focus bracketing, and examined the images with a high quality 30X microscope.

 

The FD50mm f1.4 was perhaps 2% sharper over the entire range of apertures vs the FD50mm f1.8. The EF50mm f1.4 was 2% sharper in the middle apertures than the FD50mm f1.4. The FD50mm f1.4 was about 10% sharper at f1.4 and f2, compared to the EF50mm f1.4. So totally splitting hairs, the FD50mm f1.4 was the best of the 3 lenses.

 

But, in the real world, taking real pictures, I can't see any difference in any of the lenses. I would favor the FD 50mm f1.4 since it has a faster aperture, closer focusing, and floating elements, which makes close-ups sharper. Also, the FD50mm f1.8 is single coated (the only new FD lens coated this way) while the FD50mm f1.4 is multi-coated.

 

I also recently tested FD28mm f2.8, FD28mm f2.0, and EF28mm f2.8. The respective lens designs are 7 elements, 10 elements and in the EF, 5 elements, with the front element aspherical.

 

On the lens chart, concerning resolution, the best was FD28 f2.0,then EF28 f2.8, and last FD28mm f2.8. The center sharpness in all 3 were identical, but edge sharpness was clearly best in the FD28 f2.0, and the EF28 f2.8 was in the middle in edge sharpness, while the FD28mm 2.8 was last, but still very good. The FD28mm f2.0 could distingush many tones in middle gray, while the other two lenses could not make such a delicate distinction. The EF lens is absolutely junk, with its grabbly jerky manual focusing, compared the the silky smoothness and build quality of the FD lenses.

 

With all that said, if you had a quality print made by each of these three 28mm lenses, and they were more than 6 feet apart (not side by side), I don't think you could remember any diferences in any of the lenses. Just go out and take pictures!

Whats a good set of zoom FD lenses to look for for the 28-200 range, splitting that into two of course? Not L lenses, but something sharper then the cheapy ones.