What is your favorite FD lens?

<p>Hi! <br>

I am still a newbie and I am just now getting back to one of my passions from my youth. (Photography)<br>

I still prefer film and my Cannon FD lenses. I have an AE-1 and 2 A-1's. I would like to find someone reputable that could check out my gear since it has been sitting in my case for over 20 years. <br>

There are a number of lenses available on e-bay that may prove to be a bargain. I have 9 or 10 FD lenses. Some I do not use very much and will most likely sell them.<br>

My favorite lens is the FD 85mm 1.8 SSC. I don't think I have ever taken it off my AE-1 from the day I purchased it in 1978. I am always amazed at the quality of the pictures that I have taken of my kids when the were young. And I really have enjoyed how natural they look as compared to some of the other lenses that I have used.<br>

I am curious about everyone's experience with the various FD lenses. I think it would be a good discussion to discover what different people have determined is their favorite lens (or Lenses) and how they use them. For me, it may open new doors and ideas on how to better utilize my lenses as well as determine if there is other lenses that I should buy.<br>

</p>

<p>(i) The 50/1.4. Yes, I'm serious. I'm a normal-lens kind of guy, in 35mm and in medium format. The 1.4 has better out-of-focus rendition ('bokeh') than the 1.2L, and it's lighter. If I had to choose one lens to last the rest of my life, it would be a 50/1.4 FDn.</p>

<p>(ii) The 85/1.2L. Great for photographing people, but a bit pricey, even second-hand.</p>

<p>I've had dozens of FD lenses, and there are very few that have been disappointing. A few, however, do stand out:</p>

<p>135/2<br /> 85/1.2 L<br /> 85/1.2 SSC Aspherical<br /> 55/1.2 SSC Aspherical<br /> 50/1.2 L<br /> 50/1.4<br /> 35/2 SSC concave<br /> 24/2<br /> 80-200/4 L<br /> 35-105/3.5<br /> 20-35/3.5 L</p>

<p>My most-used FD lenses are the 50/1.4 and 80-200/4 L, but my favourite would have to be either variant of the 85/1.2 (I also have the EF 85/1.2 L II, which is my go-to lens for my daughter's music recitals and the like). There is something about its combination of razor sharpness and velvety smooth bokeh that makes it unique.</p>

Dave, I have a 50/1.8 SC that does a reasonable

job. It came with my cmera but i doubt that I

have shot 3 rolls of film with it. I have seen

numerous lens 1.4 lenses on ebay. Ithink I'll

snag one from a camera dealer. Since this is

your preffed lens what kind of photos do you

take with it?

<p>Barry, pretty much anything.</p>

<p><a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4069471-lg.jpg">*Click*</a> and <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5541848-lg.jpg">*click*</a> were taken with a 50/1.4, both hand-held, on Ilford XP2 black-and-white. <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8569005-lg.jpg">*Click*</a> was also shot on XP2 but with a light yellow-green filter, on a tripod, using an old <a href="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1966-1975/1973_ef.html?lang=us&categ=srs&page=f">EF camera</a> with the mirror locked up. </p>

<p>The 50/1.4 also makes people look good, but I don't hang up pix of recognizable people here. It would be a good lens for street photography, which I don't do.</p>

<p>There's absolutely nothing wrong with your 50/1.8, by the way, which is a similar lens. The 50/1.4 would give you about a 65% brighter screen to focus with, and I think it may make nicer photos around f/2.8 to f/4 (although I'm not really sure I could substantiate that statement). Only downside is a good second-hand 50/1.4 costs 50 or 100% more than it did ten years ago.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Another vote for the FD 50mm f/1.4.</p>

<p>However, those exotics, the FD AUTOFOCUS lenses, have got to be the pick of the pumpkin patch as scary reminders of what the Great Pumpkin almost brought us.</p>

<p><br /> Here are the <a href="/modern-film-cameras-forum/00bCJB">Canon Zoom 35-70mm f/4 AF</a> which works with any Canon FD mount camera,<br /> and<br /> two of the three special AF lenses made for the <a href="/modern-film-cameras-forum/00b6gu">Canon T80 camera</a>, the FD 50mm f/1.8 AC, and a FD 75-200mm Zoom f/4.5 AC.<br /> There was also a FD 35-70mm Zoom f/3.5-4.5 AC for the T80.</p><div></div>

Mark:

I have drooled over the 85 aspherical for 35 years. It has been to

expensive for me to justify for a hobby. The 85 L looks like it

might be a more reasonable alternative. Since have and use

both what do you find the differences are between them? Is the

aspherical worth the additional money?

Stephen:

I just bought a 50mm 3.5 macro lens. I am looking forward to

using it. I live outside Washington DC and I plan to use take

some pictures of the cherry blossoms. I've tried with some other

lenes but I wasn't happy with the results. What do you use your

lens for?

JDM:

So far the 50 1.4 seems to be a consistent favorite. I'm glad I

wasn't active when the auto focus lenses came out. One of the

reasons I am staying with manual focus is it makes me spend a

little more time composing my picture. I don't get the same

sense when I use an LCD screen. There is something to be said

for looking through the lens. It seems that I am more aware of

the background as well as the subject.

Craig:

Okay, I surrender. What is the benefits of a chrome filter ring?

What kind of shots do you use your 35mm for?

Alex:

You have listed a number of great lenses. What is it about each

lens that you like and how do you use them?

I see a number of people have listed one or more flourite lenses.

Are they worth the significant price differential?

<p>I have only had direct experience with the FDn 50/1.4 and the FDn Macro 50/3.5. Both are lovely lenses, and they are the only plastic lenses that dont actually feel like plastic when you use them. For the most part they fell like metal lenses they are so well made. That is a big plus in my book.</p>

<p>Having said that, I have noticed the 50/1.4 exhibit noticeably more chromatic aberration then other fast 50's I own. This is mainly wide open against high contrast subjects but it is very prominent. I have a new, one piece high quality adapter on the way from Poland to replace my crappy second hand FD/Sony E adapter so I hope to get some really good tests in when it arrives sometime in the next few days. If the 50 lives up to my hopes on the A7 I will be looking at picking up a couple more FDn's. Probably the 50 Macro (never should have sold mine) and the 35/2.</p>

<p>Here are a couple of older shots.</p>

<p>Sony A7 • FDn 50/1.4<br /> <em>relics</em><br /> <em><br /></em><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7391/14054926912_a68cd77b15_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="533" /><br /> <br /> Canon 40d • FDn Macro 50/3.5<br /> <em>Hallo? Are you there god?</em><br /><br /> <em><img src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8113/15687627405_29af322042_c.jpg" alt="" width="534" height="800" /></em><br /> <br /> <em><br /></em>same combo, FDn macro<br /> <em>our shadows taller then our souls</em><br /><br /> <em><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5476/11975275834_b3e9a3ce5a_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="531" /></em></p>

I have set up a demo with a local camera shop this Wednesday

to try out the A7 with a couple of my lenses. I am sure it will be

interesting. I am curios about the adapter you have purchased.

Please let me know how well it works.

I think your captions are as good as the photos.

I've spent most of my life dealing with technology. What I am

enjoying most about this forum is the passion everyone shows

in their works of art and the willingness to share their knowledge

and experience. I believe that passion is the significant

difference between art and a job. I am so glad that I stumbled

onto this website.

<blockquote>

<p>The 85 L looks like it might be a more reasonable alternative. Since have and use both what do you find the differences are between them? Is the aspherical worth the additional money?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

In my opinion, it's not. As far as I know, they share the same (or almost the same) optical formula. For example, both lenses have an aspherical element. <br>

<br>

Some argue that the 9-bladed aperture of the aspherical is superior to the 8-bladed aperture of the L, but the latter has gorgeous bokeh regardless. And the earlier lens doesn't have a dedicated hood, while the newer one does.<br>

<br>

I actually paid quite a bit less for my aspherical than I did for my L, but that was because the seller wasn't aware of its market value. I would say that you find the best specimen of either lens that you can, and buy it if you can afford it. Whichever one you end up getting, you won't be disappointed.<br>

</p>

<p>Can't say I have a single most favorite lens as I don't have a single narrow field of interest.<br />My interests are mainly outdoors nature / wildlife / landscape types of shots so it depends on the subject.<br />Wide, scenic landscape subjects the FDn24-35-L has become a favorite...IQ and utility.<br />Moderate / normal shots the FDn80-200-L usually gets the nod...IQ and utility.<br />Small subjects like songbirds or larger subjects at distance, the FDn300-L or FDn400...IQ and reach. </p>

<p> </p>

Chris:

I have an 85 1.8 as well. It is my favorite lens. I've used it to take

my kids photos for years. I am trying to broaden my lens

collection as well as learn the best use for each lens. I really

appreciate everyone's comments.

Bill:

I will probably follow in your footsteps and try a little bit of

everything. I'm sure that I will discover new areas of

photography that will give me great pleasure.

I notice that the flourite lenses keep popping up as favorites. Are

they significantly better for both film and digital?

<p>The Canon FD 17mm f4, Canon 80-200mm f4 L, and Canon 400mm f2.8 L are the favourites that I had. The Canon FD 400mm f4.5 (either version) is the one very good Canon lens that is now available at truly bargain prices.</p>

<p>Still looking for an L or Aspherical 55 or 85 to EdMika-ise.</p>

<p>

<br />Barry Hatfield<br />Bill: I will probably follow in your footsteps and try a little bit of everything. I'm sure that I will discover new areas of photography that will give me great pleasure.<br />I notice that the flourite lenses keep popping up as favorites. Are they significantly better for both film and digital?<br />

<p>Not qualified to answer that from experience...speaking only for myself, my conclusion is if they were significantly better, it seems like there would be current market demand / manufacturing / marketing of them.</p>

John:

Yes, I am looking. I am not sure I know what edmika-ese is?

I have recently purchased a number of lenses to experiment

with. These are not flourite lenses but I think they will work to

help me discover new areas of photography. One of my

challenges is to find someone local who can check out my

cameras and lenses to make sure they are within spec.