Canon FD 50/1.4 SSC B/L

[fredlee70x7]

How does this lens compared to the bayonet mount 50/1.4 and the

EF/EOS version? Overall, it this an above average prime lens as

compared to Nikkor AIS and Leica R (old version)?

[douglas_green1]

I'd say that it's an excellent prime lens. Comparable to the best from that era. Sample to sample variation is such that I could not say if any particular example is unambiguously as good or better than similar excellent lenses from Canon's competitors, including the ones you listed, as well as those from Pentax and Konica.

[John Crowe]

It is said to be not as good as the 55/1.2 Aspherical but better than the 50/1.2 L. It is also said that it is better than the later bayonet mount New FD version. That means it is quite possibly better than the EF version. It would certainly be right up there with Nikon and Leica, but I am sure someone here can be more specific.

[awahlster]

It's a better lens then 99.9% of photographers. It's way better then me.

[jimvanson]

Mark -- I see you.<P>I prefer the FDn 50 f1.4 to the SSC just on ergonomics alone. Although I have not done side to side comparisons it seems as if the FDn has less flare.<P>Having said that I will <i>emphatically agree </I> that the lens far exceeds anything I can demand of it.

[dave_s]

John, is there any good evidence that the 50/1.4 SSC is better than the 50/1.2L? I'm surprised at that-- the 50/1.2 has an aspheric element, and you'd think it should be better corrected, at least at wide apertures. (But you guys are right-- both lenses are better than me and I'd probably never notice the difference in real-life use.)

[John Crowe]

I am afraid I have lost track of the site that compared all these lenses and had the Leica too. If you search this forum I am sure it can be found. My understanding is that the larger an aperture you try to make a lens achieve, the more correction you need to control the light coming in through the much larger glass. In an attempt to make the 1.2 versions keep pace with the 1.4 while wide open you need all the extra optical corrections. I have heard and read for years that the 1.4 is sharper except for the original 55mm f1.2 SSC Aspherical. It was two years ago on this site that I found the link to a gentlemen's test which compared all of them to one of the Leica lenses. The 1.2 SSC Aspheric surpassed the Leica at some apertures and was behind in others, so pretty much a draw. All the others were behind them, and even the f1.8 was competitive - we're probably splitting hairs. In the limited tests that I have done I could not tell the difference between the 50/1.8 that I had and the 55/1.2 SSC (non-aspherical) that I have now and the EF 50/1.8 I.

[dave_s]

John, I wonder if it's the Erwin Puts site where he compares some of the standard Canon lenses. It's at <http://www.imx.nl/photosite/japan/CanonFD/FD50.html>

 

E. Puts doesn't specifically address the 50/1.2L, but I think there may have been different editions of this review in the past, so could that be where your recollection is from? He actually doesn't glow about the 50/1.4-- describes it as a good lens, but a 'less than stellar' performer.

 

He is very complimentary towards the older 55/1.2 aspheric-- hints that it may be the best standard lens ever made for 35mm-- but don't tell 'em that on the Leica forum!

[pensacolaphoto]

I doubt it that the 50mm/1.4SSC lens has an "overall better performance" than the 50mm/1.2L lens. Both are excellent lenses.

[gregory_nicholson]

If you're looking for "sharp" my vote is for the 50 f/3.5 macro (mine is an SSC version) I tested this lens against the 50 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4 SSC, 55 f/1.2 SSC, FL 55 f/1.2, FL 58 f/1.2, 50 f/1.8 and 35-105 f/3.5 @ 50mm but no ASPH. or �L� lens. The 50 macro was clearly the best at resolution center and corners and easily the best wide open. Second place went to the 50 f/1.4 new version, it was only a slight fraction behind at distances of five feet and longer. If you're looking for "eye appeal" the two FL's had the lowest resolution at any aperture but some of the nicest image quality.

[John Crowe]

Well, I did a manual search through the archives, eeggaaad! Gregory had placed a link to the site that tested all the Canon lenses versus a Leica 55/1.2 about 2 years ago. Unfortunately the link no longer works and just takes you to one of those horrible and infectious advertising sites. I know it did not test the macro versions.

[dave_s]

Bah. Too bad we lost it-- I would have like to have read this. Thanks again for looking John.

[doug_nelson1]

I have a print copy of that Irwin Puts article. Contact me and I will scan and Pdf it for you.

 

Doug

[John Crowe]

I am fairly certain it is not the Irwin Putt's article, from the descriptions above.