Canon FL vs FD, is there a difference in quality?

[steve_s.]

I have just found this site, what a wonderful resource! Here is my question. There are a lot of fine FL lenses on ebay that sell for less than FD lenses. I am thinking of getting a 55mm f1.2 fast FL lense now. I shoot with A series cameras and I don't mind putting up with the FL's need to do stop-down metering. My question is, are the FD superior lenses? If they are better quality than the old FL lenses, then I won't bother pursuing them.

 

<p>

 

Thanks for your time and assistance!

[duane_kucheran]

I'm afraid that for the most part FD lenses are better than the FLs

but it's not a great bowl-me-over kind of difference.

 

<p>

 

The biggest difference is in coatings. All the FL lenses are single

coated; most of the FD lenses are multicoated. This translates into

better contrast and flare resistance.

 

<p>

 

The 2nd difference is just design refinement of the higher

performance lenses and of zoom lenses. The lens you cited can indeed

take very good pictures, but you'll find it's wide open performance

is not as good as the later f1.2 units. ie., softer and with lower

contrast. Something to be expected for a lens design about 35 years

old. I borrowed one recently and found it was a good performer when

shaded properly. The images were good but not as good as those from

the FD 50/1.4.

 

<p>

 

Some positive notes are that Canon had very good quality control and

the FL lenses are exceedingly well built, many with ball bearing

diaphragms. They may get sticky but they don't often wear out or

break.

 

<p>

 

Good luck and cheers,

[david_harry_gabis]

As an amateur photographer I have found the price/value ratio of the

FL lenses to be about right. I am building up a collection of prime

lenses and always use them with the Tiffen enhancing filter which

brings the color rendition up to today's standards at the price of

one stop.

 

<p>

 

The FL lenses were first offered in only 19/3.5 mirror up, 35/2.5,

50/1.4, 58/1.2, 50/3.5 macro, 85/1.8, 100/3.5, 135/2.5, 200/3.5 and

the two zooms versions. The lens that you refer to came along later

in a second wave to replace the 58/1.2. I remember reading that it

contains rare earth elements to improve color endition under low

light conditions. But it is relatively expensive at $100 and as the

last person has said it probably isn't equal to the FD.

 

<p>

 

Hope this helps you decide. I can only add that the heft and

craftsmanship of the FL lenses adds a lot to my pictures in terms of

composition which to me is more important than laboratory bench

criteria.

[lawrence_lee_huber]

This is a late response. I have a good collection of FL and FD lenses and find that there is an edge given to the FD due to technology progress and coatings.I recently got a R7 which allows both FL and FD to be used with no funky glass in the adapter. I love my FL 58mm f1.2 lens it is not perfect but gives a wonderful character to the photos, especially portraits. I carry FL lenses over FD because if I need a clinically sterile sharp lens I will use the EF series. If you have a character or old time look desired then absolutely use any FL lens.  They are wonderful. 

[SCL]

Beautiful collection! I occasionally use both FD and FL lenses, these days on a digital body, but I do keep my T90 warmed up just to see if it still is working. I recently got hold of the 55/1.2 you mentioned and am having fun with it...beast that it is. Not sure I yet have nailed down its eccentricities...but know it does produce dreamy shots wide open.

[jim_bielecki1]

Nice collection.  I'm a big fan of the FL lens line, and could very easily spend the last of my picture-taking days with a Canon FP and FL 50/1.4 and FL 28/3.5.  Both are superb lenses.

[Bettendorf]

I have nothing significant to add, other than Plus One to all three of ya'.

 

[JDMvW]

There are not all that many changes -- mount and lens coating mostly - even into the early EOS lenses.

[gwhitegeog]

I have a couple of FLs. Mechanically and in terms of engineering, they are superb. The fact that they are not multicoated is an issue, but perhaps not as much as you might think. Halo and coma are more pronounced but sometimes, that's a good thing!