And differences in FD 50mm f/1.4?

[kl122007]

<p>After the previous post, I decided to keep my FL 55mm 1.2. And I planning to get a FD 50mm f/1.4<br />I searched in the internet, noticing there are 3 main version, old FD : silvery lens hood lock and black lens hood lock, SSC marked, and new FD with black plactic lens body.<br />Is there any difference between them?</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Hi Kevin, I have all three, plus an FL version. I cannot see any difference in performance between any of them, I was shooting portraits, not lens test charts.<br>

The SSC version will give better flare control if that is important, and I find the older versions to be more solid feeling, and the SSC 1.4 looks great too!<br>

There was, or maybe still is, some collector interest in the "chrome" nosed versions, as there was not a huge amount of them made. Apparently some people thought that the chrome front would cause flare, so Canon changed to a black front....doesn't look quite as pretty though.</p>

[kl122007]

<p>All I know is that the FD version is came from FL version 2 with full apterure mechanism added. I have the first version and there is significant difference in flare and colour control.<br />If there is no significant changes, I would look for a chrome nose version, since it looks smarter with my old F-1. :D</p>

[ben_hutcherson]

<p>As I recall, the chrome nose is only an S.C. lens, while the later versions are S.S.C.<br>

<br /> <br /> Personally, I own both a breech lock 1.4 and an FDn 1.4. In general, I reach for the breech lock because I think it has a better feel and is very nicely balanced. Either one is an equally good lens, though.</p>

[User_4136860]

<p>The SSC ones are better built but the breech lock is slower to change than the later bayonet fitting new type which has the SSC coating too, and although the barrels are plastic they are much lighter to carry if you have a bagful of them and I never heard of anyone having a problem with them, optically they are about the same.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>The first 50/1.4 FL version is a six element design.</p>

[kl122007]

<p>So in this case, is that buying a black nose FD 50 f/1.4 is more favorable than that of the others, including FL version?</p>

[dave_s]

<p>(a) If you have a bunch of 52mm filters lying around, get the FDn. If you have a bunch of 55mm filters, get the SSC. If you have a bunch of 55mm filters and you like the look or feel of old lenses, get the chrome nose or one of the FLs.</p>

<p>(b) For practical purposes, the choice of lens will make no difference to the photographs you take. These are highly-corrected double-Gauss lenses with excellent contrast and out-of-focus rendition, and any differences will be undetectable in regular use. It's like worrying about whether your car runs better with Mobil or Shell gas in the tank.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Kevin, the optical formula of the FD 50/1.4 remained unchanged over the various iterations of the lens. In fact, it the same formula used in the current EF 50/1.4. I agree with Dave that any differences in image quality between the different versions will be imperceptible, except perhaps that since the later versions have better coatings, they might perform better in certain lighting conditions. I personally tend to use my FDn 50/1.4 and my FDn 50/1.2 L the most of all my normal FD primes, mainly because they're lighter and more compact than their older cousins.</p>

[bob_miller4]

<p>The FL version takes 58mm filters, not 55mm.</p>

[dave_s]

<p>Yipes, I stand corrected.</p>