The FD 85mm F/1.8 S.S.C. lens - Opinions

[gary_meehan1]

<p>Hi:<br>

What are peoples' opinions of Canon's FD 85mm F/1.8 S.S.C. lens? I'm thinking of picking up one to go with my F-1. I primarily shoot landscapes, though would consider it for portrait work.<br>

Thanks in advance.<br>

Gary</p>

[bsharpe411]

<p>I've had one for years and love it! I don't see it as being very useful for landscapes...portrait shots is its primary use. Great for low light situations and yet you're far enough away from the subject to not invade their "personal space", as would be the case with a 50mm lens. </p>

[User_502260]

<p>I have two Canon 85s. The older one is an 85/1.8 FL and the newer one an 85/1.8 New FD. Both are good with the New FD having better coating. Eventually I would like to add an SSC model to my collection. Some people prefer the slightly slower and much more expensive 100/2 New FD and others like the two 85/1.2 lenses. If you don't need the extra speed a 100/2.8 FD SSC or New FD would also be fine. When you consider all of these possibilities an 85/1.8 is a good compromise. </p>

[scrivyscriv]

<p>I've never really used mine for landscapes much but it's a very good lens and a joy to use. It has pleasant out of focus blur.</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Funny, but I use the short teles a lot for landscapes, the 85mm 1.2, and 100mm f2 as well. Never used the 85mm 1.8, but can imagine that it is pretty good.<br>

The 85mm 1.2 has stunning bokeh, but is a bit of a beast to lug around, so if I go on long treks I always take the 100mm F2, which is very compact and of terrific quality.</p>

[gary_meehan1]

<p>In fact, I do own the 100mm 2.8 SSC already. So an 85mm might be overkill for the cost. The one I was looking at from KEH is running around $260<br>

in EX+ condition. The attached image was taken with the 100mm attached to a Canon F-1 using Fuji Sensia 100 slide film on an overcast day. It is a sharp lens!</p><div></div>

[kellymjones]

<p>I have the FL 85mm and it's great. I can only presume that the FD is a little better.</p>

<p><a title="Magic Lanterns by spokanekelly, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2447/3983184806_600210f9d3.jpg" alt="Magic Lanterns" width="500" height="332" /></a></p>

[alan_swartz]

<p>Gary,</p>

<p>I can only help you indirectly, since my experience is with the FDn 85 and 100, but I suspect the SSC's will be similar if not identical. Comparing diagrams, they look to be identical in optical construction.</p>

<p>The FDn 85mm has a reputation of being a little soft wide open and quite sharp a few stops down. I remember hearing it said that it was intentionally left soft at wide apertures for portrait use. Canon even stated in <em>Lens Work</em> that "...stress was placed on enhancing this lens' full aperture capabilities. As a result, coma is held to a minimum and astigmatism is rigidly corrected giving the image a pleasing soft-focus effect around the edges at large apertures. Sharpness increases at smaller apertures to produce overall crisp results."</p>

<p>While that sounds a little contradictory to me, I suppose it means that they corrected coma and astigmatism but perhaps left some spherical aberration that they might otherwise have tackled. The 85mm Soft Focus intentionally introduces spherical aberration, in bulk. I can see where a little softness would be useful in landscape work, and it will certainly be sharp enough once stopped down.</p>

<p>My copy of the FDn 100/2 is also a little soft wide open. I haven't used the 100/2.8 enough to offer anything meaningful about wide-open performance.</p>

<p>To me, there is enough difference in field of view and perspective effects between the 85 and 100 that I prefer one over the other in a given situation. I guess it's sort of like the difference between a 35 and 50, subtle but real.</p>

<p>I think you can do much better than the price you quoted; even this evening, KEH has an 85 in EX for considerably less.</p>

[bob_miller4]

<p>The FL 85mm/1.8 lens is a different design from all the FD versions, so some of its characteristics might be different (better or worse is often in the eye of the beholder, who has his own aesthetic preferences).<br>

I've often used the FL as my general purpose lens in place of a normal. Outdoors, it helps me keep extraneous detail out of the frame.</p>

[ken_williams5]

<p>For what it's worth, in the Gary Reese lens tests, there was a significant difference between the 85mm 1.8s, with the FDn scoring better than the SSC at every level except f11 and f16.</p>

<p>As for alternatives, the 100 2.8 chrome front isn't mentioned that often, but I have been very pleased with mine. It may the sharpest of the 2.8s. For landscapes where speed isn't an issue, I would recommend the 35-105 two-touch zoom, which provides nearly the sharpness of the primes and a lot more flexibility.</p>

[airds]

<p>Note the chrome mount lens only goes to f16 and the aperature ain't visible in the viefinder - the ring sits too far in front of the wee window.<br>

Great lens though and weights a ton.</p>

 

[gary_meehan1]

<p>Thanks for the replies. I do, in fact, own the 35-105 two touch. It's the first lens that I bought to go with the F-1 (first revision) back in `86. A great lens.I don't tend to use it a lot these days. I've been playing with my 28 f3.5, 80-200 f/4 and 200 f/2.8 most recently. I am tempted to scoop up a 35mm f/2.<br>

The one thing I do like about using the primes is that I can read off the setting for the hyperfocal distance to make sure that I am maximizing the depth of field. Something I can't (easily?) do with the zoom lenses.<br>

~Gary</p>

[ken_williams5]

<p>The 35 f2 is one of my favorite lenses. I have the concave SSC version (distinguishable because it only goes to f16 vs. f22 for the convex SSC). It's a legendarily sharp lens at an affordable price.</p>

<p>As for the 100 2.8 chrome front, it does go to f22. It is the heaviest of all of the 100 2.8s, but not quite as heavy as the 100 f2.</p>

[kellymjones]

<p>@Bob Miller - Thanks for the info. I didn't realize the FL was a different design from the FD. I too find myself using the 85 as a general purpose lens.</p>

[darin_cozine]

<p>I seldom use the 85mm.<br /> I have the 85mm f1.8 SSC. It is sharp and has nice bokeh. However the focal length is neither here nor there. I find myself using a 50mm f1.4 for most shots. but that all has to do with ones own vision.<br /> The 100mm f2.8 is an excellent alternative.<br>

(attached shot is with the 85mm)</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[darin_cozine]

<p>also think of this.. 85mm is 70% longer than 50mm. 100mm is 16% longer than 85mm.<br /> Trust me when I say you will be fine with your 100mm f2.8.</p>