Any differences between FD 50/1.4 versions?

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I'm downsizing my FD collection and getting rid of some of my redundant lenses. I have several 50/1.4's (don't we all?) and am wondering whether there's any significant difference between the chrome nose SSC, plain nose SSC, and FDn. I know that they have the same optical formula and coating.</p>

<p>My inclination is to hang onto the specimens that are in better condition, but if anyone has a more compelling seletion criterion, I'd like to hear about it.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>There are many threads on this topic. At this late date the condition of the lens is more important than which version you have. The early chrome front models are not as well coated as the later lenses. A few months ago I got a New FD model in good condition got $20. They are worth more in use than they are in cash. </p>

[flatulent1]

<p>Latest model, best condition, those would be my choices. I can't imagine there's a significant difference between them, apart from the coatings.</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>I would be most inclined to keep the cleanest copy of each version. I would also include separately one (or more) of each version that has the lock switch on the rear of the mount.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>I have several copies of breech lock 50/1.8 lenses with the switch on the back but I don't know whether I have any 50/1.4s like that. Reversed, the 50/1.8 is probably sharper anyway.</p>

[gordon_yee]

<p>The chrome nosed FD50mm f/1.4 always had SC coating, never SSC. Nevertheless, I'll never sell mine due to its sentimental value.</p>

<p>The only FD lenses I'm aware of that had the switch to lock the diaphragm (as opposed to the detent) were the FD50mm f/1.8 SC and the FD28mm f/2.8 SC.</p>

[mark_stephan2]

<p>I don't know if this meets your requirement or not. When I down sized I got rid of all the breech lock lenses in favor of the New FD mount. I prefer it to the older breech lock lenses.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I sold one of the later SSC's and the earlier SSC, as well as the FDn. I kept the later SSC that was in better condition and the chrome nose, which is also in excellent condition. The front and interior elements and barrel of the FDn were in superb condition, but there were some small spots of missing coating on the rear element.</p>

<p>I got $60 each for the three I sold.</p>

[cadillacmike]

<p>Most of the Breech ring FDs (chrome or black nose) didn't need the lock because if you pushed the auto aperture lever all the way it would lock in there.</p>

<p>I have no idea why Canon changed this on only 2 lenses; the later FD 50mm F1.8 SC and the FD 28mm F2.8 SC, but it was most likely due to cost. The hinged locking tab was probably less expensive to make than the lever that locked slid over to lock, and these were two of their highest production volume lenses, and the least expensive.<br>

None of the New FD mount lenses did this except for the Macro FDs. You had to buy the macro hood or use the Auto Bellows with the double cable release. </p>

[User_4136860]

<p>I have both types and I prefer the new bayonet type for two reasons, firstly because my cameras are New F1's and you can see the aperture you are at in the viewfinder with them, you can't with original ones,and secondly they are a lot lighter weight than the old breech lock lenses which I appreciate when I'm lugging a bag full of them around.</p>

[robbz_fotoz]

<p>I have two FD breech, one for the AE-1 program, the other for my FTBn. The FDn 50 1.4 is for the T-90, it looks better there without the chrome ring. They all work the same, it's usually how they look on a particular body. Basically I'm the kind of photographer I don't always know what I'm doing, but my cameras will look good while I figure it out.</p>

[dave_s]

<p>If you're keeping them to use, as opposed to collect, the best thing would be to do a careful test of image quality. Use a tripod and check their performance at the aperture you're most likely to use.</p>

[cadillacmike]

<p>Why bother Dave? Just about all of the FD lenses are better than most digicrap out there, including some newer EF mount lenses. I mean look at the speed of some of the zooms F 3.8 - 5.6??? WTF??? And please don't start on newer computer designs. The big makers had this down to a science back in the 60s using standard lens types. The only improvement would have been in fast aperture lenses, and even there Canon Aspherical lenses had this all done by the late 70s. All we see now is increased use of plastics (probably in some lens elements as well!) resulting in less sturdy construction that has too much reliance on tiny fallible electronic motors and signaling to the camera. <br>

I won't use one slower than F4 (exception the nice FD 85-300mm F 4.5). I went out of my way to get all the faster versions of all the primes, and use only 3 or 4 (new mount) FD zooms, mostly outside where it's bright enough to focus at F4.<br>

I'm with Ben on the new mount lenses with the new F-1 (when in aperture preferred AE mode only though). </p>

[dave_s]

<p>Mike, zooms are not the issue-- the thread was about the 50/1.4. The basic design of this lens is unchanged since the latter-day FL lenses of the late 1960s. It's a double-Gauss design with 7 elements in 6 groups, and they've kept the aperture blades constant at 8. Having said that, I suspect they may have tweaked the details a bit as better or cheaper glasses became available.</p>

<p>You are correct that all the 50/1.4s are excellent lenses. It's one of my personal favorites. The reason to test is, I guess, threefold. (i) The big one is that over the last few decades, any given lens may have been dropped or bumped or abused, leading to a bit of deterioration in image quality from decentering or misalignment. (ii) Second one is that there's always a bit of variation between different specimens of the same lens, even right from the factory. (iii) Third reason is that coatings certainly improved over the years, favoring the FDns.</p>

<p>When the dust clears, side-by-side testing might be a lot of work for a 1 or 2% improvement in performance. For most of us that won't make any difference, particularly if we shoot handheld or at small apertures. But if you had a bunch of 50/1.4s, it might be worth it if you were planning to keep only one or two. There's people on photo.net who do stuff like this. I've never bothered.</p>

<p>Incidentally, I'm using a breechlock SSC 50/1.4 on my EF this weekend-- nice combination. Portra 160.</p>