EF 50 1.2L vs FD 50 1.2L?

[leo_tam1]

I know the EF is larger and doesn't use floating elements,

but was the image quality improved? Anyone use both? I

plan on using one on both film and digital

[bobatkins]

<p>"<em>I plan on using one on both film and digital</em>"<br /> <br /> How?<br /> <br /> You can't mount the FD on any EOS Digital SLR and you can't mount the EF lens on any FD series SLR. That leaves your only choice as the EF lens on EOS film and digital SLRs. FD->EOS adapters need optics which make the FD lens longer, slower and softer.<br /> <br /> I suppose it's <em><strong>possible</strong> </em>to get the mount on the FD lens changes to EF, but you end up with a lens that's manual focus and needs stop down metering. Even if the FD lens were better (which is unlikely) it simply would not be worth the effort, cost and inconvenience.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>The Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L is the way to go. It will work, of course, on any EOS camera-film or digital. It also works quite well, AF wise, on Sony A7 series mirrorless cameras with the Metabones IV adapter. With pro quality EOS film cameras plentiful and inexpensive, that seems the logical way to go. You can also manually focus the EF lens if you wish.</p>

<p>Otherwise, with the FD lens, you are left using 30 year old FD film cameras for your film work and are limited to manual focus on both cameras if your intent is to use a mirrorless digital model. As Bobs says, the FD lenses don't fit EOS, or any other, cameras easily. Admittedly the FD-to-Mirrorless adapters are less expensive.</p>

<p>The differences between the lenses is less of an issue than the platforms you intend to use with them. Both are top quality. With AF and excellent adaptability potential, the EF lenses are a better choice.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Well, you can pick up an FD L for about half of an EF L and Ed Mika is back in business of providing conversion kits for about $100. I have not tested one against the other. I use and have used many top of the line lenses from the 70's and 80's and they perform extremely well compared to current top of the line lenses.</p>

<p>For the same price of the EF 50 1.2 L you could get the much older Canon FD 55mm f1.2 SSC Aspherical, which from what I have read, is still the best normal lens ever made. Apparently superior the the Leica Noctilux and Nikon Noct. Both of these lenses still sell for 3 to 5 times more than an EF 50 1.2 L.</p>

[leo_tam1]

I have a Sony a7. I hear about the focus shift with the EF

50 1.2, the softness, and the lack of floating elements,

so was wondering from a purely optical standpoint, if the

FD was better. I would use a Canon new F1 with the FD,

or the potentially unreliable t90.

 

I'm not sure if the EF for its soft reputation, is still

sharper than the FD.

[Robin Smith]

<p>I am sure that in this regard the FD will be similar or worse, unlikely to be better. The main thing with the EF is the quality of the bokeh - not so much its sharpness. Even if the FD L is sharper, which I think is unlikely, I doubt it will have better bokeh. Perhaps someone can do a test one day to compare.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I've always been very happy with the performance of my FD 50/1.2 L, and have heard that the EF is inferior. But it would be very difficult (not to mention expensive) to do any direct comparison between them, given that they are used on entirely different platforms.</p>

<p>The FD lens commands quite a high price on the used market, while the EF, compared with its retail price, does not. So even if you could adapt the FD lens, it would be an expensive undertaking. Perhaps you should take a look at Sigma 50/1.4 ART. It's obviously a little slower than the EF L, but much sharper.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Mark, I agree. I have observed that there is a general tendency among half of enthusiasts to be gushing in praise precisely because it is old (and the "best in the day") and relatively inexpensive. Others of course believe just as strongly that later is always better. It's not surprising that the EF is cheaper s/h than retail- what else would you expect? The Sigma is a very sharp lens, no doubt. Personally either would do for me, although these days I would want AF unless the manual focus discount was considerable.</p>

[leo_tam1]

<p>Thanks - By all means, I have no problem using either system - was just wondering if the FD version that was touted as best of its era was "better" than the newer EF lens. <br>

The FD at its time was noted to be sharper than the other non Aspherical 50 1.2s (which wasn't saying much)<br>

Curious if the EF, which is not as praised for its sharpness, is still better in that aspect than the FD - samples I've seen show that it's color and contrast looks pretty good<br>

The FD holds its value because it's a collectors lens, while the EF is still in production - guessing that affects it's "value"</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>After a while a lens tends to reach a plateau in value once out of production - fast lenses are virtually always fairly desirable (unless they are common f1.8 and f1.4s). FDs are particularly good value because they cannot be adapted to common DSLR cameras, but this is changing now with mirrorless cameras. Not having used the FD L lens, I bet it is pretty nice though. The EF is a good lens but it disappoints some users because they are expecting it to have the highest resolution when wide open akin to the 135L or 200/2L etc. It doesn't: it's whole raison d'etre is nice bokeh and extra speed, which is what it is great for - just don't expect it to resolve every angel on the pinhead. You are better off with a Zeiss Otus or similar for that.</p>