The sharpest lens fof Canon FD

[nathan_ray]

I've an wondelful Tokina macro AT-X 90mm 2.5 and New Canon 80-200L,

these lens are really sharp like razor!

I'm going also to take a new kiron 105mm macro ( it's 1:1, tokina

only 1:2 ) instead of my tokina.

I like to use 100 and 50 iso film to have good quality anf fine

particoular, I wonder which is the most sharp lens aviable for the

Canon fd system?

I just would like to have some opinion and if possible some sample

image.

 

Nathan.

[bob_katz1]

"<i>which is the most sharp lens aviable for the Canon fd system?</i>"<p>

 

That's easy - the FD 200mm f1.8L. It's optical construction is identical to the EF 200mm f1.8L, which is considered one of the sharpest (if not <i>the</i> sharpest) lenses ever made for any 35mm camera system.

[pvp]

Though I've never owned one, I've heard a number of people claim that the FD 35mm f/2 -- the concave-front-element, thorium-containing one -- is so sharp it almost hurts. FWIW

[gary_reese2]

I didn't test a 200mm f/1.8, which is a rare and expensive lens to get a hold of, but see my <a href=http://members.aol.com/canonfdlenstests/default.htm>Canon FD Lens Tests</a> for some other common candidates. My vote goes to the remarkable Canon FD 35mm f/2 breech mount, concave front element version, pre-S.S.C. with chrome snout. That is "version 1" if you prefer a nickname. Leave it sit wrapped in aluminum foil in sunlight (but not hot sunlight; leave foil open) and the radioactive decay produce cased discoloration reportedly disappears. Also, the reference to "thorium floride" should read "flouride."

 

Rare earth lenses like this were made by all the lens manufacturers, but were generally replaced with non-radioactive versions in the mid-1970s. In most cases for lenses I have tested, the later, non-radioactive versions as poorer performers. Which makes sense to those of us who don't necessary subscribe to "the latest is the greatest" psychology, which the marketing folks want us to believe. The technique I cite for eliminating the color cast to these lenses gives them a new lease on life.

[m_.]

the easiest and simplest lens is the best: 50mm f1.8. it might not be the lens you will use the most often but it is the sharpest.

[gary_reese2]

Hi Wentong:

 

<< the easiest and simplest lens is the best: 50mm f1.8. it might not be the lens you will use the most often but it is the sharpest. >>

 

I'm afraid that I don't know of any objective comparisons which support your statement. What do you base this statement on? What lenses have you compared it to? What is your methodology for making comparisons?

[jimvanson]

I owned the FD 135 F2L. I've shot with the EF 135 f2L. I'd be in lens nirvana if I could only live with that focal length. Very sharp wide open, affordable, not uncommon used.<p>Having said that my dream lens is "the shark"--the great white 200 EF.

[bishop_vc]

Gary,

 

photodo.com certainly rates the 50/1.8 very highly. In fact, of the Canon lenses, only the 200/1.8 is rated higher. Is photodo.com the last word on comparative lens testing? No. But it's just about the only thing out there.

 

There's also a ton of anecdotal evidence that the 50/1.8 is super sharp. You may choose to take this with a grain of salt if you wish but Wen-tong is hardly the first to say it.

 

Regards,

 

Steve

[John Crowe]

I had the 35mm f2 concave "yellow" lens and unfortunately it drove me nuts! I have since replaced it with the 35mm f2 convex lens. I have not taken enough photos with either of these lenses to compare sharpness. Too bad I did not know about the aluminum foil irradiating technique because I had bought it because of its reputation as a sharp lens. With all those elements (10 I think) I figured Canon was trying to do something!

 

I have heard that the 135mm f2 is a real sleeper performing as well as an L lens. My 300mm f2.8 Fluorite SSC is extremely sharp and easily outperforms my 200mm f2.8 (non-IF) at a cost of weight of course! I have not yet tested my 17mm f4 against the 24mm f2.8 SSC or the 35mm f2, but I suspect it too is one of Canon's best lenses. I tend to be more concerned about sharpness in telephotos at wide open apertures. My wideangle lenses are always on tripods stopped down to f11 to f16, so as long as they are Canon primes I don't worry about the differences. Another sleeper is the 400mm f4.5, it is sharper than the 300mm Fluorite with the 1.4x teleconverter (although still a half stop slower) and is more reasonable to carry around. I am looking forward to the day when I can compare these 2 telephotos to the 400mm f2.8 L or the 500mm f4.5 L or the 600mm f4.5! I just hope I can carry one of these by the time I can afford one!

 

Good to see you like 100 and 50 iso films. There is Velvia of course as well as a host of 100 iso print films but you might try Konica Impreza 50 print film if you can find any, supposed to be quite good. Good luck!

[david_goldfarb]

I'm tempted to say that the sharpest lens is the one attached to the camera attached to the heaviest tripod and used with the best technique at its optimum aperture. There are so many subjective factors involved in sharpness as well as physical factors unrelated to optics, that I think one should be careful not to get too obsessed with lens tests.

 

Sharpness is also not the only feature that makes a lens good. Zoom lenses have gotten sharper, for instance, but often at the expense of increased barrel/pincushion distortion. Lenses that are overcorrected for spherical aberration may produce harsh and distracting out-of-focused areas. Sometimes a cheaper, slower, lens is actually sharper than a faster more costly lens when tested under carefully controlled conditions, but the faster lens may be easier to focus precisely and quickly, producing sharper pictures under real shooting conditions. Short DOF can create an illusion of sharpness by contrasting a sharp figure with an unsharp ground, even though the lens may be technically sharper at a smaller aperture. Sometimes a fine grained film that can resolve more lpm looks less sharp than a coarse grained film with better acutance or higher contrast.

[doug_nelson1]

I agree with the 35 f2 pre-SSC comments. Mine is beat up and has coating damage from bad cleaning technique. I'd never part with it. Can anyone suggest a Photoshop color cast adjustment that helps to deal with the color cast? Of course, each image is different, but what generally works for you? I can't get good results with Variations, as I can't see the image well enough.

[nathan_ray]

I note until now that nobody had mentioned the NewFD 35-105mm 3.5, I've ones, and it give me incredible result. It's not a fluorite lens, but really good one and not so expensive.

Yes, is also true that is necessary to have some specifics condition for the sharpness in a photo ( stative, 50 or 100 iso film, fast shutter time, ecc) but I just 'image' to have the perfect condition to shot and compare the lens.

I agree, the sharpest lens is not necessary the best lense, ofcourse!

[14mm 2.8l]

2 questions for Gary Reese: Why do you use filters when performing your lens tests? Do you use Canon made assessory hoods with the lenses when testing them? Thanks! Lindy

[gary_reese2]

If Photodo.com is the only thing going, then we are in trouble, besides the fact they only test at two apertures and the tests aren't film based. Have people forgotten to research in the libraries now that we have the Internet? There are a legacy of Canon FD lenses tests from the USA magazines alone: Modern Photography and Popular Photography. I have photocopies of many of their tests provided to me on interlibrary loan. I also have the chart of French Chasseur d'Image test results for Canon FD lenses. There are many others in the European literature. The pedestrian 50mm f/1.8 in any version (and versions matter for lenses!), is hardly the very "top drawer."

 

What some Canon FD loyalist should do, as has been done for Olympus OM lenses, is to compile the data from Popular and Modern Photography and post it to the web. They would be wise to also give the serial number for the test lens, since many build variations exist and all too often the tester didn't record it (myself included).

[gary_reese2]

Hi Lindy:

 

I always used some sort of hood, even if I didn't have the exact one. Popular Photography lens testing of silt image contrast (pre-1990) showed it really made a difference. I also worked in large rooms with subdued lighting.

 

I only tested a few lenses with filters. At both my Canon FD and Olympus OM lens test sites you will find some wide open aperture tests with and without filters. I did that in an effort to show folks that if you think you can trust filters based on brands, you are probably mistaken. Their image degradation is most apparent wide open, where you need the sharp image on the ground glass to be able to focus accurately. If my SQF grade drops below a B with a filter, you can be darn sure you will have to hunt for correct focus in the viewfinder.

 

A Google search (use: OM pcacala filters) can probably lead to folks being able to find my old postings about vertical autocollimator tests of brands of filters. It was amazing how a random sample of 45 filters had over 90% with obvious optical flaws. If folks just shot a with and without filter comparision wide open and compared the negs or slides under magnification, they could answer for themselves if their filter is a keeper or not. But most folks can't be bothered and they just blindly rely on some particular brand to bring home the bacon. Buyer beware!

 

Finally, don't overlook what has become the most important take home lesson from my whole lens test exercise. If you employ some means of mirror and diaphragm prefire, you get sharper images. See: <a href=http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm>OM Lens Tests</a> for more information.

[duane_kucheran]

I nominate the 50 f/3.5 macro. This lens has probably the best contrast & color saturation of any of the Canon lenses I've ever used and is a consequence of its simple design.

 

If you can handle the slower speed it's very versatile as a standard lens.

 

Cheers,

[william_vickers1]

If my memory serves me correctly, Popular Photography and Modern Photography always gave the Canon FD f1.4 50mm normal lens very high marks for sharpness and contrast. I think it usually scored somewhat higher than the f1.8 50mm. I have used both and have been satisfied with both. I think the FD f2.8 100mm moderate telephoto is also very sharp. However, my assessments are not based on shots of lens testing charts - just projected Kodachrome slides and 16x20 inch Cibachrome prints.

[paolo_amati]

In my opinion the sharpest lens is the 35 mm. f. 3,5 chrome snout. I consider it a "rough diamond". I can't realize this "adoration" for the large aperture lens, please don't forget the 2,8 or 4 version! (almost always BETTER)

[timothy_fitzgerald]

The FD 85mm f/1.2 L is often described as "punishingly sharp." Based on the results I've seen, I would tend to agree. Other lenses I've thought to be particularly sharp are:<P>

 

FD 24mm f/1.4 L<BR>

FD 28-85mm f/4 (very similar to the FD 35-105mm f/3.5)<BR>

FD 50mm f/1.2 L<BR>

FD 100mm f/4 MACRO (bayonet version)<BR>

FD 135mm f/2<BR>

FD 300mm f/4 L

[gregory_nicholson]

Hi Nathan,

Your question and this thread have me reflecting over the test results of my own personal lenses.

 

After initially testing with a Detroit city map I'm now testing all my lenses with the 1951 USAF and line pair per millimeter charts. I'm testing mostly to determine which lens to use for which occasion.

 

Line pair per millimeter (lppm) is the standard for sharpness comparison. Its significance looses a lot of punch when you are not enlarging your photos much. For example, the FDn 85 f/1.8 will not pass my 120 lppm edge sharpness test but it will easily give superb images from several apertures enlarged to 8x10. Not the sharpest lens in the arsenal, this lens does have high Micro-contrast and will give beautiful photos of reasonable size. A lens with high Micro-contrast does a better job of showing a very sharp perimeter of the larger lines on either test chart. If the subject is right the result can be a photo that looks better and has sharper detail over using a lens that has tested to be sharper. At their best apertures and same magnification, the 100 f/4 macro may be better at copying small print but the 85 f/1.8 will make larger print easier to read. That's why ultimate sharpness is not always the best choice and in some cases a poor indicator of quality.

 

If you want to calculate the lens's required lppm for big enlargements just remember it's a standing "rule" that you need about 7 lppm on your picture. The 7 lppm is required for your eye to perceive the picture as sharp. The sharper the lens the bigger your enlargement can be and lens�s sharpness is not an issue for smaller pictures. What good is a medium format camera if you only enlarge to 5x7, more information than the photo paper can use.

 

Most FD lenses I�ve tested are resolving 80 to 95 lines throughout. Since I�m testing for the lens�s ability to enlarge I'm not concentrating on center sharpness as much as edge sharpness. I�ve found it's not hard at all to get to 8X10 and still look very sharp with most any prime FD lens. My processing tech feels that 11x14 or 16x20 is about the limit to 35mm custom enlargements. My goal is to find which lenses I have that may be capable of this. If you do the math you�ll find you need a 120 lppm lens corner to corner to get 7.5 lppm in those 16 inches. (120 divided by the enlargement factor [16x] equals 7.5 lppm on the print) Not many FD lenses I have are that sharp. Of those lenses that do have this much edge sharpness is the FDn 17 f/4, 24 f/2, FD BL 35 f/2 pre-SSC, 135 f/2 and the 200 f/4 macro. This is only at one or two apertures, certainly no where near half of them.

 

As a side note; just because a lens does not have 120 lppm at the edges doesn't mean you can't enlarge to 16x20. Many a fine photo has soft corners or selective focusing. I'm just looking for the limit of my equipment.

 

I have 15 FD lenses and only one of them is an L, I'm sure the L lenses are sharper with the added bonus of higher contrast. I'll have to wait until I can afford them to find out how much better the L glass is.

 

BTW, I just ordered an ex+ AT-X 90mm f/2.5 this morning. I hope its performance follows its reputation. I'm looking forward to testing it against my FD lenses.

[william_vickers1]

Greg Nicholson wrote:

 

"Many a fine photo has soft corners or selective focusing."

 

Indeed ... some of history's most famous and significant photographs are blurry as hell. Take a look at Robert Capa's pictures of the D-Day landings. Can't get much worse than that in terms of technical quality. It doesn't matter. The context provides the importance.

 

It's funny to me that so much of the discussion on photo.net centers on the technical aspects of photography and the excellence of this or that lens in terms of lines resolved on a test chart. Ultimately, only the photographs really matter ... and they don't have to be "perfect" in order to be important and great.

[GerrySiegel]

Sharp is a loose term. And the variables are like David Goldfarb mentioned. I have to say that all my Canon FD lenses are very crisp, and defy terms like tack sharp and razor sharp which mean nothing. It seems to push the capabilities of film to record the optical quality even with the improvement in film. So the question might be-which lens are as good as your Tokina and your Canon L lens. I tested an 85mm L lens once and it was awesome. Yet I am still impressed with the lowly 50mm 1.4 and the macro of same length. Also the 100mm 2.8. The L lenses are supposedly sharp at fully wide open, so there goes another variable, if that is what you are asking. And all ISO 100 films are not created equally. In other words, noone really knows the answer, for shame on us all...GS ( radioactive?, who needs that stuff. Fluorite I like that word, sounds cool) Confucius say" One test equal a thousand theories" But keep asking.

[bob_miller4]

<p>A lens in use is hardly ever perpendicular to a flat target that extends to all corners of the frame.</p>