cadillacmike

There are actually THREE different versions of the 55mm F1.2 AL / Aspherical lens. These correspond with the three different version of breech ring FD lenses. All three have the same optical formula. The first two versions had hand ground and polished aspherical elements. The third version had machine ground and polished aspherical elements.

 

The first version had the "chrome nose". The aperture ring had a green "o" for auto exposure (which was only possible at the time this lens was made if one had an F-1 with the Servo EE Finder), and there was no locking of the aperture ring when set on "o". The breech ring could be turned freely, there was no locking detent on the ring. This 55mm had blue AL letters on the barrel front and a gold line around the front of the barrel. It had SSC coating but it is not marked. These were made up to around early 1973.

 

The second version, made from 1973 to around 1976 or so, had black nose (complaints about flare, etc led both Canon & nikon and well as others to make the front of the barrels black). This version has SC or SSC as appropriate for the lens coating. The aperture ring still had a green "o" but there was a chrome button that one had to push to put on the lens on or to take the lens off of "o". The breech ring now had a locking detent to prevent the ring from turning unless one put a cap on or put the lens onto a body. The breech ring was also spring loaded to turn slightly to aid in getting the lens mounted. The 55mm Aspherical still the blue AL and the gold line, but also added the SSC letters on the barrel.

 

The third version changed the green "o" to an "A" and the chrome aperture ring auto lock release went from chrome to black. This change was probably made to match up with the nomenclature in the new A-series bodies. This third version also used plastic front barrels in a few of the lenses, most notably the FD 50mm F1.8 SC. The 55mm Aspherical lens no longer had the blue AL or the gold line but the word "ASPHERICAL" in gold lettering before the red SSC letters.

There are actually THREE different versions of the 55mm F1.2 AL / Aspherical lens. These correspond with the three different version of breech ring FD lenses. All three have the same optical formula

 

The first version had the "chrome nose". The aperture ring had a green "o" for auto exposure (which was only possible at the time this lens was made if one had an F-1 with the Servo EE Finder), and there was no locking of the aperture ring when set on "o". The breech ring could be turned freely, there was no locking detent on the ring. This 55mm had blue AL letters on the barrel front and a gold line around the front of the barrel. It had SSC coating but it is not marked. These were made up to around early 1973.

 

The second version, made from 1973 to around 1976 or so, had black nose (complaints about flare, etc led both Canon & nikon and well as others to make the front of the barrels black). This version has SC or SSC as appropriate for the lens coating. The aperture ring still had a green "o" but there was a chrome button that one had to push to put on the lens on or to take the lens off of "o". The breech ring now had a locking detent to prevent the ring from turning unless one put a cap on or put the lens onto a body. The breech ring was also spring loaded to turn slightly to aid in getting the lens mounted. The 55mm Aspherical still the blue AL and the gold line, but also added the SSC letters on the barrel.

 

The third version changed the green "o" to an "A" and the chrome aperture ring auto lock release went from chrome to black. This change was probably made to match up with the nomenclature in the new A-series bodies. This third version also used plastic front barrels in a few of the lenses, most notably the FD 50mm F1.8 SC. The 55mm Aspherical lens no longer had the blue AL or the gold line but the word "ASPHERICAL" in gold lettering before the red SSC letters.

<p>I don't remember reading that Steven, but that doesn't mean they didn't state it back in 1979.<br>

Perhaps the new F-1 (mid 1981) with its Aperture Priority mode and reading the F-stop off the lens via ADR prompted them to change all the lenses. I'll have to check my 300mm F 2.8L to see how the tougher back end is (if its any different at all), but of course on all these long lenses, the lens is on a tripod (or monopod), thus most of the weight is not on the lens mount.</p>

<p>I have always used 36 exp rolls in my F-1s and other cameras. Its a lot easier to set the motor drive when you have a 36 exp cartridge loaded! I never had an issue with an F-1 or A-1 motor or hand winding the end of the roll. The New F-1 does have a different feel to winding from the older ones, especially if you have a motor attached, but it was never stiff.</p>

<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>

<p>I didn't think any breech ring lens carried the "L" designation. But I checked the Canon museum and both this and the 800mm had the L designation. Both of these had neither Aspherical or Fluorite elements, so i guess neither descriptor would apply. These were Canon's first lenses to use their newly developed UD (Ultra low Dispersion) glass, which found its way into a lot of new FD mount lenses.<br>

It took Canon some 2 years to get all the FD lenses converted or (upgraded) to the new mount. The TS 35mm F 2.8 never did get the new mount, it always had the breech ring. I have one waiting for me when i get home, I wonder what year it is???</p>

<p>My New F-1 is also my favourite as well. It's the only Canon model I ever purchased New, all the other bodies I have (quite a bit) were purchased used. The seals are still good on all my new F-1s, they were made of different materials than the older ones.</p>

<p>Canon FL lenses as well. Several hundred of those as well. If you want a Black FX, I'll write him about it.</p>

<p>I know a collector who has several hundred FXs. I'm sure many of those are black. Of course that doesn't help us with black Pellix non-QLs.</p>

<p>I think we will need to see another black non-QL Pellix to get to the bottom of this one.<br>

Jim, that FX looks like there is silver under the chipped black paint. Are you sure its not a repaint? According to the Canon museum both the FP and FX were available in black, but I've never seen either.<br>

As to the body sizes, the FX, FP and Pellix (non-QL) all had the same body size. The Pellix QL and FT QL (and FTb both types) were about 2-3 mm wider. I think this was to accommodate the QL mechanism. TX (and probably TL & TLb) were the same size as the FTs and Pellix QLs.<br>

Base-plates between the FX and Pellix were interchangeable (I think), but not the FP which had a different release. Or maybe it is the FX and FP that are interchangeable making the non-QL Pellix very one off, in body particulars.<br>

Base-plates for the Pellix QL, all FTs and TLs would interchange with each other but not with the later FD mount cameras because the back release moved to the top. </p>

 

<p>Good point James. Non-QL Pellixes are hard enough to come by in chrome, let alone black. There is no doubt that the top plate is indeed an authentic Black Pellix Top Plate, but was it a swap from a QL black body??? Or did the first year (non-QL) Pellix bodies indeed use chrome knobs and levers on the top.....<br>

I'm thinking here. I cannot verify at present because all my non-QL Pellix bodies are back home, but I will verify when i get home that there was a small (about 2 - 3mm) size difference between the Pellix and Pellix QL (and FT which had an identical body size). It that's true than that top plate is indeed an authentic non-QL Pellix top plate and there would be less suspicion regarding it. <br>

Just because an Austrian auction house has a camera body does not make it authentic. A respected US camera company recently had a fake Montreal F-1 for sale, and they didn't know. <br>

Canon might indeed have done that with the chrome knobs on the original Pellix, but my black (QL) Pellix is like the one pictured - ALL black, as is my FT. I guess we'll just have to keep looking...</p>

<p>Nice Pellix there, James !<br>

Now put an FL 55mm F1.2 on it! ;-)<br>

At the very least, all the top items were off a chrome Pellix. On the other hand, it looks like brass around the edges along the front. I can't tell with that resolution pic. Can someone post the item #. I can try to look it up under complete items, but the item # makes it easier.<br>

And yeah I'm still eating dust every day. I can get mail, got a nice black FTBn around Christmas. I'm going to put in a different search criteria to try and find these when they come around. Like you James, I'm looking for a black non-QL model. There was one in the spring of 2012 (or 2011) - it went pretty high if I recall, then there's the QL that was pristine except for the mirror, that I picked up (I have a donor for the mirror!).<br>

But those non-QLs; only 1 year and very hard to come by.</p>

<p>There is a little info out there, but not much.<br>

Mark S. the date imprinting was not a Canon original item. It was added by Epsilon, probably the primary or only reason for the modification to the back. Even Canon's data back could not record real time date / time info back then. <br>

As to what they needed it for - your guess is as good as mine. </p>

<p>T.Z.<br>

UD / LD / ED glass is only for long and fast teles, Aspherical elements are only needed for very fast lenses. These lenses (24/2, 24/2.8) didn't <strong>need</strong> these features. You want an Aspherical element 24mm? Get the 24mm F 1.4, new or old FD mount. Additionally, many EF mounts used the same optical formula ad their FD predecessors. </p>

<p>It was on ebay UK - so I missed it. -Damn!!!</p>

<p>I think I saw that 24-25mm on ebay. I don't think it has the correct caps. I already have the 20-35 L lens, so I wouldn't miss it.<br>

<br />The optical performance should be very similar between the two lenses.<br>

<br />As for 80-20 F 4 L lenses, I've not seen one for less than $360 including KEH.</p>

<p>Raid, the Canon FD 20mm F2.8 is a superior lens. But of course since you already have that 21mm, you probably won't want to spend the additional $$$ to get the Canon lens.</p>

<p>I'm looking for a real Canon Lens Mount converter N - in the box, not to use though...</p>

<p>The new F-1 remains my favorite camera of all time.</p>

<p>I never missed the AE lock, most of my shooting is in match needle mode, or TV mode .To me the biggest faults were no MLU and no TTL Flash, although I must state that I never had exposure problems with A, T or G series flashes and the new F-1. As for MLU, if I really need it, I have old F-1s and FTBs and EFs (and a smattering of FTs) to use.<br /> As to the finish, yes it's different but I think it's ok.<br /> Operationally, If i ever did have a camera battery die in use, then changing it with the motor drive or winder would have been a PITA, but I was never concerned about fogging the film, anyone ever hear of a jacket or towel to shield the camera when doing so? Use some common sense here folks. And check your battery when you start off.</p>

<p>And I don't think it lost any sales to the anemic nikon F3, with its <strong>one</strong> speed no battery backup shutter. Rather, I believe the F3 was the beginning of nikon's demise vs-a-vis Canon. Look at the two companies now.</p>

<p>OK, thanks. My nFD 300mm F2.8 L does have a UV 1X in it, so I guess I'm good.</p>

<p>Before this gets deleted:</p>

<p>Why does on <strong>need</strong> the filter, even if it's just a UV 1x in place at all times???</p>

<p>Wayne, not quite so simple.<br>

While nikon never changed the basic backwards rotating bayonet mount itself, there have been numerous changes to everything else around it. <br>

To mount a nikon lens on a Canon manual focus / Breech lock mount you need the Canon Lens Mount Converter N or equivalent. Good luck finding one. A real Canon converter will allow infinity focus because the Canon BL lens flange to film plane distance of 42mm was just about the smallest of any SLR of the time period. It was also the largest making those gread FD high speed lenses possible. <br>

To mount on an EOS I have no idea. The The EOS body has a longer flange to film plane distance than the Canon BL mount, so an adapter may or may not allow infinity focus. Metering on EOS bodies with a non EF lens is also something outside the scope of my knowledge or an FD forum. It would depend on the adapter's quality and features, which for a nikon lens is something i have no interest in deciphering. <br>

In both cases, certain lenses, especially those made for partial frame sensors with longer than normal protrusions out the back will physically not fit; they'll hit the moving mirror. </p>

 

<p>Exactly what filters are they and are they Canon or someone else's? I would be interested in a <strong>Circular</strong> polarizer, but probably not a whole lot more.</p>

<p>Robin, Yes, all Canon BL lenses R, FL, FD, New FD and AC all have the same flange to film plane distance. While the R linkages were incompatible they worked in opposite directions so the lens linkages usually did not get in way of the body.<br /> The incompatibility issue arises from physical interference of some of the R mount lenses where they will just not fit some of the newer bodies. The most notorious is the R 58mm F 1.2. It will not fit on most (or all A-series) or T-series because the inner barrel has a lower protrusion which hits the insides of the A-series bodies. The New F-1 does not like the R 58mm F 1.2 either. The FL 58mm F 1.2 has a similar rear inner barrel, and might be similarly incompatible with newer FD bodies.<br /> The F-1, EF, and FTb can take ALL R mount lenses, but these were larger bodies, and they had the clearance. Most of the Camera manuals stated which lenses were incompatible, it was only a few.<br /> Now going in the other direction brings up a whole different set of issues. While every FD or new FD lens will surely fit on an R (CanonFlex) body, you can't stop most new FD lenses down (unless you have a tiny manual diaphragm adapter which very few of us have) and these FD lenses have more levers that can get caught up un the CanonFlex body.</p>

<p>Ivan; the lens meter index prong. Yup, that's why we're all <strong>Canon</strong> users here. </p>

<p>Well stated, Robin. Don't forget the R (Canomatic or SuperCanomatic) lenses. While the auto aperture mechanism (when it worked) was completely incompatible, they all had manual aperture rings and with only a few exceptions can be used on most or all FL / FD bodies. The R 100mm F2, in particular was an outstanding performer.</p>

<p>Where Canon ever dreamed up that Canomatic term escapes me... I just call them R lenses.</p>

<p>Jim, agreed. A very small amount of brassing on the high points / sharp edges is fine with me, but a used and abused example is not to my liking. Nice examples are getting harder to find. I'd like a black FT with serial # on top, but cannot seem to find one, and a black Pellix non-QL (need to not hold my breath waiting got one of those to show)</p>