Best FD lenes for a Canon AE-1

[Kyle M.]

On my Canon AE-1 Program I use mainly my 50mm f1.4, the only other canon brand fd lense I own is a 100-300 f5.6. As far as off brand lenses I have a Phoenix/Samyang 18-28 f4.0-4.5 and a Rokinon 35-200 f3.8-5.3 with 1:3 macro. I only bought the 100-300 because it was $10 at a garage sale and practically new in the box, I inherited the Rokinon and Samyang from my grandmother. Personally I'm impressed with all three zooms even though two of them are fairly cheap knock off's and none of them are very fast, the 18-28 is surprisingly sharp for a lens that goes for all of about $20 nowadays, and the 35-200 ain't bad either. I can't say either way on the 100-300 as I've yet to even use it.

 

[cl3mens]

Well, I've got a couple, all FDn. The 24/2 is supposed to be the sharpest among the 24's, the 35/2 is great for everyday use, my 50/1.8 is cheap and light, the 85/1.2L is amazing (but heavy), the 85/1.8 is also lovely. Got the 100/4 macro and 200/2.8 as well but don't use them much. The FDn 35-105/3.5 is great, the only letdown is the minimum focusing distance of 1.5 m (macro mode lets you get closer, but only at 35 mm). FD gear is cheap considering what you get. I'd love a 80-200L zoom but we'll see when I stumble across one.

Since you got a 24 and 50 now, I'd suggest you look at the 85/1.8. I've heard good things about the 100 and 135 lenses too.

 

[rolleiman]

I used manual Canon F1's years ago, there was a feeling at the time that the breechlock FD lenses were better made and more solid than the then recently introduced FD lenses without the outer breechlock ring, which seemed a bit "plasticky" by comparison at the time.
Also if you're interests are landscape and architecture, then there's little point in spending extra moeny on fast lenses. Put it towards a solid tripod instead.

 

[benjiboy]

The two FD lenses to avoid received wisdom says are the 100-200 zoom and the 100-300 zoom, although I admit I have never owned either of them.

 

[benjiboy]

I used manual Canon F1's years ago, there was a feeling at the time that the breechlock FD lenses were better made and more solid than the then recently introduced FD lenses without the outer breechlock ring, which seemed a bit "plasticky" by comparison at the time.
Also if you're interests are landscape and architecture, then there's little point in spending extra moeny on fast lenses. Put it towards a solid tripod instead.

Canon switched to polymer lens barrels, for the new FD range because they thought it was a better material and to save on weight, because a bag full of breech lock metal lenses weigh nearly twice as much as the polymer ones, and I've been using several of the new type for about thirty years and never had the slightest problem with any of them.

 

[Tony-S]

I used manual Canon F1's years ago, there was a feeling at the time that the breechlock FD lenses were better made and more solid than the then recently introduced FD lenses without the outer breechlock ring, which seemed a bit "plasticky" by comparison at the time.

I've never had a problem with one of the New FD polymer lenses, but I have had issues with two breech-lock metal FD lenses. It could be age, but I don't see how anyone can say the New FD lenses are of poorer quality or durability compared to the previous metal FD lenses.

 

[AgX]

With those lenses which are alike optically, and only differ in their barrel, I would prefer the new true type bayonet over the breech-lock bayonet version, as the former is a bit easier to handle during changing of the lenses. The difference is small though.

 

[benjiboy]

The "best" FD lenses in absolute quality terms are the L range of professional lenses, http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/, but not everyone is willing to pay the prices or can afford them.

 

[Charles Wass]

All Canon manual focus lenses FL and FD, both old and new, are breech lock type. Canon did not make a normal bayonet type. The register surfaces do not move against each other when the lens is mounted as they do with a normal bayonet; that is the whole point of the breech lock. In the case of the later FD type the whole of the barrel rotates to lock rather than a chrome ring.

 

[Yeeski]

All Canon FD lenses are breech lock lenses and are fully functional with no modifications on any generation FD mount body. The only exception I can think of is that the AE Finder FN on the New F1 cannot display the selected aperture when an older breech ring lens is mounted. New FD lenses are not "bayonet" mount lenses. The separate breech ring was simply replaced, or integrated with, the lens barrel. Unlike traditional bayonet mount lenses, the mating surfaces of an FD lens and camera, as well as the aperture levers and signal pins, remain stationary while the lens is mounted.

The "plasticky" barrels on the New FD lenses are, in reality, a composite material that is 70% glass fibers by weight suspended in polycarbonate. In other words, it's essentially fiberglass. Its rates of thermal expansion and contraction are closer to that of optical glass than that of the metals it replaced, and can be machined to very tight tolerences. I understand that the term "plasticky" is usually used to describe tactile impressions and personal preferences. However, I feel the term can be misleading to the uninformed.

 

[benjiboy]

All Canon FD lenses are breech lock lenses and are fully functional with no modifications on any generation FD mount body. The only exception I can think of is that the AE Finder FN on the New F1 cannot display the selected aperture when an older breech ring lens is mounted. New FD lenses are not "bayonet" mount lenses. The separate breech ring was simply replaced, or integrated with, the lens barrel. Unlike traditional bayonet mount lenses, the mating surfaces of an FD lens and camera, as well as the aperture levers and signal pins, remain stationary while the lens is mounted.

The "plasticky" barrels on the New FD lenses are, in reality, a composite material that is 70% glass fibers by weight suspended in polycarbonate. In other words, it's essentially fiberglass. Its rates of thermal expansion and contraction are closer to that of optical glass than that of the metals it replaced, and can be machined to very tight tolerences. I understand that the term "plasticky" is usually used to describe tactile impressions and personal preferences. However, I feel the term can be misleading to the uninformed.

No that's incorrect, with both the AE Finder FN and the Eye Level Finder FN with the old type bayonette mount lenses the shutter speed in use not the aperture is not displayed in the viewfinder.

 

[Yeeski]

The dispaying of the shutter speed in the viewfinder of the New F1 is built into the camera's viewfinder and does not depend on the type of lens mounted. The AE Finder FN has a window that sits over the aperture ring of a New FD lens, allowing it to display the selected aperture in the AE Finder FN, but only if it's in the aperture priority AE mode (i.e., the shutter speed dial is set on the red "A"). By eliminating the separate breech ring, Canon was able to move the aperture ring closer to the lens mount and standardized its location on all New FD lenses for this purpose. The aperture rings on the older breech ring lenses are further away from the mount and cannot be read by the AE Finder FN.

 

[Fixcinater]

I'm very happy with the 50/1.4 on my A1, and the 24/2 seems to be quite excellent. No real experience outside of those, however.

 

[gone]

This is just my 2 cents (and worth just that), but if you are going to shoot landscapes, use a medium format camera, even if it's an old, inexpensive folder. 6x9 negs are nearly LF, and the tonality difference between 120 film and 35mm is huge. Even a nice 6x4.5 neg can offer great shots.

I don't shoot wide glass, but the Canon FD 135 2.5, and the R 100 2.0 (I think this one is available in FD mount) were some of the finest lenses I've ever used, even by Leica standards. The FD or FL 85 1.8, which are different lenses optically, are great for portraits. You can use your old Nikon primes on the Canon camera too w/ an inexpensive, glassless adapter in stop down mode, but on the AE-1 you'd have to manually set the speeds and hand meter. My dream is for a Nikon camera that can shoot FD glass, as I like their cameras better. Due to a lot of reasons though, that isn't going to happen.

 

[benjiboy]

The dispaying of the shutter speed in the viewfinder of the New F1 is built into the camera's viewfinder and does not depend on the type of lens mounted. The AE Finder FN has a window that sits over the aperture ring of a New FD lens, allowing it to display the selected aperture in the AE Finder FN, but only if it's in the aperture priority AE mode (i.e., the shutter speed dial is set on the red "A"). By eliminating the separate breech ring, Canon was able to move the aperture ring closer to the lens mount and standardized its location on all New FD lenses for this purpose. The aperture rings on the older breech ring lenses are further away from the mount and cannot be read by the AE Finder FN.

I thought you meant in the AE mode and the shutter speed on A.

 

[blockend]

When full frame mrrorless d*g*t*l cameras become more popular, expect all FD lens prices to rocket.

 

[AgX]

All Canon manual focus lenses FL and FD, both old and new, are breech lock type. Canon did not make a normal bayonet type. The register surfaces do not move against each other when the lens is mounted as they do with a normal bayonet; that is the whole point of the breech lock. In the case of the later FD type the whole of the barrel rotates to lock rather than a chrome ring.

I guess this is a bit tricky:

Concerning the mechanics of the coupling itself you are right. All FD couplings are not a bayonet mount in the way other bayonet mounts work (with friction between the distance-critical parts at body and lens).

From the user's point of view though the new FD lenses have true bayonet mounts (concerning handling).