Cannon FX

[archer]

I was just given a Cannon FX and I know nothing about Cannon cameras. This camera is as new and I doubt it has ever had a roll of film through it but it had an old px13 battery that was showing signs of deteriorating so I removed it. I have run through all the shutter speeds with the mirror lock-up and without and everything is working perfectly. The lens is 58mm f1.2 and it had an attached skylight filter on it so the lens looks like new. Is there any thing anyone can tell me about this camera, such as age, quality and reliability? Thanks for the help.
Denise Libby

 

[holmburgers]

Did you by any chance get this on Kansas City craigslist??

The 58mm 1.2 lens is incredible and worth several hundred dollars. I don't know much else, but check out Canon's Camera Museum... http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1956-1965/1964_fx.html?lang=us&categ=srs&page=f

 

[Mackinaw]

The FX was the first of the "F" body Canon SLR cameras. These are the cameras that followed the original Canonflex. The basic FX "chassis" spawned the FP, Pellix, FT, TL and eventually the FTb TLb, TX and others. The FX was the first camera that took the Canon FL lens line. FD lenses will also fit on the FX and any other "F" bodied Canon SLRs'.

I'v got two Canon FX cameras. All metal, mostly hand-built, and very rugged with no design problems that I know of. An excellent camera that, like most of the cameras built in the 1960's, are built like a fine scientific instruments. Your 58/1.2 is a OK lens but no better. Terribly soft wide-open, it will sharpen up by F2.8 or so. The FL lens line was fairly complete and optically very good. Some of the lenses, like the FL-F series (using Fluorite elements) are outstanding even today.

Your camera may need a CLA, but other than that, will be a good solid picture taker. Enjoy.

Jim B.

 

[Adrian Twiss]

I got one for my 21st Birthday and am now 53. Mine was about 15 years old when I got it so you are looking at least 47 years old.

 

[archer]

I was given the camera by a dear friend, whose first husband bought it in the early sixties and she knows that he never put a roll of film through it because he died three days after he got it and she just put it in a drawer in the desk in his study and there it stayed until she gave it to me recently. Thank you for your help.
Denise Libby

 

[holmburgers]

Enjoy it! The reason I asked about Craigslist is because someone was selling the exact same setup locally but never responded to my emails. They appeared to not know the value of the lens.

 

[archer]

For the life of me I can't understand how I can have been spelling the name Canon wrong, as I have the camera and case staring me in the face when I first posted here. It must be the arrogance of age. I guess I'll just have to blame my carelessness on the Norco I'm forced to endure for the ruptured disks in my back. It's the first time in my life I've ever been wrong and if you will believe that, I have a very nice, slightly used bridge for sale. cheap!
Denise Libby

 

[Mackinaw]

.......The 58mm 1.2 lens is incredible and worth several hundred dollars......

The FL 58/1.2 s actually a pretty bad lens (wide-open) and really isn't worth that much. It was replaced by the FL 55/1.2 which is much better (but still, money-wise, is not worth that much). BTW, I own both.

The only Canon normal lenses that bring top dollar are the FD 55/1.2 aspherical and the FD 50/1.2L. Those are in great demand, even today.

Jim B.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Just a thought, if you buy some FD lenses, you might have to take the aperture ring and move off 'A' and leave it on aperture numbers. Otherwise it may not mount. BTW Canon has 2 n's not three.

Jeff

 

[holmburgers]

The FL 58/1.2 s actually a pretty bad lens (wide-open) and really isn't worth that much. It was replaced by the FL 55/1.2 which is much better (but still, money-wise, is not worth that much). BTW, I own both.

The only Canon normal lenses that bring top dollar are the FD 55/1.2 aspherical and the FD 50/1.2L. Those are in great demand, even today.

Jim B.

Well, perhaps your are right. It's "incredible" in terms of it's extremely shallow DOF and unique look. I think it can fetch a couple hundred at least. The 55 1.2 is very good, I can attest to that.