Canon 50/1.8 FL vs FD comparison

WilmarcoImaging

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2017
Messages
639
Format
Multi Format
Hello,

Looking for experience comparing the two 50/1.8 lenses, in FL and FD mounts. I have both and have never compared them. Will bring one on an upcoming trip and want to bring the sharper of the two. I am not the world's best manual focuser so any help I can get from the lens is appreciated! Thanks.
 

Les Sarile

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
3,425
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Format
35mm
If you obtained the lenses used - previous condition unknown, then only you will be able to tell which one will be better.

From my own experience testing my used primes bought cheap but in good condition, the lenses are so sharp and high resolving that it would take scientific lab testing to see their limits. In real world use, shooting conditions, technique, film, scene and method of extracting the image from the film will be the weak links in producing sharp images.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,106
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Which of the component parts of perceived sharpness matter to you the most?
Macro-contrast, micro-contrast, edge contrast (acutance) or resolution?
Most people tend to respond more to acutance and macro-contrast, even if micro-contrast and resolution are more relevant to the faithful rendering of small detail.
If you have problems focusing, a lens with lower "sharpness" will probably give you more pleasing results.
 
OP
OP

WilmarcoImaging

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2017
Messages
639
Format
Multi Format
Thanks for the input. I was wondering if anyone would have said that one or the other of the models was far better than the other. I have owned both for many years, but haven't used either very extensively, so I don't have a mental database built up on how they perform. I'll probably bring the FD on an AE-1 Program and load it with Portra 800.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,106
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
IIRC, the FL lens only works with stop-down metering.
Unless the FD 50mm f/1.8 was damaged, open aperture metering would decide it for me.
FWIW, my extremely dated recollection is that all the 50mm f/1.8 FD lenses were quality performers - I sold a bushel of them when I worked in retail.
I can happily say that I am not old enough to have ever sold FL lenses at retail.
 

blockend

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,049
Location
northern eng
Format
35mm
In the 1970s Canon, or their salespeople, managed to sell more FD 50mm 1.4 lenses as standard than any other brand I know. Whether this was because the price difference between 1.8 and 1.4 lenses was smaller than other makes, or the reputation of the FD 1.4 in the magazines swayed people, I don't know. Whatever, Canon's 50mm 1.4 became its new standard lens.
 

BrianVS

Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
278
Location
USA
Format
Digital
The 50/1.4 at F2 is comparable to the 50/1.8 at F2.8.

canon by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

The Canon 50/1.4 FD and 50/1.4 V2 FL have the same optical formula. The latter lens: I converted to RF coupled Leica M Mount, the Manual mode for aperture and design of the back of the lens made it much easier than the FD version, which I also have.
 

CMoore

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 23, 2015
Messages
6,221
Location
USA CA
Format
35mm
dances_w_clouds said:
Most of my Canon arsenal is the FL lenses. Made quite a bit of improvement in performance when I had 2 of them CLA'd (55 f1.2 & 135 f2.5) After 50 yrs a tuneup never hurts.
Click to expand...
Wow.....Really.?
Good for you i say...you are a better man than me.
Stop-Down Metering is something that i just missed out on.
I DO have a few FL lens, but i was performing the procedure backwards.
I had to ask on APUG how to do it exactly.
One of your Canadian brethren guided me through the rather simple process.
 

Dennis S

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
1,763
Location
Vancouver B.C.
Format
Multi Format
Me being my clumsy self the durability of the FL lenses really adds to the value. ;o)
 

benjiboy

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
11,971
Location
U.K.
Format
35mm
I believe the FL 50mm f1.8 and the FD 50mm f1.8 Canon lenses are optically identical, the only difference is in their auto diaphragm mechanism.
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
FL lenses already had the automatic diaphragm.
The new features the FD lenses got where their aperture simulator, max. aperture pin and auto/manual indicator.
 

dynachrome

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
1,760
Format
35mm
I'm sure I saw this chart when it was first printed. The 50/1.8 is labeled an SSC. I have many 50/1.8 Canon FL and FD lenses and do not remember ever seeing one marked SSC. The breech lock lenses after the initial run of silver front models were all marked SC. My favorite of the 50/1.8 Canon lenses is the early black front model with the aperture lock lever at the rear. Later versions removed the lever and the final breech lock version was lightened and did not feel as well built. If you are in difficult light the better coating of an FD SC will be helpful. In other situations the FL lens would be about as good. Starting about 1979 Canon was switching over to the New FD mount and the SC and SSC designations were no longer used. All of the New FD lenses were supposed to have coating at least as good as SSC. In the case of the 50/1.8s, the models up to the first black front SC version had six aperture blades. This was changed to five blades in the 1976 version and that number carried over to the New FD version in 1979. Both versions of the 50/1.8 FL had six blades.
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
There are two versions of the 1.8. The younger version is said to be optically inproved. This has to be taken into consideration.

And a bit off-topic:
All 1.8 lenses, FL and FD, have a minimum focusing distance of 0.6m.
That is common, but there also are 1.8 lenses with 0.33m.
 

dynachrome

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
1,760
Format
35mm
I am familiar with some of the lenses in this speed range and which have closer focusing. The 50/1.7 Auto Alpa in M42 mount, made by Chinon, focuses to .37 meters. I have two of these. They aren't really purpose built macro lenses but the closer focusing can sometimes come in handy. The 50/2.8 Industar 61LZ, also in M42 mount, gets as close as .33 meters. I have one of these. The M42 mount 55/1.7 Chinon MCM lens gets down to .28 meters. I don't have one of these yet. When you say "There are two versions of the 1.8" I don't know if you mean the FL models or the later FD ones. If there is a difference in sharpness between the two 50/1.8 FL lenses I haven't found it. I have a first version 50/1.8 50/1.8 FD with the silver front. Its very sharp but not as well coated as the later SC lenses. I also do not find the New FD 50/1.8 any better than the SC models.
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
There are two versions of the FL version. It seems only the latter one has an additional manual setting for the diaphragm (see at the Canon Museum).
At the Mir site a difference in optical design between these two is stated.
 

dynachrome

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
1,760
Format
35mm
The early FL lenses had their manual aperture rings at the front just behind the aperture ring. When the white dot on the ring is at top dead center then the lens is set at Auto. When the ring is rotated the dot moves and the lens will close down if it is not set at its maximum aperture. As Canon revised the lenses, the manual aperture ring was moved to the back near the lens mount and a small vertical lever was attached. The lever was moved to manually set either Auto or Manual. I think that with the earlier system of having the ring up front and next to the aperture ring, the Manual setting would sometimes slip out of place bad back to where the white dot was again at top dead center. I have read the information from mir about the two 50/1.8 FL lenses. Mir doesn't provide a block diagram for the newer lens and neither does the Canon Camera Museum. I might have it somewhere in a late FL lens guide. From my own use of the two 50/1.8 FL lenses I haven't seen a difference. All of these 50/1.8 lenses are very inexpensive now. I am partial to the first SC version. Not counting duplicates and if I can remember all of them I have at least one of each of the following FL lenses: 28/3.5, 35/3.5, 35/2.5, 50/3.5, 50/1.8 I, 50/1.8 II, 50/1.4 I, 50/1.4 II, 55/1.2 2nd version, 85/1.8, 100/3.5, 100/4 FLM, 135/3.5, 135/2.5, 200/4.5, 200/3.5. A 19 and a 300 would round things out.
 

benjiboy

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
11,971
Location
U.K.
Format
35mm
None of the Canon 50mm f1.8 lenses was ever Super Spectra Coated, they were Spectra Coated (single coated) only the 1.4 and 1.2 50mm standard lenses had the S.S.C. multi-coating. The whole range of New FD lenses were S.S.C. coated with the exception of the 50mm f2 and the 50mm f1.8.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/index.htm
 
Last edited:

BrianVS

Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
278
Location
USA
Format
Digital
Transmittance of the Canon 50/1.8 shown in the chart is consistent with a single-coated 1-2-2-1 double-Gauss type lens. "SSC" is probably a typo. My early chrome-nose FD mount 50/1.4 is not marked SC or SSC. The Black-Nosed lens is an SSC. Beautiful coatings- that and the Nikkor-SC 50/1.4 both have beautiful coatings.
 

CMoore

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 23, 2015
Messages
6,221
Location
USA CA
Format
35mm
Pentax, Canon, Minolta, Nikon, etc etc.....
Did they really make a shitty lens.?
Did any of them...Circa Film...ever make a Prime Lens that was lousy for some reason.?
 
OP
OP

WilmarcoImaging

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2017
Messages
639
Format
Multi Format
Thanks again for all comments.

From the feedback here and the Canon museum, I have an early FL and a "New" FD. Neither are SC or SSC.

For my upcoming trip I will take the New FD 50/1.8 attached to an AE1-P to see how it compares with recent images I made this summer with the FL 50/1.8 on an FX body. Using Portra 800.
 
Last edited:

dynachrome

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
1,760
Format
35mm
I have read before that the 50/1.8 New FD is not SSC coated. I don't know if that is correct. Both the Mir and Canon Camera Museum websites contain errors. When testing lenses with color print film, Ektar 100 and a tripod will tell you a lot more than Portra 800 hand held. From what I have read, it was Canon's contention that some lenses did not need SSC coating. The 28/2.8 FD SC, 50/1.8 FD SC and 135/2.5 FD SC are all excellent.. I find them at least as good as the lenses which replaced them. The 135/2.5 was not carried over to a New FD version. The New FD 135s were the f/3.5, the f/2.8 and the f/2. I have the others but not the 135/2.
 

Fixcinater

Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2008
Messages
2,500
Location
San Diego, CA
Format
Medium Format

I would take the nFD version myself, too.

I do have to say that using a film like Portra 800, as beautiful as it may be, will not give you the most information about differences in lens quality. Having the two lenses used on the same body, with a good tripod and slower/less grainy film and standardized prints or scans for viewing results (slide film would be great if you have a loupe and light box) would tell you more than two different bodies with different developing with different scans/prints by another shop, shot some time apart.

If I want to compare lenses, I'll either use the lens on a non-analog camera body or slow speed black and white film that I can develop in the same tank for exactly the same procedure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…