blockend
Member
I never understood the equation. Forensically exhausting detail has never been synonymous with creative photography. Aerial surveillance, possibly and medical imaging certainly but the creation of a visceral impression on a viewer, not so much, especially in 35mm. The FDn 50mm 1.4 is pretty sharp except wide open - which is only to be expected - but can suffer from focus shift between f2.8 and f4. I'm not the only person to observe this phenomenon. For these reasons I tend to use it for video, where wide open softness is appreciated, or on a mirrorless camera where shift can be observed through the viewfinder and remedied.I used the FDn 50mm F1.4 for more than 20 years and it was a better lens than I'm a photographer.
Many of the world's finest photographs were taken on lenses that were objectively bad by contemporary standards. What they had going for them was a great eye through the viewfinder (which was often worse than the lens optics!). The Canon 50mm is the only f1.4 SLR lens I can recall that was sold, or perhaps promoted, as a standard kit lens from the shop. I've never known so many cameras fitted with this wide aperture 50 as A-Series Canons.
I rather like the rendering of the 1.8, though I've heard conflicting evidence as to whether it was multi-coated. If it was single coated, it's a quality shared with another of my favourite lenses, the Yashica DSB range. I own ML and DSB glass and the latter has a classic quality not unlike early pre-AI Nikkors, or indeed old Leica lenses. The problem with CY lenses is finding a reliable body to fit them on. For feel and appearance, breech mount FD lenses are up with the best, though the later plastic versions may have the edge optically.