Canon 50mm Fd Breech mount 1.8/1.4/1.2 sharp/sharper/$harpist

[harlequin]

Hello Team,

Hope all is well!
Traded some older equipment for a 1st gen clean Canon F1...without lens

Question, I have seen this camera with a normal 50mm lens....other than aperture and weight of glass,
Which lens give the most bang for the buck.

Is SSC coating preferred and the 1.2 is pricey, but would it be the sharpest sine it has many elements?

Anybody here use the 1.2 SSC lens, what is your opinion on it and how it compares to the 50 1.4 optic..
The 1.8 looks ok but is just listed as sc ?

Sc lenses go for 35$
SSC 1.4 for between 65-105$
1.2 SSC for over $200+


Many thanks for your feedback!

Be Safe!

Harlequin

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I know I've posted comparison shots on this question in the past when I owned about 3 or 4 different 50mm FD lenses and there were other posts in the thread covering lenses I didn't have. Try the search engine and see if you can turn it up.

As I recall the 1.2L was the sharpest overall (in part because it's easier to focus a brighter lens), but interestingly the 1.8 FDn was the sharpest in reverse position as a macro lens.

 

[ronwhit]

I've owned 3 Fd 1.8s and 2 Fd 1.4s (never a 1.2) and, although I never did any critical testing, could see no discernible differences in photos taken with any of them. Given the age of any that you will find, I would be far more critical of condition than f stop. Lenses this old will have seen a lot of cleanings and aperture changes, so I'd be looking at the glass and mechanicals first. For what it's worth, I'd often put a 1.8 in my travel kit as it was smaller and lighter, and frankly, the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 was minor. YMMV.
ronwhit

 

[benjiboy]

Of the SSC lenses you mention I have found in my experience if they are all in mint condition, the aperture for aperture performance of the 50mm f1.4 is marginally the best and it's overall the best value for money, but they are all very good lenses better than most people are photographers.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The 1.2L had the best build quality, no question. Solid metal construction.

 

[ic-racer]

I know for a fact the 1.2 is sharper at F1.2 than the others...

 

[benjiboy]

The 1.2L had the best build quality, no question. Solid metal construction.

That's true David but it cost about five times as much as the 1.4, you have to ask yourself a lot of very hard questions before you buy the 1.2 L version.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

That's true David but it cost about five times as much as the 1.4, you have to ask yourself a lot of very hard questions before you buy the 1.2 L version.

There was a period when the price differential wasn’t so much, or maybe it was that FD lenses were all so cheap, it didn’t matter. I think the ability to mount FD lenses on new mirrorless digital camera bodies has driven up the price, especially for the top-of-the line glass. I sold too early.

 

[benjiboy]

One consideration that nobody has mentioned is that no Canon FD 50mm f1.8 ever manufactured was ever multi-coated they are all single spectra coated only the 1.4 and 1.2 versions of lenses are super spectra multi-coated.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

One consideration that nobody has mentioned is that no Canon FD 50mm f1.8 ever manufactured was ever multi-coated they are all single spectra coated only the 1.4 and 1.2 versions of lenses are super spectra multi-coated.

This is true, that the 1.8 was a budget lens. I mention that in one of the previous threads, but not this one, but on the other hand, the 1.8 has fewer air-glass surfaces, so it can have similar contrast to the faster lenses without being multicoated.

 

[RLangham]

I know for a fact the 1.2 is sharper at F1.2 than the others...

Amazing! How does he do it, ladies and gentlemen?

 

[jjphoto]

I don't have any of those lenses although I do have the FD 1.2/55 SSC Aspherical which is a different design to non aspherical version. Even with the Aspherical element this lens has some sharpness issues at the edge of the frame even stopped down a bit so I doubt that the non Aspherical version would be as good as the simpler f1.4 50mm lens. I suspect the f1.4 would be the best overall performer of the lenses mentioned by the op.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

I just saw this and although the focus (pun) is on using Canon FD lenses for video he does a very nice visual comparison of nearly all the 50's, especially with the 50 1.2 vs 1.2L. A bit long but nicely done and very comprehensive.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

That video just confirmed my continued GAS for a Canon FD 50 1.2.

 

[flavio81]

Depends on what you're looking for.

For maximum speed and performance, probably the FDn 50/1.2L or the 55/1.2 AL would be best.

Sharpest wide open might be the FD 50/1.4 SSC

Best bokeh, maybe the FL 55/1.2 and the FD 55/1.2. This one is actually decent at f1.2 too.

Best balance of sharpness, speed and compactness the FDn 50/1.4.

At f5.6 they will all be very sharp and the FD 50/1.8 (all versions) will be indeed very sharp too.

Best build quality is probably on the FD 50/1.4 first version (1971-72).

 

[dynachrome]

My favorite Canon FD standard lens is probably the 50/1.8 with the black front and the aperture lock at the rear. Even the early chrome front 50/1.8 FD is excellent. I wouldn't call these budget lenses. They are simply slower lenses and are sturdy. No one refers to 50mm f/2 Summicrons as budget lenses. The same is true of the 50/2 Nikkors from the H to the AI. All are well made and sharp.

 

[flavio81]

My favorite Canon FD standard lens is probably the 50/1.8 with the black front and the aperture lock at the rear. Even the early chrome front 50/1.8 FD is excellent. I wouldn't call these budget lenses. They are simply slower lenses and are sturdy. No one refers to 50mm f/2 Summicrons as budget lenses. The same is true of the 50/2 Nikkors from the H to the AI. All are well made and sharp.

How about wide open performance? I have the same 50/1.8 you mention, which is the 1st generation of the ones carrying the "S.C." tag. I call it "long-nose". I haven't tried it with film yet, but I suspect it has soft contrast and quite poor performance at the edges wide open, compared to the 50/1.4 SSC.

On the other hand i wouldn't be surprised to find it really good at 5.6 or f8.

 

[benjiboy]

How about wide open performance? I have the same 50/1.8 you mention, which is the 1st generation of the ones carrying the "S.C." tag. I call it "long-nose". I haven't tried it with film yet, but I suspect it has soft contrast and quite poor performance at the edges wide open, compared to the 50/1.4 SSC.

On the other hand i wouldn't be surprised to find it really good at 5.6 or f8.

I'm sure the Canon FDn 50mm f1.8is a good lens Flavio I have owned several over the years, but I know for a fact that for someone starting out using Canon FD gear the 50mm f1.4 FDn version, providing it's in good condition is the best value for money as far as resolution is concerned and they are all multi-coated. I used the FDn 50mm F1.4 for more than 20 years and it was a better lens than I'm a photographer.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

One thing I found when I was testing these lenses was that the 50/1.8 was a sharper, contrastier macro lens in reversed position than the 1.4 or 1.2L (all FDn).

 

[Tony-S]

The 1.8’s don’t focus as closely and their out of focus areas aren’t that great.

 

[benjiboy]

I consider the best bang for your buck is the Canon FDn 50mm f 1.4 lens it's light, fast, sharp and multi-coated, with the proviso that like any 30 plus-year-old lens you must check the condition.

 

[flavio81]

The 1.8’s don’t focus as closely and their out of focus areas aren’t that great.

There are three different FD 50/1.8 lenses -optically speaking- and their out of focus areas are different too.

1. FD 50/1.8 first version ("chrome nose") and FD 50/1.8 S.C. with the "long nose" (deep recessed front element)

2. FD 50/1.8 S.C. with short nose (mechanically smaller, and much lighter than the previous one, close to the dimensions of the FD new 50/1.8)

3. New FD 50/1.8 (the smallest and lightest)

Version #2 is notorious for nervous out of focus areas.

A good sample of version #3 is a rather decent lens. Marco Cavina tested it against a Summicron F2 with very good, perfectly comparable results at f4 and f5.6. Even f2.8 looks really good. And for practical purposes similar to the Canon FD 50/1.2L if it's going to be used in daylight, infinity, and stopped down.

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Canon_FD_lenses_and_Leica_M/00_pag.htm

Note that version #3 (and maybe version #2), on humid climates like my city tends to suffer from fungus eating away the coatings which leaves the coating surface rather 'opaline', thus you get a lens with decreased contrast and thus poor relative performance. Shining a flashlight through the lens will reveal those flaws, if present.

Comment form Marco:

Un plauso dunque all'FD 50mm f/1,8, il più classico, diffuso ed economico degli obiettivi FD e tuttora in grado di fornire risultati di alto livello, perfettamente attuali, grazie anche al suo vecchio ma intramontabile schema "Planar" simmetrico, una soluzione che con queste aperture garantisce risultati eccellenti.

translated:

"An applause therefore to the FD 50mm f / 1.8, the most classic, ubiquitous and inexpensive of the FD lenses and still able to provide high-level results, perfectly up to date, thanks also to its old but timeless symmetrical "Planar" scheme. a solution that guarantees excellent results at these apertures."

 

[David Lyga]

Amazing! How does he do it, ladies and gentlemen?

Your comment about a comment transcends you into the upper echelon of humor. - David Lyga

 

[David Lyga]

I have never found a day in my life where criticism of the f1.8 would be feasible or warranted. I simply do not know how a lens could be sharper. That said, the F1.4 does offer a bit more "aplomb" and a bit more help with focusing in low light, but that is it. Buy two 1.8s instead of one 1.4. - David Lyga

 

[RLangham]

Your comment about a comment transcends you into the upper echelon of humor. - David Lyga

Then you must be in the upper upper echelon with this meta-meta-humour!