The New F-1 was Canon's third pro SLR. It sounds like you're not aware of Canon's first pro SLR the Canonflex which was released at the same time as the Nikon F. This first release likely contributed to Canon playing catch up to Nikon thereafter.
- Nikon F and Canonflex in 1959
- Nikon F2 and Canon F-1 in 1971
- Nikon F3 (1980) and Canon New F-1 (1981)
This is a handy timeline of SLR releases from Minolta, Canon, Nikon & Pentax -> Minolta SLR's vs. Canon, Nikon & Pentax
I would be interested to see the results of your testing if you can share it.
I can't believe any manufacturer ever made lenses that are better than the Canon FD 50 mm f 1.2 L Aspherical and FD 85mm f 1.2 L Aspherical.which already are better optics than I will ever be a photographer, and if they did Leica R lenses don't fit my Canon F1's.
Please believe
Lenses are made out of glass with machines, if the glass improves and the machines improve then the lenses can be better.
The low melting point high refractive index glasses allow aspheric pressings of small lenses, the CNC milling machines allow automated larger aspheric lenses, more easily, the Cosina ultra fast 35mm and 5cm are impressive performers and cheap, you need to try with a user M2 they are cheap.
Any thoughts on Canon FD compared to FDn? I picked up a trio of the older FD lenses (28/2.8, 50/3.5 macro, 85/1.8) at a low price, figuring that optically they're likely identical to their newer-mount versions.
A bagful of new FD lenses weigh roughly half that the same breech lock lenses weigh and they are much quicker to change. I have had my 10 polymer barrelled FD lenses for more than 25 years and they operate as smoothly as ever, In fact some of the later breech lock lenses had polymer barrels.In many cases the designs have changed. All new Fd lenses are more compact than the previous Breech-Lock (BL) Fd lenses. Sometimes this comes with a performance penalty; but other times this is offset by the improved techbology and r&d of the new designs. For example the 50/1.2 is smaller and supposedly better than the 55/1.2. Equally, the 24/2.8 new is more compact and a fantastic performer, one of my favorites.
Note that many times the BL FD lenses seem to have higher build quality. The earlier FL lenses are even better, approaching the build quality of the Pre-AI nikkors, which are the best in build quality.
On the other hand the 28/2.8 new is much smaller and lighter than the BL 28/2.8 S.C, and it's sharp, but it has some distortion, while the BL version has no distortion and stellar performance.
The New Fd 135/2.8 is much smaller and lighter than the earlier 135/2.5, and it's a sharp lens with no defects, but the latter is often regarded as the better lens, perhaps due to better bokeh (i sold the 2.8 and bought the 2.5 because it appeared to have nicer bokeh. But the 2.8 was my mainstay for years and got many great images with it.)
Polymer = plastic :w00t:
In many cases the designs have changed...
Polymer = plastic :w00t:
Just teasing. Don't need a lecture on material use selection.
Well, I had a couple of the older FD lenses that wouldn't seat properly on the camera, and I suspect it was due to something loosening on the silver ring of the breech mount. On the other hand, I've never had any issues with my New FD lenses. They are working just fine, and I've had some of them for 35 years.
I too have had most of my New FD lenses for 35 years and they have always performed perfectly and are still as smooth focusing as the day I got them, and I fail to understand why there is so much prejudice against them.
And the New FD lenses all have SSC coating, except the 50mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/2.
It is "prejudice" because it's not "based on reason", it's based on ignorance.Prejudice is defined as preconceived opinion that is not based on reason and therefore trying to understand it would be an exercise in futility. With regards to folks opinions on camera gear, I just chalk it up to personal preferences.
benjiboy,
Note that I wrote that the old Breech-lock lenses **seem** to have better build quality. Build quality of the New FD lenses is fine and my lenses are just OK; in fact i've yet to find an abused New FD lens with a worn focusing mechanism, while i've found many abused Breech-lock lenses whose focusing mechanism has a lot of play and is in desperate need of grease.
But i do prefer the look and feel of the old FD lenses, and of the FL lenses.
Yes but i couldn't care less about the coatings on the lenses. Many SC (apparently single coated) Canon lenses are have very good contrast and color saturation, for example the 28/2.8 S.C, the 135/2.5 S.C., the 50/1.8 S.C. Some early FL lenses, definitely single coated, have very good contrast and saturation, for example the FL 35/2.5 i own and like a lot.
Same, at the risk of sounding like a broken rekord, i owned a Nikkor-S 50/1.4, single coated, with excellent contrast, saturation, everything.
all the rest of my FD lenses are the polymer type in which the bearing surfaces on the focusing helicoids are Teflon coated that can't dry out and is still as smooth as ever in all ten of my other lenses.
Yes but i couldn't care less about the coatings on the lenses.
"Engineering plastics" has been widely used to the same end.I believe the ads (not necessarily just Canon since everyone moved in that direction) at that time used to say Space Age plastics which implied they were better plastics . . .
benjiboy,
Note that I wrote that the old Breech-lock lenses **seem** to have better build quality. Build quality of the New FD lenses is fine and my lenses are just OK; in fact i've yet to find an abused New FD lens with a worn focusing mechanism, while i've found many abused Breech-lock lenses whose focusing mechanism has a lot of play and is in desperate need of grease.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?