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.
Canon F1n vs. Nikon F2? Really, is one better than the other?
-
A
- Thread starter SchwinnParamount
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Huge filter collection for sale!
- Started by Early Riser
-
For Sale FS: Yamasaki Tele-Congo 240mm f/6.3 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale E6 and Color Chemicals, Stainless Steel Tanks Reels and film storage sleeves.
- Started by orbitaldebris
-
For Sale SILVESTRI RING N 1
- Started by Philippe-Georges
-
For Sale LINHOF AERO TECHNIKA 45 LENS COVER
- Started by Philippe-Georges
Forum statistics
This is a very nice chart!! I can see some milestones here. Meanwhile, where is Mamiya and Olympus, Topcon, etc? They had some firsts, which are not on the diagram. I've added them, as well as other interesting milestones.
1936 - Camera Kwanon (by Canon), first japanese 35mm camera, standard with Nikkor lens (!)
1951 - Pentax brings the first japanese SLR
1957 - Pentax was the first japanese SLR with the instant-return mirror
1959 - Canon makes the biggest mistake by giving more priority to rangefinder R&D and releasing the Canonflex, which was a halfhearted effort from a company which already had gained strong reputation with their rangefinder optics. N
1959 - Nikon releases a real milestone, the Nikon F, first system SLR (if you don't consider the Exakta to be a "system" SLR!!)
1959 - First Zoom lens for SLRs, the Voigtlander-Zoomar 36-82/2.8
1960 - First camera with 1/2000 speed, Canonflex R2000
1963 - Topcon RE Super, first SLR with TTL metering
1965 - Canon Pellix, first camera with pellicle mirror. Canon and Nikon release cameras with TTL metering.
1970 - Mamiya releases first camera with both spot and average metering patterns (1000DTL)
1971 - Canon F1 released, first pro SLR capable of auto-exposure
1971 - Nikon F2 released. Meanwhile, no pro offerings from Pentax nor Minolta.
1971 - Pentax releases first camera with fully electronic shutter control for AE (Pentax ES)
1972 - Olympus OM-1, smallest and lightest "serious" SLR, very influential.
1973 - Minolta releases first pro camera, the XM/XK/X-1, first pro SLR capable of AE shooting without extra accesories, first pro SLR with electronic shutter.
1975 - Olympus OM-2, first camera with TTL OTF metering and flash exposure
1976 - Canon releases the AE-1, first SLR with built-in microprocessors, and first SLR to feature novel materials of construction (a turning point for manufacturers).
1977 - Minolta releases the XD7, first multimode SLR
1978 - Canon releases the A-1, first SLR to offer "program" exposure and up to that point the most advanced SLR on the market, using microprocessors and LED digital display.
1980 - Nikon F3 released
1980 - Pentax first pro SLR camera, the LX, released. (Finally!)
1981 - Canon New F1 released, first pro SLR with multimode AE, and first pro SLR with multiple metering patterns.
AF SLRs:
1981 Pentax ME F, first AF SLR (only one AF lens in the system!!)
-- motor in lens
1981 Canon AF 35-70mm lens allows AF with all FD-mount cameras
-- motor in lens, self-contained system
1983 Nikon F3AF, first pro AF SLR and first to offer more than one AF lens (two high quality lenses, 80mm and 200mm)
-- motor in lens
1985 Minolta Maxxum 7000, first "real" AF SLR system, TWELVE lenses, 24 to 300mm.-- motor in lens
-- motor in camera body
1985 Canon T80, AF SLR (three lenses: 50, 35-70, and 80-200)
-- motor in lens
1987 Canon EOS system, first all-electronic, "modern" AF system, EOS 650 camera
-- motor in lens
1988 Nikon F4, first pro AF SLR with more than two AF lenses available.
-- motor in camera body
Last edited by a moderator:
Supplement to the above post:
Lens speed war:
1953 Zunow 50mm f1.1 (leica screw mount -- rangefinder lens), sonnar derivative
1956 Canon 50mm f1.2 and Fuji 50mm f1.2, rangefinder lenses, gauss design
1957 Nikon 50mm f1.1 (rangefinder lens), gauss design
1961 Canon 50mm f0.95 (for decades the fastest 35mm lens. Rangefinder lens.)
1962 Canon Super-Canomatic R 58mm f1.2 (by then the fastest SLR lens)
1965 Nikkor-S 55mm f1.2 (first Nikon f1.2 SLR lens)
1968 Canon FL 55mm f1.2
1971 Canon FD 55/1.2 AL, first SLR production lens with an aspherical element, performance improved markedly
1977 Noct-Nikkor 58mm f1.2 (first Nikon standard lens with aspherical element)
1978 Nikkor 50mm f1.2 AI (first f1.2 SLR standard lens of 50mm focal length)
1980 Canon FD 50/1.2L (first f1.2 SLR aspheric lens of 50mm focal length)
1989 Canon EF 50/1.0L, fastest full-frame 35mm SLR lens
Lens speed war:
1953 Zunow 50mm f1.1 (leica screw mount -- rangefinder lens), sonnar derivative
1956 Canon 50mm f1.2 and Fuji 50mm f1.2, rangefinder lenses, gauss design
1957 Nikon 50mm f1.1 (rangefinder lens), gauss design
1961 Canon 50mm f0.95 (for decades the fastest 35mm lens. Rangefinder lens.)
1962 Canon Super-Canomatic R 58mm f1.2 (by then the fastest SLR lens)
1965 Nikkor-S 55mm f1.2 (first Nikon f1.2 SLR lens)
1968 Canon FL 55mm f1.2
1971 Canon FD 55/1.2 AL, first SLR production lens with an aspherical element, performance improved markedly
1977 Noct-Nikkor 58mm f1.2 (first Nikon standard lens with aspherical element)
1978 Nikkor 50mm f1.2 AI (first f1.2 SLR standard lens of 50mm focal length)
1980 Canon FD 50/1.2L (first f1.2 SLR aspheric lens of 50mm focal length)
1989 Canon EF 50/1.0L, fastest full-frame 35mm SLR lens
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
In most cases there was no meaningful detectable difference in IQ, in veiling flare but other differences, swung the decision. I used a microscope on Patterson test chart photos, they would not have scanned meaningfully, with my scanner or wet printed easily. a microscope is also quick.
My tests were on the basis of which I would keep for my street photography.
a) a 28 mm Leica /2.8 ASPH was near impossible to mount on several of my Leica M bodies without a rubber glove for grip - it was new from Leica so I sold it, I had two 28mm Cosina lenses to compare with it the /1.9 and /3.5 kept the /3.5.
I also had a type I Elmarit sold it too, it was resonable at /5.6, but well large.
b) although the 5cm Leica /2.8 post 94 collapsible collapsed with hood was 1mm shorter than the Cosina /2.5 with hood, and space in gbag is important, I sold the Leica given the inconvenience of collapsing.
The 5cm type IV cron and Cosina ZM both flared badly, with factory hoods, in street shooting with low sun, sold both. They were also pretty large...
The late pre asph summilux was comparable with the /2.5 but large, sold it.
c) I had four of the 35mm /2.5 Cosina lenses and tested them, they were all the same so kept one, and sold the pre asph summilux, one of the /2.5 went to best chum who tested it independently and said that is a high resolution lens why did you sell it - answer it was the same as the other three...
Got the /2.5 to flare badly once with sun in lens, the Lux flared all the time, as did a borrowed preasph cron, all with hoods. I also tried the lux with the cron hood as it was deeper, still flared badly.
Did not trouble to resolution test the Leica lenses. Bought the deeper optional hood for the Cosina, only fit it on sunny days.
d) I did try the ZM 25mm against the Cosina 25 but it was too large, though well impressive in e.g. IQ veiling flare and flare resistance.
All the lenses were as new.
Id also note that the Cosina/Zeiss ZF lenses (ie Nikon SLR mount) are rather more expensive than the Nikon manual SLR lenses, second hand, though that may just be fashion. At that premium Im sticking with the Nikon lenses, Ive not had problems with flare from them yet.
Id similarly not have bothered with testing Cosina lenses had the Leica ones been similar, one only gets married a second time after a divorce, unless...
(I did my rangefinder tests some time ago, with APX100, and Kchrome 64, {probably got the focal lengths eg 24/25 wrong} normally at /5.6 and normally near to axis cause that is where/how I use a lens. I did not bother to do comparative tests of the 21mm, or 75mm the Cosina ones passed the flare testing as well as the Leica ones.
I did have a 15mm Hologon for Contax G it did iris images with central filter, the Cosina 15mm was better, sold the Hologon kept the G...)
People have different criteria for lenses, e.g. if you take landscapes of a tripod you can use a French flag, if you use a SLR you can see the flare and use a hand, if you pack a lot of equipment it needs to be light. It is a bit like politics.
Most of the time I use 400 ISO (to stay at /5.6 or smaller) so the resolution testing was not as critical, but the 35 and 50mm Cosinas are nice performers, even when I (can) use PanF or Delta100.
Noel
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.
My lenses that were bought and paid for more than 20 years ago are already better ones than I'm a photographer, why should I spend more money in buying Cosina lenses and a Leica M2 a camera that will also probably need more money spending on it, and is it going to make me a better photographer ?.
I always liked the Nikon ens mount that they used that did not obsolete their earlier system the way Canon did.
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.)
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.
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 . . .
And the New FD lenses all have SSC coating, except the 50mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/2.
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.
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.
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.
It is "prejudice" because it's not "based on reason", it's based on ignorance.
In the last 35 years Flavio the only Canon FD lens lens I have had to have serviced is my breech lock 35mm f2 Thorium lens which is the only B/L lens I own, the focusing had become very stiff and hard work to use because the lubricant had dried out, 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.
Oh! Now this explain why all the new FD lenses i've found have perfect focusing mechanisms.
A giant leap forward in helical focusing mechanisms, i'd say!
Don't read into it. I was just pointing out another difference. That's all.
"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 . . .
FL and FD lenses are older and thus may have suffered more wear at average. Thus it may be more likely to find worn-out FD lenses than FD-new lenses.
To me the new FD lenses must have already past the test of time after more than 25 years since they were made, and disproved all those who sneered at them, and since I often carry 4 or 5 of them the fact that they are around half the weight of the metal barrelled one is very significant.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |