Canon F1n vs. Nikon F2? Really, is one better than the other?

[flavio81]

I do not have New F-1, have previous 2 versions and F-1n with L screen is great in every way. What makes SL2 different is not just the brightness but the real estate and I don't need to have my eye stuck to the finder either (not sure what the official eye point is). It's strange how I wound up getting the SL and soon after the SL2, neither ever considered until just days before purchase. But no regrets (and SL2 was not cheap). While I also have an R5 (and probably R6 eventually) and R5 is a fine camera, the SL2 is indeed what people say, with SL close behind.

I have tested transplanting my standard New F-1 screen into the F-1 (original model, not "n") finder. Yes, it is much brighter. But still, the same New F-1 screen on the New F-1's AE finder gives a larger image, still with excellent eyepoint, and a tad brighter as well (better multicoating on the mirror and optical system, i'd guess). So you need to experience the New F-1 finder!!

If I had the Leicaflex SL2 i'd be worry if it breaks. As as i've read, dissasembling the thing is really really hard, because the camera isn't modular at all, and many technicians are shy of attempting it.

There are a lot of mentions on how the shutter and mirror actions in those are very gentle. Again, i only tested my friends' SL and original Leicaflex and indeed the shutter and mirror action are very gentle (in terms of vibrations), but equally smooth are the ones on my Nikon F3, pentax MX and (wait for it...) Canon A-1!! The F2 also allows to set intermediate shutter speeds. Even the Nikkormat allows intermediate speeds, but only between 1/250 and 1/1000.

Ok, the Leicaflex (1964) and Leicaflex SL and SL2 (1974) came before the mentioned cameras, so they indeed have technical merit.

EDIT: Once you stop down the diaphragm my Canon F-1 (1971) is surprisingly free of vibrations. Perhaps SLR camera vibrations are overrated, once you get to a certain level of quality.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I have tested transplanting my standard New F-1 screen into the F-1 (original model, not "n") finder. Yes, it is much brighter. But still, the same New F-1 screen on the New F-1's AE finder gives a larger image, still with excellent eyepoint, and a tad brighter as well (better multicoating on the mirror and optical system, i'd guess). So you need to experience the New F-1 finder!!

If I had the Leicaflex SL2 i'd be worry if it breaks. As as i've read, dissasembling the thing is really really hard, because the camera isn't modular at all, and many technicians are shy of attempting it.

There are a lot of mentions on how the shutter and mirror actions in those are very gentle. Again, i only tested my friends' SL and original Leicaflex and indeed the shutter and mirror action are very gentle (in terms of vibrations), but equally smooth are the ones on my Nikon F3, pentax MX and (wait for it...) Canon A-1!! The F2 also allows to set intermediate shutter speeds. Even the Nikkormat allows intermediate speeds, but only between 1/250 and 1/1000.

Ok, the Leicaflex (1964) and Leicaflex SL and SL2 (1974) came before the mentioned cameras, so they indeed have technical merit.

EDIT: Once you stop down the diaphragm my Canon F-1 (1971) is surprisingly free of vibrations. Perhaps SLR camera vibrations are overrated, once you get to a certain level of quality.

The L screens hat came with F-1n are I think same as what New F-1 had. As I have the F-1 and F-1n, I see a noticeable difference and am on the market for all L screens as they fit both cameras all the same. Am impressed with F1 quality in every way.

The SL2 is just a different animal. Mine is in a hardly used condition as are the 4 lenses that came with it. I will use it, but it will be treated with "respect". It feels extremely well built and all the talk about shutter issues are rather overblown, although it is surely a very complex design internally and perhaps, had it ever become a camera as widely used as Canon and Nikon offerings, user sample of its inherent durability would have been more trustworthy. At the same time I see a number of SL2s for sale in clearly heavily used condition and work fine. I'm not worried about its durability at all, but I do feel it can be abused with rough and fast shooting (read rapid ad frequent shutter cocking).

 

[cooltouch]

HI Cooltouch, I know this is a very old post, but I'm curious to know exactly which version of the Nikon 35/2 you have.

I have the Nikkor-O 35/2 and definitely would consider superior in every way to the FL 35/2.5 I owned. Lovely rendering.

Hey Flavio, sorry for the late replay and apologies for the somewhat off-topic post. I have the same Nikkor lens you do. Mine is pre-AI, but AI'd by Nikon, ie it has the Nikon Ai aperture ring. Honestly I haven't used my Nikkor as much as I used the Canon FL 35. I consider the Nikkor to be a very capable lens but it just hasn't stood out for me the way the Canon FL 35 has. What I most like about the Canon is it is very sharp, corner to corner.

 

[benjiboy]

This is because the Canon F-1 has no resistor rings or resistor strips. The meter rotates instead, according to the selected shutter speed and selected ASA value. This is a more complex way, because it requires a pulley/string system.

A 30-year-old plus either Canon F1n or a Canon New F1 is a much better buy if you want a reliable light meter than a Nikon F or a Nikon F2 the metering system is a much more reliable deIgn that has stood the test of time much better, I speak from experience. I have 4 Canon F1s and all the meters are correct and read with a Kodak Grey Card within three-tenths of a stop of each other with a digital spot meter.

 

[eli griggs]

A Nikon F or F2, might be comparable to a 1st or 2nd Generation F1 but neither of those cameras and systems offer any substantial advantages over the F1n Canon.

The F1N AE is an entire level beyond the F, F2 and F3 cameras, and their supporting accessories and the lens quality, including plastic, is better than the Nikon lenses, being warmer and more 'pictorial' than the cool/cold Nikon rendering.

When I moved into the Canon F1N AE, from the older F1n system, I bought a full system, including at least three "L" series lens, etc.

I remember very clearly, the professional camera shop I bought these from, and during the decision taking stage, how the Nikon Sells person, tried to get me to commit to Nikon or Contax instead of the Canon System.

He asked me straight up, why I had chosen Canon instead of Nikon and I told him it was because the lenses I was buying were head and shoulders above anything Nikon offered.

He had no counter argument to that point from Nikon, though he did seem to think the Contax Lenses were of similar quality, however I felt then as I do now, that they too were a bit too cool for my taste, colour matched or no.

I still feel the same, though I do own a few Nikon and lenses.

The F1 AE (and F1n) rock when it comes to camera/system quality, and though I still want a Nikon F, or F2, for use with Hasselblad lenses, Canon has the lead in that field, well in hand.

I have never had any Canon T or F series camera fail on me, including the Ftb QL, nor any of the A Series, of which I prefer the Canon A1, and that alone is good enough reason to stick with those cameras as my main 135mm shooters (until I can find a Leica LTM or M film camera).

Nikon is good, Canon is better, when it comes to 'F' series of both.

IMO.

 

[benjiboy]

I have used Canon F1s for almost 40 years and they have never let me down, and I have never wanted anything else they allowed me to not think about equipment and concentrate on making pictures..

 

[flavio81]

The F1N AE is an entire level beyond the F, F2 and F3 cameras

I agree with this, with the caveat that ergonomically the F3 is a nicer camera. Also on operation the shutter and winding action of the F3 seems to be smoother. At least based on the F3 and two F-1N i own.

As for this topic, I'm considering a lengthy post doing a thorough comparison between the F2 and F-1... If i get enough spare time, i'll use it.

 

[flavio81]

and the lens quality, including plastic, is better than the Nikon lenses, being warmer and more 'pictorial' than the cool/cold Nikon rendering.

Even though i'm a Canon lens fan (see my signature), i wouldn't dare to say that overall the lens quality (quality as a whole, not just sharpness or MTF) is superior. First, because we're comparing FL, FD and FDn lenses (three different series) to pre-AI, K, AI/AI-S, and AF lenses, that is, several different eras of Nikkors.

Nikon seemingly had a change of lens correction philosophy through the years, and there's a big difference in character, for example, between the 1960 Nikkor-S 58/1.4, the mid-60s Nikkor-S 50/1.4, and the late 70s 50/1.4 AI: One has a clear emphasis on being creamy smooth, the other is optimized for high contrast and central clarity wide open, the third one prioritizes resolution over contrast wide open.

Canon also has gone through changes, the FL lenses have overall a different character to FD lenses. And the first generation (1971-73) FD lenses are a bit different than the 73-78 FD lenses, etc.

Overall almost all my FD lenses have great sharpness, most have good or very good contrast, but the rendering (call it bokeh or '3d impression') of lenses is all over the place, some good, some not so good.

Same with Nikkors, there are some Nikkors with excellent rendering, some don't.

All in all, other brands (say, Minolta, Pentax) need to be considered as well since in some cases they make specific lenses that are standouts over their Canon/Nikon counterparts. Moreover, regarding build quality, Asahi Pentax and their Takumars are already superior in build quality than Canikon...

I have some Nikkors i'll never part away with, like my Nikkor-S 58/1.4 or my Nikkor-H 85/1.8, and some Canons i'll probably never part away with as well, like my FL 55/1.2, FL 19/3.5R or even a cheap lens like the FDn 35/2.8.

 

[benjiboy]

In the era when the Canon FD cameras we're being manufactured their "L" range of optics, we're the cutting edge of lens technology that featured the use of low dispersion glass, aspheric elements and an advanced optical design that none of the other manufacturers could match.

 

[miha]

Were Canon FD (old) and FL lenses produced to the same mechanical standards as the Nikons of the time? FDn sure feel cheaper (excluding their L range).

 

[flavio81]

Were Canon FD (old) and FL lenses produced to the same mechanical standards as the Nikons of the time? FDn sure feel cheaper (excluding their L range).

Nikkor pre-AI lenses had IMO higher mechanical standards than their contemporary Canon FL lenses. But Pentax had way higher standards with their Super-Takumars.

Canon FD lenses, even more so the first batch (1970-73), in my opinion are easily a match to Nikkor pre-AI, In fact the first-gen FD lenses I have feel more massive and solid than equivalent pre-AI lenses (28/3.5, 135/2.5). The good FD lenses have lots of ball bearings inside for the mechanism, brass helicoids, etc. The cheapened down ones (i.e. FD 50/1.8 from 1976 onwards) are not as nicely built.

But in any case, in this era Nikkors and FD lenses are still inferior to Takumars in fit and finish!

The start of the 80s is a different story. Nikkor AI lenses aren't as nicely built as the pre-AI and I have seen many many AI lenses with wonky focusing helicoids, while the pre-AI lenses either have perfect helicoids or they are dry and they don't turn. And Series E lenses are horribly built and absolutely inferior than their inexpensive FDn counterparts of the era (28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.8, etc), a valid comparison since they weren't far off on retail price, if you look at the catalogs. To pick an example, the Series E 35/2,5 has plastic helicoids that doesn't even span a full circle, and has mediocre performance, while the FDn 35/2.8 not only has real helicoids, but is a really high performance lens.

The New FD lenses use glass fiber composites (the detractors say "plastic" but it isn't exactly plastic inside) for weight reduction (and probably higher precision, since this is easier to machine!), mechanically the good ones still use lots of ball bearings inside, and in all New FD lenses the helicoid mechanism is really good: i haven't found any New FD with a bad helicoid, they all work smoothly. Canon used a new strategy of lubricant and materials for the helicoids for the FDn era, i think this was mentioned in some brochure. This is what I like the most about New FD lenses, beside the fact that they look really good.

Nikkor AF lenses... the less it is said, the better. Suffice to say Nikon chose to put the inferior Series E optical designs on some of their AF lenses!! While the first batch of Canon EF lenses are optically very good, not inferior to the FD line.

I think it's relevant to mention that for many years the president of Canon was ***

Edit: Hiroshi Ito was never the president of Canon. But Keizo Yamaji, zoom lens designer for Canon since the 1960s, would eventually be the president of Canon in 1988.

 

[miha]

Nikkor pre-AI lenses had IMO higher mechanical standards than their contemporary Canon FL lenses.

Thanks, let me paraphrase: Is Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 mechanically as sound as a similar AIS Nikkor. The FDn 50mm f/1.4 I have sure doesn't belong to the same league.
BTW, many moons ago I had 2 Series E lenses, 50 and 100, both excellent value.

 

[flavio81]

Thanks, let me paraphrase: Is Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 mechanically as sound as a similar AIS Nikkor. The FDn 50mm f/1.4 I have sure doesn't belong to the same league.

Which "league"? I don't think the AIS 50/1.4 is that well built. Perhaps it looks nicer to your eyes due to more overtly use of metal. The FDn 50/1.4, from the inside (and i've dissasembled mine for cleaning) is just fine. And as I posted before, i find FDn lenses' helicoids more reliable than AIS helicoids, in general.

The FD 50/1.4 SSC i have is better built than the FDnew, yes; and the chrome-nose version is even better built.

Again, i don't rate the build quality of AI nikkors that higlhly, so I don't care too much, even though I have many AI nikkors. Pre-AI nikkors are better built in my view, and, as I wrote, Takumars are even better.

 

[benjiboy]

I used a Canon FDn 50mm f1.4 lens for about thirty years and it was a very fine lens that gave excellent results.

 

[miha]

Which "league"?

Of some of the very best build lenses. No problem if we don't agree on this. My experience is based on many years of using Nikon mf system, now Leica R. However I'm building a small Canon FD setup and so far I'm not impressed by the FDn build quality in comparison to some of the lenses from the Nikon Ai(s) period (or Leica R). Optically they are excellent, though.

 

[miha]

I used a Canon FDn 50mm f1.4 lens for about thirty years and it was a very fine lens that gave excellent results.

No doubt about it.

 

[Tony-S]

I used a Canon FDn 50mm f1.4 lens for about thirty years and it was a very fine lens that gave excellent results.

I've had mine for 39 years now and it's still going strong.

 

[flavio81]

Of some of the very best build lenses. No problem if we don't agree on this. My experience is based on many years of using Nikon mf system, now Leica R. However I'm building a small Canon FD setup and so far I'm not impressed by the FDn build quality in comparison to some of the lenses from the Nikon Ai(s) period (or Leica R). Optically they are excellent, though.

Mine and yours are only opinions, however, as I wrote before, for years and years i'm surveying and occasionally buying 2nd hand gear in my city. AI lenses sometimes, due to wear, suffer from focus helicoid wobble, which is detrimental to image quality (lens doesn't stay fully centered). I've seen classic FD lenses suffer from this too. However, i have never found not even a single New FD (FDn) lens with a wobbly helicoid. They, wonderfully, keep fine mechanical operation. I think this is significant.

I rarely drop a lens but two days ago my beloved FDn 100/2.8 fell from my desk to the (wooden) floor and bounced once. It is still perfect, focusing as smooth as always, no filter dent, no damage.

Canon was in the cost-cutting game since the 60s, but this is "intelligent" cost cutting -- put less cost on less important things (like the front nameplate which is plain plastic on most FDn lenses, or the aperture ring), but don't spare cost on the important things: most FD/FDn lenses have ball bearing races for their two rear cams, and analysis of lens diagrams and glass types (see Marco Cavina's site) show that they didn't spare in the optical department, and in general FD lenses often use more elements than equivalent Nikon lenses*; moreover floating systems and internal focusing systems, which requires cams on prime lenses, were more widely spread in use by Canon even on budget lenses like the 200/4 FDn.

* to put an extreme example, the 105/1.8 Nikkor with only 5 elements versus the 100/2 Canon. The Nikkor is not well loved by nikonians due to fringing and not so good wide-open performance (i owned one); while the Canon (6/4 design) is hailed as one of the best Canon primes of all times, excelling in all departments...

 

[benjiboy]

I've had mine for 39 years now and it's still going strong.

The smoothness of the focusing helicoid on Canon FDn lensed is due to them being coated with Teflon during manufacture.

 

[flavio81]

No doubt about it.

Continuing my post below...

For many Canon lenses i own or have owned a direct or indirect Nikkor equivalent:

Nikkor-UD 20/4 ---- Canon FL 19/3.5R: The Nikkor is better finished and built. Optically the two are very good and probably the FL is better (it was as good as the contemporary Zeiss and Leitz competitors on a 60s magazine test). Mechanically they both should be equally tough.

Nikkor-H 28/3.5 and Nikkor AI 28/3.5 --- Canon FD 28/3.5 chrome nose: The Canon is better built here, even though the AI is beautifully built too. Optically the AI and the FD are very good.

Nikkor-N 28/2.0 --- Canon FDn 28/2.0: The Nikkor is better built (as I mentioned, i rate pre-AI construction very highly) but the FDn isn't a budget item either. Both are great lenses with their own cult followings.

Nikkor AIS 50/1.8 pancake --- Canon FDn 50/1.8: Here the FDn is below the build quality of other FDn lenses -- but so is the AIS. In fact the AIS is little more than the Series E lens with better coatings. The AI 50/1.8 (which I own too) blows all those away.

Nikkor-S-C 50/1.4 -- Canon FD 50/1.4 SSC: Those two are almost contemporary; i can't fault the build quality of either.

Nikkor-Q 135/2.8 -- Canon FD 135/2.5: Sorry, the Canon is better built, and also optically a better lens, being a new design, while the Nikkor is the carryover of the same design of the 60s, even into the 70s on K guise!
Bokeh is wonderful on both lenses be Nikkor or Canon.

Nikkor AI 200/4 -- Canon FDn 200/4: The Canon is smaller, lighter, has internal focusing so it's a dream to handle; optically a good perfomer too. I don't find any blame or fault on the Canon's build quality. The Nikkor is also a great lens and I like it.

Nikkor-ED 200/2.8 -- Canon FDn 200/2.8: The Canon has IF and again was a dream to handle and well built; in fact I prefer the build quality of the FDn! (Optically the ED is better in terms of color fringing, however i have many great images from the FDn which I used professionally on the early 2000s, and miss selling it.)

 

[benjiboy]

I sure appreciate the lightness of the FDn lenses when I need to carry a bag full of them because I learned in the military you not only had to carry the equipment but had to be in fit physical condition to use it when you got there.

 

[Acticus]

Nikkor lenses are better. Nikon was established as a total system before F-1 even came along. Lot to be said for being first in the business.

Nikon lenses had a better reputation than Canon among photo dealers and journalists, but I think that was mostly savvy marketing on Nikon's part. In the early 80's, I too drank that Nikkor koolaid, that is, until I starting looking at Modern Photography lens tests. The Canon lenses were superb...generally better that Nikon's.

 

[flavio81]

Nikon lenses had a better reputation than Canon among photo dealers and journalists, but I think that was mostly savvy marketing on Nikon's part. In the early 80's, I too drank that Nikkor koolaid, that is, until I starting looking at Modern Photography lens tests. The Canon lenses were superb...generally better that Nikon's.

One of the first brochures for the F-1 system, mentions an independent test carried on Japan on many lenses incluing FD lenses:

The lenses of the F-1 system are the result of the efforts
and cooperation of the departments in charge of design,
research, production, and survey, and the computer
department. High quality and performance were basical-
ly the main goals, and specifically a wide range of
interchangeable lenses, compact and easy to handle, with
image sharpness throughout the whole focusing range.
These lenses were to adopt a newly designed mechanisms
(Floating System), as well as new techniques for
processing and the practical application of the newest
materials. Special lenses were to be developed and
multilayer anti-reflection coating was put to practical
use. Besides, they all had to have a high resolving power
and extremely high contrast.
The challenge that these goals meant was most success-
fully overcome with the series of FD lenses, opening the
way for still newer and better lenses which are under
constant testing, planning and research.
One of Japan's leading camera magazines, the "Camera
Mainichi", in its annual supplement called "White Paper
on Camera Lenses", sets down the general criteria fo r'
judging lens quality. In 1971's "White Paper" out of
375 lenses of the different Japanese makes surveyed,
Canon's got the top marks.
The publishers asked the Department of Applied Physics
of the Faculty of Engineering of the National University
of Chiba to conduct this study, and to examine the
quality and performance of the lenses, classifying them
into 14 categories according to the focal lengths. In this
entirely independent survey, Canon's lenses were first in
8 out of the 13 categories it participated in. (There was
no Canon entry in the 85mm focal length category).

My note: The FD lens 85/1.8 was introduced later in the FD lens line, so this would explain why there was no lens in the 85mm FL category.

Edit: From other forum, user rick_janes adds:

From Camera Mainichi's "White Paper on Camera Lenses 1971", where Canon FD optics defeated the competition in 8 of 13 classes:
"The surprising fact that the commonly accepted contention that lenses produced by firm [Nikon] are the best available from Japanese makers proves to be without foundation."

Edit: My speculation on what the 14 categories could have been:

1. fisheye
2. 20mm or below
3. 24
4. 28
5. 35
6. 50mm normal
7. 50mm of 1.2 speed
8. 85mm
9. 100mm
10. 135mm
11. 200mm
12. 300mm
14. above 300mm

 

[Acticus]

One of the first brochures for the F-1 system, mentions an independent test carried on Japan on many lenses incluing FD lenses:

The lenses of the F-1 system are the result of the efforts
and cooperation of the departments in charge of design,
research, production, and survey, and the computer
department. High quality and performance were basical-
ly the main goals, and specifically a wide range of
interchangeable lenses, compact and easy to handle, with
image sharpness throughout the whole focusing range.
These lenses were to adopt a newly designed mechanisms
(Floating System), as well as new techniques for
processing and the practical application of the newest
materials. Special lenses were to be developed and
multilayer anti-reflection coating was put to practical
use. Besides, they all had to have a high resolving power
and extremely high contrast.
The challenge that these goals meant was most success-
fully overcome with the series of FD lenses, opening the
way for still newer and better lenses which are under
constant testing, planning and research.
One of Japan's leading camera magazines, the "Camera
Mainichi", in its annual supplement called "White Paper
on Camera Lenses", sets down the general criteria fo r'
judging lens quality. In 1971's "White Paper" out of
375 lenses of the different Japanese makes surveyed,
Canon's got the top marks.
The publishers asked the Department of Applied Physics
of the Faculty of Engineering of the National University
of Chiba to conduct this study, and to examine the
quality and performance of the lenses, classifying them
into 14 categories according to the focal lengths. In this
entirely independent survey, Canon's lenses were first in
8 out of the 13 categories it participated in. (There was
no Canon entry in the 85mm focal length category).

My note: The FD lens 85/1.8 was introduced later in the FD lens line, so this would explain why there was no lens in the 85mm FL category.

I managed a camera store in the mid 80's. Nikkor was god, Canon was junk, or that's what we all believed. I remember one day a guy came in to buy another dirt cheap 2 1/4 TLR, I forget the brand. We were all puzzled when he said he got far better results with the cheap TLR than with any 35mm equipment, "even Nikon."

 

[Huss]

The answer to F1 vs F2 is XK.