Canon FD lenses not as sharp as Nikon?

[chip j]

A long-time local camera dealer told me recently that Canon FDs weren't as "critically sharp" as their Nikkor counterparts. ???

 

[Patrick Robert James]

You sure do like to stir the poop sometimes Chip.

Different manufacturers design their lenses differently. Canon and Nikon are different.

Don't believe everything you hear....

 

[MattKing]

I guarantee that that dealer either had more Nikon lenses in stock or sold them with higher margins.
It is true though that different lens designers balance the micro-contrast/edge contrast/macro contrast/resolution criteria differently, and those different criteria affect perceived "sharpness" in different ways.

 

[chip j]

Well, Erwin Puts (of Leica blog fame) is supposed to have said that FD lenses "are as good or better than Leica R lenses. ???

 

[RalphLambrecht]

A long-time local camera dealer told me recently that Canon FDs weren't as "critically sharp" as their Nikkor counterparts. ???

nonsense of a salesperson.

 

[summicron1]

maybe he forgot to put his reading glasses on before looking at the canon lenses?

 

[Soeren]

Neither will cut a leaf of bread

 

[Soeren]

Loaf..... What, no way of editing posts?????

 

[MattKing]

Loaf..... What, no way of editing posts?????

This is strange, because I am still able to edit mine. I think I'll "Report" this to Sean.

 

[Sean]

Loaf..... What, no way of editing posts?????

We have some edit button issues in the mobile browsing, should have that fixed soon. Landscape mode might help.

Thanks

 

[Theo Sulphate]

The edit function is actually there (for mobile) - it is just not visible. Just press on the same spot and the edit/delete pop-up will appear.

As for lenses, I challenge anyone in a test of 20 photos (slides) to determine which were made by Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc. You can't do it - they're all more than good.

 

[ozphoto]

This has been bandied about for as long as I've been using Canon equipment - both FD & EF and seriously holds about as much water as a sieve. *Any* lens can be soft for a myriad of reasons and lumping them all into one basket is akin to saying all eggs are bad because the last one you cracked to make an omelette was off.

I've used lenses from a bunch of manufacturers on a variety of cameras and enlargers and the only one I can recall as being soft was a Nikkor 50mm enlarging lens that I was given by a cousin who was switching formats. It was as soft as unless I stopped down to f11, so I actually offloaded it - surprisingly the same model was in use at a local darkroom, and it was a joy to use.

In Australia, we have a similar "debate" over vehicles: "Which is better, Ford or Holden?" You guessed it, those in the Ford camp beat their chests saying their cars are the best and Holdens are c**p, and vice versa. Is one better than the other? In some areas maybe, but to the regular driver who isn't going to be asking for rigorous testing and provided specs to prove that one is minutely better than the other, who really cares??

Choose your system of choice and enjoy getting out and about shooting your medium of choice - if it makes you feel better, the pros used both, so don't be concerned about choosing the "wrong one", if it was good enough for them, it will certainly meet your standards too.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Oh for @%^)$&! sake.

 

[Eric Rose]

T R O. L. L

 

[ginandtonic]

My pair of Canon FD 1.2 L lenses (50mm and 85mm) are pretty darn sharp

 

[eddie]

Neither is as "critically soft" as my Holgas and Dianas.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

This has been bandied about for as long as I've been using Canon equipment - both FD & EF and seriously holds about as much water as a sieve. *Any* lens can be soft for a myriad of reasons and lumping them all into one basket is akin to saying all eggs are bad because the last one you cracked to make an omelette was off.

I've used lenses from a bunch of manufacturers on a variety of cameras and enlargers and the only one I can recall as being soft was a Nikkor 50mm enlarging lens that I was given by a cousin who was switching formats. It was as soft as unless I stopped down to f11, so I actually offloaded it - surprisingly the same model was in use at a local darkroom, and it was a joy to use.
with cars, it's difficult but, with cameras they made it easy; they good ones all have 'Nikon' printed on them.
In Australia, we have a similar "debate" over vehicles: "Which is better, Ford or Holden?" You guessed it, those in the Ford camp beat their chests saying their cars are the best and Holdens are c**p, and vice versa. Is one better than the other? In some areas maybe, but to the regular driver who isn't going to be asking for rigorous testing and provided specs to prove that one is minutely better than the other, who really cares??

Choose your system of choice and enjoy getting out and about shooting your medium of choice - if it makes you feel better, the pros used both, so don't be concerned about choosing the "wrong one", if it was good enough for them, it will certainly meet your standards too.

 

[Chan Tran]

They are not!!!! Proof? They are cheaper aren't they? The EF lenses are different though.

 

[Cholentpot]

My sharpest lens is a SMC Pentax-A 50 2.0

I beats out my Nikkors, FD, EOS, Zuiko and just about anything else I got. It sits on my macro film scanning rig.

Is it my favorite lens? Nah! That goes to my junk Sears Focal MC 135 2.8 that has no contrast and weird swirls, at least as of now it's my favorite. That or my Nikkor 135 2.8 non AI-S fungus trap.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

They are not!!!! Proof? They are cheaper aren't they? The EF lenses are different though.

Thank you. I want the FD lenses to $uck, and the prices to stay low because I want to put together basic outfit - say 28 - 50 - 100 for my FTb body, which I rather like. I'll just struggle along with the crappy FD glass, when I want really good lenses I'll use my Kiev.

 

[Dan Fromm]

chip j is the dullest knife in the drawer. Some FD lenses are worse than others. Some Nikkors are worse than others. So what?

 

[Jon Buffington]

The best lens I own is also the ugliest and cheapest I have ever bought. I own Nikon, Leica, Pentax, Minolta rokkors, Canon FD and EF lenses (L and non L) as well as numerous 3rd party lenses. My ancient yellowed thorium chrome nosed canon fd 35/2 that was bought with no caps and beat to hell from an antique store for $8 is super sharp even wide open and draws very lovely with incredible bokeh. So there is that...next favorite though is my ancient 50/2 collapsible summitar. Rendering is lovely, super sharp, lower contrast and beautiful swirly background.

 

[fstop]

Thank you. I want the FD lenses to $uck, and the prices to stay low because I want to put together basic outfit - say 28 - 50 - 100 for my FTb body, which I rather like. I'll just struggle along with the crappy FD glass, when I want really good lenses I'll use my Kiev.

That's a good strategy.This is why I don't talk about how good (fill in the blank) is so the price and demand goes up.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Neither is as sharp as a tripod.

 

[chip j]

Try using a tripod when you have a 14mm 3" away from a classic car.