Canon FD: New FD vs. breech lock FD?

[Stevopedia]

Is there a difference in the optical performance between the Canon New FD (bayonet-like) and the breech lock (silver connector ring) FD lenses? The older lenses cost a bit less, which is important for a budding young (and cash-strapped) photographer like me.

The SC and SSC lenses are obviously better than the others, but are the new FD lenses better than the old FD SSC lenses?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Many prefer the older mount, but the new FD versions often incorporate optical improvements, though not in all cases. SC lenses are "Spectra Coated" (single coated in general) and SSC are "Super Spectra Coated" (multicoated), but the designation is only used on the older lenses. Almost all lenses in the new FD mount are SSC, except for the 50/1.8 as far as I know.

 

[Snapshot]

I had the new versions of the FD lenses (with my T-90) and thought they performed wonderfully. I don't think, however, there is much of a difference.

 

[AgX]

At least in the german edition of the older book by Bob Shell on the Canon System there is a list of all FD lenses indicating whether there are optical construction differences aside from mechanical ones due to the change from breech-lock to true bayonet.

 

[Whiteymorange]

In my experience it is the particular lens construction and not the age that is most telling. With a very few exceptions, all of the FD lenses I have are great performers.

 

[benjiboy]

I have had both old and new type FD, I had three of the breech lock ones I replaced with the new type , this wasn't because I had any problem with the with the quality of the images they produced , but simply because most of the popular focal lengths of the B/L optics take 55mm filters, I found it awkward to have a mixture the new ones use 52mm, and are a bit quicker to change lenses with.
I have used FD lenses for about 20 years and I have never had one that I wasn't happy with.

 

[Stevopedia]

Thanks for being patient with my noobish question, everyone. I appreciate it.

Hmm, I think I have a few new lenses in my future...

(...oh god, I'm getting Gear Acquisition Syndrome!!)

 

[cotdt]

the "new" FD isn't so new anymore

 

[benjiboy]

On further reflection -convincing consumers that there "new improved" product that has been subject to constant research and development, is such an improvement in what they already own to make them dissatisfied with to such a degree that they want to replace it is what turns the wheels of industry and commerce. I personally am still happy with FD system, although I could afford to buy the latest top of the range A/F SLR system Canon produce, I believe the best gear is the gear you're most used to, and can use without thinking .
I hope some day to be as good a photographer as my equipment is.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

One of the attractions of the FD system is that since they abandoned the mount the general public seems convinced that autofocus is a desirable thing, you can find some outstanding optics for bargain prices. I don't think I could have taken up bird photography, if I hadn't found an FD 600/4.5 for around $1300. The analogous EOS lens with autofocus, image stabilization, and slightly faster widest stop of f:4.0 is $7200 and is about 50% heavier. For substantially less than the price difference between these two lenses, one could invest in a top end tripod and head, which are more useful than IS, in my opinion, since this isn't the kind of lens one handholds.

 

[benjiboy]

I agree David, the silly prices FD lenses are available for these days is great, especially to someone like me, to whom A/F is as much use as an ash tray on a motor bike.
I would think even if you are not an FD user it would be worth buying a body to take advantage of the cheapness of this great glass.

 

[dynachrome]

Old Fd vs. New FD

In most cases the condition of the lens is more important than whether it's an old FD or New FD. Some lenses like the 100/2 or 200/4 Macro were never made in the old FD style. The often praised 80-200/4L lens was also made only in New FD style. I have many of the less exotic lenses in both styles. The 50/1.8 New FD is capable of good results but has fewer aperture blades than the older 50/1.8 lenses. The 50/1.4 lenses seem equal in quality. There were some very early FD lenses which did not have the more modern coatings and can have flare problems. One of these is a breech lock 200/4 FD which is not marked SSC. It has coating which is not nearly as good as that of the later SSC model. The 200/4 New FD has closer focusing than the older SSC model and is more compact because it has internal focusing. The first version of the 200/2.8 New FD is supposed to be optically identical to the earlier 200/2.8 FD SSC. There is a second 200/2.8 New FD which has internal focusing and which some people prefer. The 35/2 FD SSC (concave front element model) is very sharp but gets a color cast over time because of a radioactive element. This can be mostly cleared up with UV light treatment. The 35/2 New FD is a different design and does not have the color cast problem. It is also very sharp. The 100/2.8 lenses seem about the same in performance as do the 50/3.5 lenses. Canon made a 35/3.5 in breech lock mount but a 35/2.8 in New FD style. I think I prefer the f/3.5 lens. The 24/2 New FD is supposed to be Canon's best 24. My only Canon 24is an older f/2.8 SSC model with a chrome front. There was no 24/2 in breech lock style. Last year I bought a 28/2 FD SSC in excellent condition for very little. I don't know how it compares with the 28/2 New FD but I am very happy with it. My 85/1.8 is a New FD model. As far as I know it is the same optically as the SSC lens. I would say that in general any older FD or New FD lens in good condition is capable of doing very nice work. As has been mentioned, the FD mount was essentially orphaned not long after the EOS appeared in 1986. It is also more cumbersome to adapt an FD lens to any other mount. This adds up to fairly low prices for all but the most rare lenses and accessories.

 

[benjiboy]

In most cases the condition of the lens is more important than whether it's an old FD or New FD. Some lenses like the 100/2 or 200/4 Macro were never made in the old FD style. The often praised 80-200/4L lens was also made only in New FD style. I have many of the less exotic lenses in both styles. The 50/1.8 New FD is capable of good results but has fewer aperture blades than the older 50/1.8 lenses. The 50/1.4 lenses seem equal in quality. There were some very early FD lenses which did not have the more modern coatings and can have flare problems. One of these is a breech lock 200/4 FD which is not marked SSC. It has coating which is not nearly as good as that of the later SSC model. The 200/4 New FD has closer focusing than the older SSC model and is more compact because it has internal focusing. The first version of the 200/2.8 New FD is supposed to be optically identical to the earlier 200/2.8 FD SSC. There is a second 200/2.8 New FD which has internal focusing and which some people prefer. The 35/2 FD SSC (concave front element model) is very sharp but gets a color cast over time because of a radioactive element. This can be mostly cleared up with UV light treatment. The 35/2 New FD is a different design and does not have the color cast problem. It is also very sharp. The 100/2.8 lenses seem about the same in performance as do the 50/3.5 lenses. Canon made a 35/3.5 in breech lock mount but a 35/2.8 in New FD style. I think I prefer the f/3.5 lens. The 24/2 New FD is supposed to be Canon's best 24. My only Canon 24is an older f/2.8 SSC model with a chrome front. There was no 24/2 in breech lock style. Last year I bought a 28/2 FD SSC in excellent condition for very little. I don't know how it compares with the 28/2 New FD but I am very happy with it. My 85/1.8 is a New FD model. As far as I know it is the same optically as the SSC lens. I would say that in general any older FD or New FD lens in good condition is capable of doing very nice work. As has been mentioned, the FD mount was essentially orphaned not long after the EOS appeared in 1986. It is also more cumbersome to adapt an FD lens to any other mount. This adds up to fairly low prices for all but the most rare lenses and accessories.

The old chrome nosed 35mm f2 breech lock optic used Thorium in the glass manufacturing process, that was a serious health hazard for the staff who ground the lens blanks and manufacture was stopped. I own both versions of this lens, the older one was attached to a Canon EF I bought recently the shop wouldn't sell body only, I have compared the slides I took recently and can't see any difference.

 

[Stevopedia]

...The 35/2 FD SSC (concave front element model) is very sharp but gets a color cast over time because of a radioactive element. This can be mostly cleared up with UV light treatment...

I've heard of similar issues with a certain Takumar, I believe it was the Super Takumar 50/1.4, but I'm not certain. Wikipedia shows that thorium oxide was sometimes used to make low-dispersion glass, to it would make sense that higher-end lenses had it.

As far as an FD body goes, I've got an AE-1 that I'm looking to get a few lenses for (I only have the New FD 50/1.8 at the moment.)

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

For a while I had 4 50mm lenses in FD mount and tested them to decide what to keep and what to sell. If I recall they were an old FD 50/1.4, and New FD 50/1.8, 50/1.4, and 50/1.2L. One thing that was interesting is that the 50/1.8 was sharpest when used with a reversing ring for macro photography. It's also one of the most inexpensive, compact and lightest FD lenses (I think there's a 35mm that's smaller, but that's it). I ended up keeping the 1.2L for the speed and build quality. If you're curious, I've posted those results with sample images somewhere on the internet. It may have been pre-APUG, so you might see if Google turns it up.

 

[benjiboy]

My experience is the same as David's, what's interesting is, contrary to what manufacturers would have us believe that not all lenses of the same series , focal length and aperture are the same,and you don't know if it's a Monday morning lens or a Friday afternoon one, so in buying one you can't go on hearsay evidence, it's a case of suck it and see.