Canon fd on Film

[David Jones]

I got an almost brand new looking Canon AV-1 with a 50mm f1.8 nFD lens for £1 at a car boot. The results from it are excellent. I keep reading that Nikon ai lenses are better. Is this true on film? I was thinking of getting an FM. I had one for a bit but didn't get around to trying it before I had to sell it. Would I notice any difference?

Thanks
Dave

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I got an almost brand new looking Canon AV-1 with a 50mm f1.8 nFD lens for £1 at a car boot. The results from it are excellent. I keep reading that Nikon ai lenses are better. Is this true on film? I was thinking of getting an FM. I had one for a bit but didn't get around to trying it before I had to sell it. Would I notice any difference?

Thanks
Dave

No.

 

[Siompa]

I have a coupe of Fd lenses and they are sharp and well made as any other.

This is taken with a canon a-1 and the 1.8 50mm at f1.8

A good thing about fd lenses is that they are really cheap and what I think good quality. I got a f4 35-70mm zoom for 10 € On eBay and there’s loads of lenses available

 

[Siompa]

It seems the picture didn’t work, here’s a Flickr link

https://flic.kr/p/qKdGr4

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

My latest work on Flickr is done with an AE-1 Program with FD lenses, on Portra 800. It works for me for personal travel/street photography. I use medium format and large format for client work.

 

[BrianVS]

I got an almost brand new looking Canon AV-1 with a 50mm f1.8 nFD lens for £1 at a car boot. The results from it are excellent. I keep reading that Nikon ai lenses are better. Is this true on film? I was thinking of getting an FM. I had one for a bit but didn't get around to trying it before I had to sell it. Would I notice any difference?

Thanks
Dave

The Canon 50/1.4 tested put even better than the 50/1.8. In the Nikon world, the 50/2 and 50/1.8 tested out better than the 50/1.4.

You would not notice a difference in the real world.

But get a Canon 50/1.4- cheap, sharp, and 2/3rds of a stop faster. I modified one for my Leica's, made an RF cam for it.

 

[MattKing]

The differences between ~50mm lenses made during that era by any of the major manufacturers are small - just about all of them are very high quality (if the lens is in good condition).

 

[Tony-S]

But get a Canon 50/1.4- cheap, sharp, and 2/3rds of a stop faster. I modified one for my Leica's, made an RF cam for it.

Not to mention better out of focus areas ("bokeh"), better coating and better minimum focusing distance.

 

[Cholentpot]

FD lenses are great. Nikon lenses from the same era are overpriced. Stick with FD and build a collection.

 

[BAC1967]

I recently sold all my FD gear to buy something else, not because it didn’t take good pictures, I just have other compatible gear that I prefer. I prefer my Olympus OM and Minolta MD cameras more than I did the Canon FD. I just figured I should concentrate on less kits. Here are a few of my favorite FD shots.

Iguana by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

Great Basin National Park by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

Bridge Towers by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

 

[darkroommike]

The FD Canon lenses are very good, as good as anything in Nikon's standard line of lenses, and I subjectively feel that Canon "L" series lenses are as good as anything on the planet.

The only negative? Nikon is still making cameras that can, with a few restrictions, still use AI lenses.

Canon has not made a camera using the FD mount in 30 years, the new "improved" EF lens mount was introduced in 1987. The EF lenses are also good but there is not one point of compatibility between old Canon and new Canon, a point of fact is that you can mount and use practically any other piece of junk lens on the planet to the EOS cameras, all except Canon's own FD lenses.

I'm not bitter (OK, maybe a little bitter) but I do wish I could use my nice FD lenses on a modern 35mm body, something like a Nikon F100 for example.

 

[Siompa]

The FD Canon lenses are very good, as good as anything in Nikon's standard line of lenses, and I subjectively feel that Canon "L" series lenses are as good as anything on the planet.

The only negative? Nikon is still making cameras that can, with a few restrictions, still use AI lenses.

Canon has not made a camera using the FD mount in 30 years, the new "improved" EF lens mount was introduced in 1987. The EF lenses are also good but there is not one point of compatibility between old Canon and new Canon, a point of fact is that you can mount and use practically any other piece of junk lens on the planet to the EOS cameras, all except Canon's own FD lenses.

I'm not bitter (OK, maybe a little bitter) but I do wish I could use my nice FD lenses on a modern 35mm body, something like a Nikon F100 for example.

If you mean that you can mount any other lens with an adapter , that is also the case with fd lenses.

 

[AgX]

The Canon 50/1.4 tested put even better than the 50/1.8. In the Nikon world, the 50/2 and 50/1.8 tested out better than the 50/1.4.

You would not notice a difference in the real world.

I got contrary lab tests from the 70s. But as you said, real life photography should count.

 

[AgX]

The EF lenses are also good but there is not one point of compatibility between old Canon and new Canon, a point of fact is that you can mount and use practically any other piece of junk lens on the planet to the EOS cameras, all except Canon's own FD lenses.

One might modify an EOS camera with an FD-mount, which might mean shortening the mirror box sligtly.

 

[David Jones]

Great pictures from Simon and Bryan. Thanks for all the new replies. I hear a lot about Bokeh on this site but have never really noticed the quality of it. I do like the effect of a sharp subject against an out of focus background/ foreground, however.

Dave

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

Bryan the Great Basin image is great, well done.

 

[TheRook]

I got an almost brand new looking Canon AV-1 with a 50mm f1.8 nFD lens for £1 at a car boot. The results from it are excellent. I keep reading that Nikon ai lenses are better. Is this true on film? I was thinking of getting an FM. I had one for a bit but didn't get around to trying it before I had to sell it. Would I notice any difference?

Thanks
Dave

I have been using both the Canon 50mm f1.8 nFD and its Nikkor ai equivalent for a good number of years. From what I can tell, these two lenses are about equally good an give nearly identical results. Whatever difference there may be, it is very minimal.

 

[cb1]

This is a Canon AE1P with the nFD 135mm f3.5. Ektar100 film.
I love my FD lenses on my AE1P

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

Nice shot cb. What is your workflow (hardware) to get it from film to a you-know-what-format that can be viewed online?

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Dave -- you specify "on film" -- well, either on film or on a sensor, I would say there is essentially no difference between Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Minolta, Leica, etc.

I say this, because I have plenty of lenses (six or more) in each of those systems and plenty of great photos from each.

Yes, there are are select lenses from each marque that really outshine the competition, but in the end it all evens out.

Wonderful photos, Bryan - I always love seeing your work.

Also love the giraffe photo.

 

[Cholentpot]

This is a Canon AE1P with the nFD 135mm f3.5. Ektar100 film.
I love my FD lenses on my AE1P

That nFD 135 3.5 is overlooked because of the '3.5' attached to it. I have one, amazing lens.

 

[cb1]

Nice shot cb. What is your workflow (hardware) to get it from film to a you-know-what-format that can be viewed online?

normally I am a B&W shooter, but when I do color I send it out. This roll went to "The Darkroom" for processing and scanning. I didn't post process because I'm not that good at it.

 

[David Jones]

Thanks, again. Nice pic from cb. Here are a couple of shots taken with the AV-1. This is Ilford fp4 processed and scanned by Ilford.


dave

 

[Cholentpot]

Thanks, again. Nice pic from cb. Here are a couple of shots taken with the AV-1. This is Ilford fp4 processed and scanned by Ilford.


dave

Very nice.

 

[David Jones]

For comparison in both camera and processing.
These I took with a Yashica camera but with a Carl Zeiss lens. The film Fuji100 Acros developed by me in DDX 1+4 for 9 minutes. I scanned this myself on an Epson flatbed. The loco pic looks a bit less grainy and contrasty than the Ilford developed fp4 from the Canon but it is a much finer film. It looks sharper only because of the contrast between the focused and out if focus areas of the locomotive ( I focused on the engine cleaner) but generally the pics look similar to the Canon. See the other picture from the same roll. The quality doesn't seem as good even though it is on a Tripod. I stopped the lens down for depth of field but I wouldn't have thought this would make much difference. Maybe the lighting is harsh. In fact because Zeiss/ Yashica was so similar to other cameras I let it go.

I wonder how Ilford develop and scan?

The reason I started this thread was because I had seen several ads on eBay for a nikon 50mm f1.8 which stated "Sharpest lens ever". I think I will settle with the Canon FD equipment and try and hang on to it! I still try out various film cameras. The latest I have yet to try are a yashicamat tlr 120 and a Zorki 4K.

I have found in my photography that for no apparent reason the results seem a bit random. That pic of the engine cleaner seems completely different to most of the other pics on the roll. I suppose that because it is in the portrait format it is enlarged on this site less than the landscape pic. making it look sharper.


Dave