Canon FD versus Nikkors pricing nowadays

Well, lately i've been buying some FD lenses from world's favorite auction site, and guess what, it seems that in general the FD lenses are now more expensive than their Nikkor counterparts. For example a FD 35/2.0 (ANY version!) can be almost double than the Nikkor equivalent. And indeed is double if we compare the 35 PC-nikkors to the Canon Tilt-shift 35. And I could get even more examples where this is happening.

Has anybody noticed such a trend? Let's discuss.

In any case, here's my Public Service Announcement to fellow GASsers:

Guys, Nikkor AI and pre-AI lenses have excellent build quality, great coatings that doesn't seem to suffer from haze (unlike some FD lenses), they give high contrast and have been proven by photojournalists around the globe in terrible conditions including war zones. The Nikkors who use floating design (i.e. 24/2.8) or inner/rear focusing, don't suffer from worn roller bearings, unlike most FD new lenses that feature floating design or moving internal elements. And almost all FD zooms suffer from this problem, too.

Nikkor lenses will last a life time and are compatible with many many modern cameras; thanks to long flange-to-film distance, you can find adapters to mount your Nikkor lens on almost any film or non-film camera.

Nikkor lenses are a sound investment, thousands of collectors can't be wrong. And you can browse Nico Van Dijk site to know better about the myriad of variations on each particular line up.

So, people, please... BUY MORE NIKKORS,, don't buy Canon lenses, leave the FD lenses alone...

so their prices diminsh and thus I can buy more FD lenses

Thanks

No I don't but I have a 200mm f/2.8 Canon FD I wonder how much I can get for it? Don't think I can trade it for the Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 AI?

Prices for the fast FD, Minolta MC and Konica AR glass has always been high, as high as Nikon. Canon FD L glass has held value. The bargain has been in consumer level lens, the standard 28mm, 50mm (other than a 1.2) 135 and 200.

Chan Tran said:

No I don't but I have a 200mm f/2.8 Canon FD I wonder how much I can get for it? Don't think I can trade it for the Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 AI?

Click to expand...

The 180/2.8 is rather affordable today, and as far as i've seen, cheaper than the FD.

I have the 180/2.8 Nikkor*ED, and have owned the Canon FD new 200/2.8 IF (internal focus) version. I prefer the FD version, the internal focus design makes it much more comfortable to use. Optically the Canon has a little bit of chromatic aberration problems. On actual use (i used it a lot for professional portraits 18 years ago) it didn't pose any problem and the bokeh of the FD is amazing, really wonderful (same with the Nikkor of course).

If you were located in my city i would definitely trade my Nikkor 180 for your 200/2.8...

Paul Howell said:

Prices for the fast FD, Minolta MC and Konica AR glass has always been high, as high as Nikon. Canon FD L glass has held value. The bargain has been in consumer level lens, the standard 28mm, 50mm (other than a 1.2) 135 and 200.

Click to expand...

Canon FD prices used to be low mainly because they couidn't be used on digital cameras. Now, with the mirrorless boom, they're useful again. This drives prices up. However i can't understand how they can get more expensive than the exact Nikkor equivalent. Or is is that people are realizing that, optically, FD lenses are often better? We are in trouble...

Interestingly, nowadays FD lenses or even older FL do not need any re-lubrication as opposite to Nikkor's. Every single non Ai or AI Nikkor I bought in the last 10 years had to go for CLA but optically they are all very sound. It's super hard to find now Canon FD 35-105 with clean lens elements and also FD 4/200mm.

flavio81 said:

[Nikon lenses] don't suffer from worn roller bearings, unlike most FD new lenses that feature floating design or moving internal elements. And almost all FD zooms suffer from this problem, too.

Click to expand...

Are those FD-lenses rollers all of same type and size at the various lenses? I doubt so, but maybe you know better.

AgX said:

Are those FD-lenses rollers all of same type and size at the various lenses? I doubt so, but maybe you know better.

Click to expand...

This is a very good question.

So far i've dissasembled two zoom lenses: FDn 35-105/3.5, and 35-70/4.0. They both used exactly the same rollers except I think one that was of different size (maybe not...)

There is a german thread in another forum that suggests all rollers are the same in FDn lens, and suggests using tubing of inner diameter 2mm inner & 4mm outer diameter as a replacement: https://digicamclub.de/showthread.php?t=16843

Another thread suggest using heat shrink tubing.

What I did, with not so well results, was to wrap the brass stud in electrical tape until I got the desired thickness. Not the best solution really, and i wasn't satisfied.

I have a FDn 28/2.0 that needs that repair, btw, but i'm not sure how to take out the front nameplate ring. It should unscrew, but it's narrow and it doesn't want to turn.

gorbas said:

It's super hard to find now Canon FD 35-105 with clean lens elements and also FD 4/200mm.

Click to expand...

It depends on humidity.

I had a 35-105/3.5 with clean lens elements...

And my 200/4 is clean for the most part (I cleaned it)...

But on the 'bay those two lenses aren't rare to be found.

gorbas said:

Interestingly, nowadays FD lenses or even older FL do not need any re-lubrication as opposite to Nikkor's. Every single non Ai or AI Nikkor I bought in the last 10 years had to go for CLA but optically they are all very sound. It's super hard to find now Canon FD 35-105 with clean lens elements and also FD 4/200mm.

Click to expand...

The Canon FD lenses require no lubrication because the focusing helicoids are Teflon coated.

benjiboy said:

The Canon FD lenses require no lubrication because the focusing helicoids are Teflon coated.

Click to expand...

Yes, but this is true of the FD New lenses only, as far as I know.

I have many chrome nose lenses from 1970-72 and (date codes L, M, N) and it seems they often suffer from some focus wobble which I'm not sure if it's lack of lubrication or the helicoid keys need adjustment.

Mind you i have had many pre-AI Nikkors that had much more serious helicoid issues...

flavio81 said:

Mind you i have had many pre-AI Nikkors that had much more serious helicoid issues...

Click to expand...

My H.C. Auto is a bit too easy to turn, but no wobble.

Canon was making L lenses in FD. Canon FD L lenses never been as cheap as another brands old manual focus only SLR lenses.

But I prefer old Nikkor mount lenses on Nikon film SLRs (have three of them currently) and same Nikkor lenses on my digital Canons.
I gave my film EOS cameras to our daughter.
I had Canon FTb with incredible Vivitar made 28 2.8. It was best optical quality lens from all manual focus lenses I had, have. But Canon FD cameras don't resonate with me at all. While even Nikkormat is charming.
And I have even more of non-Nikkor lenses in F mount. Some are Vivitar made and one is by Tokina. I choose them over Nikkors because focus scale is correctly oriented for me . Just like on my Canon L lenses and on my Leica mount lenses

Can't say I've noticed recent price changes, but then I haven't looked. Pre-AI often have squeaky or rocking helicoids, FDn less so. AI and AIS lenses sometimes suffer from similar traits, but less commonly. A couple of my Canon FD lenses have tight spots and/or rock, but they've lasted better than plastic sceptics predicted. That's true of A and T series bodies, too, though I agree they don't personally resonate like old Nikons.

This long after manufacture the condition of lenses and cameras matters more to me, than theoretical advantages at the time. Mirrorless adapters have pushed the price of most film-era lenses upward.

Ko.Fe. said:

I choose them over Nikkors because focus scale is correctly oriented for me .

Click to expand...

Finally there is someone who agrees with me on that "wrong" orientation.
(Strange enough even Tamron with their Adaptall-2 range was inconsistent on this.)

AgX said:

Finally there is someone who agrees with me on that "wrong" orientation.
(Strange enough even Tamran witghun their Adaptall-2 rang was inconsitent on this.)

Click to expand...

While I am not sure about the focusing scale nor the aperture scale but the direction of mounting the lens is definitely backward. But using the Nikon for so long it became natural for me and using others made me turn the wrong way.

I have been using Nikkors for so long that I thought that it was other lenses that focused backwards!

My main use of FD lenses is for video work. Nikon backward focusing and zoom in and out action are sometimes real PIA. But they keep my brain in good shape. Instead of muscle memory action I have to think twice every time I have to touch Nikkor lens. I need usually almost a day of work before I'm totally used to Nikkor way. Also mainly using Nikkor's zooms helps, I leave Canons for interviews.
I did not notice much wobble in nonAI or Ai lenses, just dry helicoid grease.

All I can say is that although I know Nikon lenses are excellent, I have owned them in the past, but I have fifteen Canon FD lenses I have had the majority of them for more than twenty-five years and they are better lenses than I'm a Photographer.

benjiboy said:

All I can say is that although I know Nikon lenses are excellent, I have owned them in the past, but I have fifteen Canon FD lenses I have had the majority of them for more than twenty-five years and they are better lenses than I'm a Photographer.

Click to expand...

I'm using Nikkor's for the last 38 years but just recently fell in love with FD lenses even I did not find yet Canon FD body that I really like to use and that can rival any of my Nikon film cameras.

gorbas said:

I'm using Nikkor's for the last 38 years but just recently fell in love with FD lenses even I did not find yet Canon FD body that I really like to use and that can rival any of my Nikon film cameras.

Click to expand...

I have owned most of the Nikon classics and most of the Canon classics. I'd say the Canon F-1, New F-1, T90, and even the T70 and A-1 are great user cameras. I definitively prefer my F-1 over my Nikon F2, and sometimes i prefer my F-1N over my F3. I had the A-1 and i enjoyed it a bit more than the Nikon FE, and the T70, even if appears ugly, was more enjoyable than both.

The A- series cameras have way smoother shutter and mirror action than the FE/FM/FA line, and have been proven to be very reliable.

I do think, however, that Nikon has more great cameras than Canon -- i'd say the number of great Nikon cameras is greater than the number of great Canon (manual focus) cameras.

Flavio, in early 80s I studied cinematography at University of Arts in Belgrade, then Yugoslavia. There are 5 of us on the class. 3 Canon, one Minolta and one Nikon user (me). We used our still cameras a lot back then and very often we did shared them too. So I had nice milage using my colleagues Canon's cameras during those 4 years. 2 of them had A-1s and one had F-1. Guy with F-1 later bought A-1 and then T-90. Comparing F-1 to my Nikon F2AS is like comparing apples and oranges. Even by then F-1 was old camera, more like Nikon F than F2. F2AS was superior in every possible sense. That F-1 owner even was thinking about jumping ship to Nikon after using my F2 for while. I personally did not find anything appealing in F-1, A-1 was interesting, but with so many unnecessary bells and whistles.
One Canon I always liked because of it's simplicity was AT-1. I ended up with a few AE-1s (I don't know how, they are just multiplying just like rabbits) and EF. I'm looking at F1N or T90 but with present price trends most likely I will just stay with what I already have. For a few rolls of film a year in Canon, it's not big deal for me.

gorbas said:

Comparing F-1 to my Nikon F2AS is like comparing apples and oranges. Even by then F-1 was old camera, more like Nikon F than F2. F2AS was superior in every possible sense. That F-1 owner even was thinking about jumping ship to Nikon after using my F2 for while. I personally did not find anything appealing in F-1, A-1 was interesting, but with so many unnecessary bells and whistles.
One Canon I always liked because of it's simplicity was AT-1.

Click to expand...

My only Nikon F2 is a F2S model, which is almost the same as a F2AS. Actually I had the F2AS as well and I prefer the F2S. So i know those models. Still, i prefer my original F-1 instead of the F2S. The F-1 is much more ergonomic to use and I prefer the "partial" metering, even if objectively the meter is less sensitive and slower than the one in the DP-3/DP-12.

Nowadays I sense that what I need from a camera is great ergonomics, a very smooth working shutter and mirror action, reliable focusing precision / film plane precision and a reliable meter. The F-1 gives me all those qualities, as well as the Nikon F3 too. I think the Pentax MX too. The F2 doesn't; the camera is bulky and unbalanced with a metering head. The meter on (any) F2 needs to be recalibrated with each focusing screen change... and its unusable with the plain matte screen (which I happen to like). This is not my imagination -- the Nikon focusing screen compatibility chart says it so.

The AT-1 is a very good model, i'm considering buying another one (i gave away one after I broke the meter while dissasembling the camera...). But yes, very good model, simple and usable. EF I did not like at all (sold it). AE-1 isn't as nice as the A-1, T70, AT-1 and others.

Ha, ha, Flavio, for somebody who grow up with USSR RFs, Zenit's and Praktica PLC2 as first serious camera, Canon AE-1 is awesome camera!
It's all matter of getting used to it. Yes, F2AS can feel big, unbalanced, heavy but if it's your main camera then you just get used to it. If not, then just move on.
Maybe it's time for you to switch to Leica M? It's still not too late to write quick letter to New year Santa. You have a few hours left?
As fo B focusing screen on F2, it always worked well with 500mm mirror lens for me. Did not notice any need to recalibrate for screens.
DP-12 Photomic served me well in the last 28 years. I checked it zillion times with incident and spot meters and it was always spot on. Of course I understand that YMMW
Yesterday I checked AT-1s on Ebay and affordable ones all look very tired & bitten up and then there are nice ones with crazy prices.
All the best!

benjiboy said:

All I can say is that although I know Nikon lenses are excellent, I have owned them in the past, but I have fifteen Canon FD lenses I have had the majority of them for more than twenty-five years and they are better lenses than I'm a Photographer.

Click to expand...

i worked in a camera shop in the 80's, and like many others involved in the industry at the time, we all believed that Nikkors were superior to Canon FD. Then I started looking at reviews, Modern Photography and others, and I came to realize that it was likely the other way around...Canon FD were in most cases optically superior to Nikkors.