Canon FD versus Nikkors pricing nowadays

[eli griggs]

Canon SSC glass, FL or FD, is a good alternative to the FD L Series Glass, and it is always helpful, fast glass like the 1.2 85mm L lens, while wonderful, at least the one I had was, especially for fast moving dancers on stage in changing stage lighting, fastest glass can only get you so far, and these SSC lenses are both great lenses, are a real value, monetarily AND Photographically.

FL SSC is also quite good and stopping down manually is no big deal, depending on what you're shooting and the topic shot.

Even the average 1.8 50mm FD lens gives superior rendering, and unless you like cold tonal ranges, is the lens that will best of the two brands, deliver sharp, clear and unique, warm tone images.

This is true through the Canon FD line.

IMO.

 

[George Mann]

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.

The rift between how a lens measures, and how a lens renders a scene confuses many until one comes to realize what is important.

The same dilemma plagues hi-fi audio.

 

[flavio81]

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?

Yes, i do agree with you. In fact my first camera was a Zenit 12XL (similar to 122) and the next camera was an AE-1 which indeed felt like a luxury item...

Regarding the switch to Leica M... Considering that my Pentax MX cameras are of similar dimensions, similar weight, quasi absence of mirror shock, and wonderful to operate, i feel no need for Leica M system. I have a nice set of Pentax glass: 20/4, 28/2.8, 40/2.8, 50/1.4, 50/1.7 and 105/2.8, they're all compact (even more so the 40mm!) and render nice images. A wonderful system. I leave the M system to the collectors...

 

[Acticus]

The rift between how a lens measures, and how a lens renders a scene confuses many until one comes to realize what is important.

The same dilemma plagues hi-fi audio.

The reason many thought Nikkors superior was the excellent marketing Nikon targeted to people in the industry, not some etherial quality of the images made.

 

[flavio81]

The reason many thought Nikkors superior was the excellent marketing Nikon targeted to people in the industry, not some etherial quality of the images made.

I think the reason was that the professionals were largely using Nikon cameras (fact).

Nippon Kokagu has flexed its optical design muscles many times, for example the 6mm f2.8 220° fisheye, or their perspective correction lenses (a first in the industry); or what about the 35/1.4 lens (pioneering lens) or even the preceding 35/2.0, which was introduced in 1966, surely this was a state of the art item. The Nikkor-N 24/2.8 (1967) I think it was the first 35mm camera lens with floating elements. So there were very creative, perhaps not "better" but highly innovative, as Pentax had been at the beginnings and as Canon would be during the 70s/80s/90s.

But i do agree that this doesn't mean the lenses are inherently "superior". And I do have taken a look at some magazine tests of the 70s and indeed the FD lenses often were better performing.

 

[Acticus]

I think the reason was that the professionals were largely using Nikon cameras (fact).

Nippon Kokagu has flexed its optical design muscles many times, for example the 6mm f2.8 220° fisheye, or their perspective correction lenses (a first in the industry); or what about the 35/1.4 lens (pioneering lens) or even the preceding 35/2.0, which was introduced in 1966, surely this was a state of the art item. The Nikkor-N 24/2.8 (1967) I think it was the first 35mm camera lens with floating elements. So there were very creative, perhaps not "better" but highly innovative, as Pentax had been at the beginnings and as Canon would be during the 70s/80s/90s.

But i do agree that this doesn't mean the lenses are inherently "superior". And I do have taken a look at some magazine tests of the 70s and indeed the FD lenses often were better performing.

We used Nikon cameras because the "rumor" was that Canon lens were junk and Nikkors were The Second Coming. I think Nikon also approached photojournalists with lots of freebees and excellent support. In any case, the Canon FD lenses, once one looked at the tests, were clearly not junk, and in fact bested many Nikkors in similar categories.