Canon FL 50mm F1.4 - Version I, II, III - Question

[PGraham3]

I recently purchased a very clean Canon FL 50mm f1.4 that I intend to use on a Canon FX.
According to this website (https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/canfl50f14.htm), my lens is the second version.
From what I can gather after a bit of research, there doesn't seem to be much difference between the second and third version, but it is suggested that each version has a different optical construction. Would anyone have any more information about this?
Also, while I imagine there may not be a huge difference or any difference at all, I'm curious if the the third version of this lens is considered a better lens in its rendering, etc.
Thanks for your help!
-Paul

 

[gone]

The FL lenses are usually a different optical formula than the FD lenses, for the most part anyway. For any info, I've always gone to the Canon Museum, but the website is not like it was. I can barely find anything there anymore. These 2 links below will help, there isn't that much info on the FL lenses.

CANON 50mm f/1.4 II - Canon Camera Museum

Here, you can find out about Canon's S Lenses > 50-85mm > CANON 50mm f/1.4 II.

global.canon

Canon FL 50 1.4 early version question?

Canon FL 50 1.4 early version question? :: Lenses :: Home :: Manual Focus Lenses

forum.mflenses.com

 

[gorbas]

Hi, I find rendering of the first version of FL 1.4/50 much more "vintage" looking then FD 1.4/50. It will be interesting to find what actual differences are between all of them. Here is one picture taken on FF Sony camera with that FL 1.4/50

 

[AgX]

From Canon:

FL 50mm 1.4 6E/4G

FL 50mm 1.4 I 6E/5G

FL 50mm 1.4 II 6E/4G

 

[BobD]

Mir has some info on types I and II:
https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fllenses/index.htm

 

[AgX]

But they miss-name model I as the "plain" model, as they seemingly did not understand Canon's designations, which are weird.

But as Canon themselves have not got their first, "plain" model as sample in their collection, we can skip that from our discussion...

Thus remain models I and II.

 

[flavio81]

From Canon:

FL 50mm 1.4 6E/4G

FL 50mm 1.4 I 6E/5G

FL 50mm 1.4 II 6E/4G

But this info is not correct. It's not the first time the Canon museum is wrong (it has been wrong MANY times, contradicting canon's own catalogs). There are two optical designs of this lens.,

FL 50/1.4 was released 1965 and it's a 6/5. See diagram.

FL 50/1.4 second version was released in 1968 and it's a 7/6 design. This is exactly the same optical design than the chrome nose FD 50/1.4. The 50/1.4 SSC has better coatings and most likely has been recomputed while keeping the same optical design.

At some point in time it seems the FL 50/1.4 II lost its "II" markings. Or, the opposite, perhaps the "II" marking was added later. On the 1968 issue of Modern Photography, it's not labeled as "II" in the text.

 

[flavio81]

Modern Photography, April 1968.

 

[gone]

I've seen errors on the Canon Museum website too, and they seem to have "upgraded" it's look to the point that I have trouble finding anything anymore now.

Going by my experiences w/ FD and FL lenses, the FL lenses are usually different optical formulas, but not always, and yes, they do tend to have a more vintage look. Maybe because they're older and more, well, vintage.

I like the FD 50 1.4 lenses more, the bokeh is really nice, but that first shot you posted is great. Me, Id like to see a little less stuff in the background w/ a portrait, a fast 85-90 will usually do a better job on that.

 

[flavio81]

I've seen errors on the Canon Museum website too, and they seem to have "upgraded" it's look to the point that I have trouble finding anything anymore now.

Going by my experiences w/ FD and FL lenses, the FL lenses are usually different optical formulas, but not always, and yes, they do tend to have a more vintage look. Maybe because they're older and more, well, vintage.

I like the FD 50 1.4 lenses more, the bokeh is really nice, but that first shot you posted is great. Me, Id like to see a little less stuff in the background w/ a portrait, a fast 85-90 will usually do a better job on that.

Some FL lenses' optics were directly carried over to the FD chrome nose era:

FL 28/3.5 (only for the early FD versions, then it was changed from 7 elements to 6 elements.)
FL 35/3.5
FL 50/1.4 II
FL 50/1.8 (it's debatable really, the 50/1.8 was tweaked many times, apparently)
FL 55/1.2
FL 135/3.5
FL 100-200/5.6

I haven't analyzed the lenses over 200mm.

 

[AgX]

But this info is not correct. It's not the first time the Canon museum is wrong (it has been wrong MANY times, contradicting canon's own catalogs). There are two optical designs of this lens.,

FL 50/1.4 was released 1965 and it's a 6/5. See diagram.

FL 50/1.4 second version was released in 1968 and it's a 7/6 design. This is exactly the same optical design than the chrome nose FD 50/1.4. The 50/1.4 SSC has better coatings and most likely has been recomputed while keeping the same optical design.

At some point in time it seems the FL 50/1.4 II lost its "II" markings. Or, the opposite, perhaps the "II" marking was added later. On the 1968 issue of Modern Photography, it's not labeled as "II" in the text.

You desillusioned me... Canon are wrong...

Thank you for getting things straight.

 

[flavio81]

You desillusioned me... Canon are wrong...

Thank you for getting things straight.

You can get good info by downloading the catalogs at Pacific Rim Camera Library:

Pacific Rim Camera Reference Library

It's a treasure chest of documents!

 

[AgX]

Yes, I got quite some old papers from them in the past.