Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 - decisions

[Kirks518]

So I picked up the Canon FL 55mm f1.2 in a bundle purchase. My original intent was to sell it, but now I'm thinking about getting an Ed Mika conversion kit for it, and use it on my Canon EOS film and the D-word cameras. In the D-world, I shoot Canon, in the 35mm analog world, I shoot a Nikon F4s. I do have FD bodies (EF, A-1, AE-1, TX), but I never use them, as my (quality) FD lens selection is very limited.

If I sell the lens, I'll make a decent profit, but it's very unlikely I'll ever have a 1.2 again. If I convert it to EF, I'll probably use it (maybe not alot, but it'll see some use). The conversion for this lens is very simple to do, so I could either sell it down the road as converted or original, and have the same net as if I left it alone.

So, what's the question? Is this lens going to give me a new level of imagery? Or is it just ok in regards to quality, and I won't necessarily be wowed by it? Reading about it hasn't really helped, as opinions seem to go both ways.

 

[illumiquest]

I've had a couple of Canon FD 1.2's as well as a Minolta. All were purchased very cheaply and I had the same conundrum as you. With the canons I shot a few rolls with an FD body but can't stand how those work so just sold them. The minolta came with a body but again, I don't shoot minolta and don't intend to. For me, I'd rather just get an EOS 1.2 and not screw around with it. Really at that f stop focus becomes a pretty serious issue and I'd rather let and autofocus lens do the work. Quality I'd say it's nice but it's not THAT much nicer than a 1.4

 

[mweintraub]

Run a roll two of Portra 160, 400, or Ektar 100 in your FD body and see how you like it. Maybe you'll keep that lens for the FD bodies only.

 

[Dr Croubie]

I've got one, and I Ed Mika'd it (I've only got EF mount D and Film, no FL mount bodies).
It's good, but not great. Wide-open it's got that very low-contrast 'glowing' thing happening, and rather a lot of astigmatism. So does my Super Tak f/1.4. By f/2, the astigmatism on both is gone and they're both razor sharp.
I've never compared those two directly unfortunately (one day I might).

Still, it's the best f/1.2 lens that I've got, and at f/1.4 it sharpens up enough to beat the Tak. Past f/4 even the lowly Nifty Fifty EF 50/1.8 is also nearly as sharp as either of them.

 

[trythis]

Run a roll two of Portra 160, 400, or Ektar 100 in your FD body and see how you like it. Maybe you'll keep that lens for the FD bodies only.

+1

No point in modifying it if you dont know you love it.

I had one and sold it. It wasnt worth the effort to convert. I also didnt like using the FL lenses on FD bodies...too fussy.

 

[Kirks518]

Dr Croubie, how is the bokeh of the 1.2 compared to the Tak? I have a couple of those as well. From what I've seen/read, the 'bokeh balls' of the 1.2 are football (American) shaped. Is that your experience as well?

 

[snapguy]

purple giraffe

Nice lens but not an ace shooter. Fascinating as history. What would you do if you had a purple giraffe? Do you wanna run around and say I have a 1.2 lens or do you wanna shoot photos? I'm a Nikon guy since the 1960s but never had a 50mm F1.4 Nikkor until recently when I literally got one for nothing. The only photo I know of that I had published in Life Magazine was shot at f1.4. So the "new" f1.4 Nikkor is my personal purple giraffe. What to do with it?

 

[Alan W]

Canon 55mm fl at 1.2 on the right .Not too great in my opinion,very soft.I prefer the FD 50mm 1.4 (on the left) it's "cleaner" if you know what I mean.I sold my 55mm fl,but then I bought an FD 55mm(too good a deal!)

 

[Dennis S]

I asked myself the same questions quite a few years ago but I decided to just keep it with an A body Canon and I have not regretted the decision. The Ed Mika option would be my second choice as I could always revert it back to FD. Had it in for a CLA a year or two ago so its with me till the end.

 

[2F/2F]

The FD version is one of my main lenses for the Canon FD system.

It's a good lens for when you want f/1.2. But super fast lenses get their speed at the expense of other things. It's most notable optical problem is some barrel distortion. No big deal in most low-light shots, but for general purposes, it can be. It's also a large and heavy lens.

Like all FL and FD lenses, it has no worthwhile use outside of the system. I would not bother converting it for what limited functionality you can get with it on other cameras. I also would not bother investing in a new system just to use that lens. But if you happen on some compatible Canon body for cheap or for free, might as well keep the lens for those times when you might want f/1.2.

As for flipping it, you can get something for it, but it is not an extremely valuable lens.

Long story short, use it on a Canon body only, and only if you want f/1.2. For any other use, there are much better options.

I use it because I already have half a dozen compatible bodies, it performs well enough for what I want to shoot, I don't mind the size and weight, and I like having f/1.2 available if needed.

 

[Mackinaw]

........Like all FL and FD lenses, it has no worthwhile use outside of the system...

I know we’re not supposed to mention digital on this forum, but FD/FL lenses can be easily adapted to fit a wide variety of digital cameras. That’s the main reason FD/FL lens prices have been steadily rising the past few years. Some of the “L” lenses are getting to be downright expensive.

Jim B.

 

[2F/2F]

I know we’re not supposed to mention digital on this forum, but FD/FL lenses can be easily adapted to fit a wide variety of digital cameras. That’s the main reason FD/FL lens prices have been steadily rising the past few years. Some of the “L” lenses are getting to be downright expensive.

Jim B.

I know they can be adapted to some camera systems...but not "easily," not a "wide variety," and not really in any sort of worthwhile way IMO (unless you are talking motion picture cameras). They are far less adaptable than most old lenses, due to the fact that the Canon bodies they were made for were shallower than most. You can't put them on a Canon or a Nikon, or any cameras that are designed for Canon or Nikon lenses, unless you use poorly made optical adapters. And even if you have some other brand of camera (probably non-SLR) that you want to put them on, they come with big compromises. Most importantly, FDs become manual aperture, stop-down metering lenses when adapted, making their operation annoying at best. There is also the fact that they don't perform anywhere near their best when put onto high resolution, small-sensor cameras. Is adapting one better than no lens at all? I guess so. But that in no way makes them a "good" option for adapting, over all...especially with anything but the cream of the crop lenses. The FL 55mm f/1.2 in particular would be one of the worst lenses to adapt, because it isn't stellar optically, it's big and heavy to hang off of a tiny camera, and there is no point in using it over the f/1.4 version unless you are shooting wide open, which further exacerbates its issues on a high-resolution small sensor.

Canon L lenses have always been expensive lenses. Even when nobody wanted FD stuff, the L lenses remained relatively expensive glass.

In short, there is really no point in adapting this lens. You could get usable pictures for some purposes, in some situations, with some major compromises, and that's about the most you can say of its potential usefulness: better than no lens. There are scores of better options out there for whatever camera someone has in mind for using it on.

 

[blockend]

The FL 55mm f/1.2 in particular would be one of the worst lenses to adapt, because it isn't stellar optically, it's big and heavy to hang off of a tiny camera, and there is no point in using it over the f/1.4 version unless you are shooting wide open, which further exacerbates its issues on a high-resolution small sensor.

Get rid of it to someone obsessed by bokeh at all costs. There are many such people around, so you shouldn't have any problem finding a buyer. I also think the 1.4 a sweet lens, although it does exhibit focus shift from f2.8 to f4, so focus stopped down at these apertures.

 

[AgX]

The FD version is one of my main lenses for the Canon FD system.

It's a good lens for when you want f/1.2.

There are two optically different versions of this lens in the FD-range:

the spherical and the a-spherical one.

 

[benjiboy]

If it's of any interest to anyone thinking of buying one the user manual for for the Canon New F1 expressly says that the FL 55mm f1.2 lens should not be used on that camera.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

If it's of any interest to anyone thinking of buying one the user manual for for the Canon New F1 expressly says that the FL 55mm f1.2 lens should not be used on that camera.

Why is that?

 

[Yeeski]

The FL 55mm f/1.2 lens should work fine on the New F1. It's the older FL 58mm f/1.2 lens that may cause problems. Some of the older FL and R mount (Canonflex) lenses project further into the mirror chamber and may interfere with the movement of the New F1's metering levers and pins.

 

[benjiboy]

Why is that?

I just took another look at the New F1 user manual and it says.
Quote
The following lenses can't be mounted on the Canon F1
FL 19mm mm f3.5
FL58mm f1.2
R50mm f1.8
R100mm f3.5
R100mm f2
FLP 38mm f2.8
I suspect it's because they may foul the mirror movement but I don't know.

 

[benjiboy]

The FL 55mm f/1.2 lens should work fine on the New F1. It's the older FL 58mm f/1.2 lens that may cause problems. Some of the older FL and R mount (Canonflex) lenses project further into the mirror chamber and may interfere with the movement of the New F1's metering levers and pins.

Ah thanks I was going from memory and I missed that it's 58 not 55.

 

[2F/2F]

There are two optically different versions of this lens in the FD-range:

the spherical and the a-spherical one.

I am aware of this.

The one I have is obviously one of the standard models, as I referred to it as the FD version of the OP's lens.

The aspherical versions are better performers...but not enough better to change my opinions on adapting them.

All versions are good enough to use. I just don't know why anyone would bother adapting them to anything but an FL or FD camera.