Canon Lens FD Vs FDn

[CMoore]

I looked at the first 5 pages of the search and did not see it.

Was the change just a natural progression to newer materials and Smaller/Lighter lens at the time.?
I understand the Breech and Bayonet difference, but besides that, were they usually the "same" lens.
I have no idea about the coatings...did they "improve" on the newer lens.?

To look at them, i think the average person would say the older breech lock was a better lens. They were bigger and heavier, and just look like a "better" lens.

Anyway, just wondering if there is a general answer or did it vary depending on the lens.?
Thank You

 

[AgX]

Some lenses remained optically the same, other lenses are complete new designs. Furthermore during the existence of the new mount more lenses were introduced.

 

[benjiboy]

I have nine new type FD lenses with the polymer barrels all but one were bought second hand I have been shooting with for about thirty years Chip and they have always worked perfectly the coating on them is exactly the same as the earlier breech lock FD lenses either S.C Spectra Coated (single coated) or SSC Super Spectra Coated (multi-coated) with the exception of the even earlier "chrome-nosed" breech lock FD lenses that were not coated at all, none of the 1.8 50mm lenses were ever multicoated, but the f1.4 and f1.2 ones were.
I prefer the new type because they are lighter to lug about, and the bayonet mount is much quicker to change lenses quickly.

 

[AgX]

All FD lenses without any coating reference are multicoated.

 

[benjiboy]

All FD lenses without any coating reference are multicoated.

Wikipedia
Not true, In 1978, with the introduction of the New FD series (nicknamed 'FDn'), the coating type was no longer specified on the lens front. All of these lenses received S.S.C. coating, with the sole exception of the 50mm f/1.8 lens.

 

[CMoore]

Great.....Thanks for the info.

 

[dynachrome]

The early FD lenses were not uncoated. They simply used an older and less efficient costing. Also, Spectra Coating does not mean single coating. The S.C. lenses did not have as many surfaces coated as the S.S.C. lenses. The 135/2.5 S.C. is reasonably well coated. The later 135/2.8 New FD has better coating. The second version of the 200/4 (all black barrel but not marked SSC) has pre-S.C. coating and is terrible in back-lit situations. My favorite S.C. lens must be the 28/2.8. I prefer the earlier version with the aperture lock on the back. These are light, usually inexpensive and very sharp. I don't think the later 28/2.8 New FD is as sharp.

 

[benjiboy]

All FD lenses without any coating reference are multicoated.

Definitely incorrect http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/50mm.htm
The 50mm 1.8 lens has no coating reference on it and is single coated, however, all the other 50mm FDn lenses don't have any coating references on them either and are multicoated