Canon "New" F-1N!

[flavio81]

I shot my FD 55/1.2 S.S.C. lens for the first time this weekend (and my 2nd roll with the F1-N). It handles perfectly, just like the F1-N. A very nice combination. I hope to get the film developed and scanned this weekend. Can't wait to see the difference with the FD 50/1.8 I used on my first roll with the F1-N.

The FD new 50/1.8 is a decent lens, contrasty, almost zero distortion, nice colors.
As canon put it on a brochure: "It passes lens tests with flying colors" and "It has a solid reputation for stable picture quality and sharp, crisp picture performance. "
Marco Cavina (has a website) has tested this one against a Summicron 50/2 (among others) and the image quality was comparable at f4-5.6, and together with the Leitz lens, the best of his test group. So it is not a bad or mediocre lens at all.

I think the 50/1.4 is a better lens, at least for colors -- i think it is a bit more contrasty and saturated. The FDn 50/1.8 was more of a "budget" lens with rather inferior build quality to the f1.4, while for example in Nikon both the 50/1.8 and 50/2 lenses are as well built as the 50/1.4, at least in pre-AI and AI versions. The FD 50/1.4 has very nice ball bearings for the aperture lever mechanism, while the FDn 50/1.8 does not have this luxury.

And i strongly feel the FD 50/1.4 is the best 50/1.4 of the Canon-Nikon-Pentax illustrious brands.

The FD new 50/1.4 was an improvement of the (famous) FD 50/1.4.
The FD 50/1.4 as well was the multicoated version of the FL 50/1.4 II. I have a "modern camera" magazine test of this lens (FL) compared to the previous version and other lenses, and the performance figures are impressive, and the reviewers were surprised as well. This lens was designed in 1968 "as part of a series of lenses with higher resolving power" (as the Canon museum puts it, see below). You can BET this was the year where the lenses for the future F-1 camera were designed, since the early (1971) FD lenses are mostly the same formula as those late (1968) FL lenses.

The FL 55/1.2 was designed almost simultaneously and from it, on a contemporary catalog, Canon said: "It is more advanced than the FL 50/1.4 II". Whatever that means. On other Canon text:

This lens has one of the highest lens speeds of any of the standard lenses used in single-lens reflex cameras, together with the FL 58mm F1.2 which is already on the market. The lens, belonging to the improved Gauss type, was developed by Canon to complete the series of lenses with higher resolving power and higher contrast. Utilization of four high-index glasses of a new type, together with a new design and positioning of the optical system, has completely eliminated high curvature of field and spherical aberration, resulting in greater center clarity, unusual for a lens with a maximum aperture opening of f/1.2.

The FD 55/1.2 is the multicoated FL 55/1.2. Another catalog says, this time about the FD 55/1.2:

This is a large aperture standard lens based on the optical system of the FL 55mm f/1.2. Despite its large aperture, it is highly reputed for its high contrast and stabilized image definition at full aperture opening. Because of its fast f/1.2 speed, it provides high image quality in low light level photography. Its optical performance is similar to the FD 50mm f/1.4 S.S.C. because both have fast lens speeds. Moreover, Canon has compensated for various aberrations, i.e., spherical aberration and coma

The FD new 50/1.2 is a totally different lens. And the FD new 50/1.2L is also a totally different lens to them.

Canon has a long pedigree of doing fast lenses, from the early 50/0.95 for rangefinder cameras to the R 58/1.2, the first f1.2 standard lens ever for SLR cameras. The evolution thus is:
R 58/1.2 --> FL 58/1.2 --> FL 58/1.2 2nd gen --//--> FL 55/1.2 ---> FD 55/1.2 --//--> FD 50/1.2

for the FD 50/1.8 the evolution is as follows:

R 50/1.8 (first version with a cemented front lens group) --//--> R 50/1.8 (2nd version, new 6/4 optical formula) ---> FL 50/1.8 ---//--> FL 50/1.8 II (2nd version, improved formula) --> FD 50/1.8 --//--> FD 50/1.8 S.C. (improved formula) --> FD new 50/1.8 (improved formula)

As i wrote before, i think the advantage of the 55/1.2 is on the very, very pleasing out of focus rendering. It also has very good definition once stopped down at f2.8 or narrower. It also looks fantastic on the F-1 !

My FD 50mm f1.4 is already a better optic than I'm a photographer and for the price of a FD 50mm 1.2 L lens on Ebay I could buy two Canon F1-N AE bodies.

Yes Benji, i agree that the 50/1.4 is the best value, but i'm talking about the FL 55/1.2 or the FD 55/1.2, they are not expensive at all. The FD 50/1.2L is a totally different lens, a luxury item with ground aspheric surfaces, much more expensive.

And, of course, the FD 55/1.2 S.S.C. is a totally different lens than the "FD 55/1.2 ASPHERICAL" which is perhaps the ultimate Canon standard lens.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Here are some images of my very first film shot with my "new" Canon F1-N with 50/1.8 on Agfa Vista 200 colour film in November 2016 ...

I like those photos - especially the shot in the fog and the spider web.

 

[benjiboy]

The FD new 50/1.8 is a decent lens, contrasty, almost zero distortion, nice colors.
As canon put it on a brochure: "It passes lens tests with flying colors" and "It has a solid reputation for stable picture quality and sharp, crisp picture performance. "
Marco Cavina (has a website) has tested this one against a Summicron 50/2 (among others) and the image quality was comparable at f4-5.6, and together with the Leitz lens, the best of his test group. So it is not a bad or mediocre lens at all.

I think the 50/1.4 is a better lens, at least for colors -- i think it is a bit more contrasty and saturated. The FDn 50/1.8 was more of a "budget" lens with rather inferior build quality to the f1.4, while for example in Nikon both the 50/1.8 and 50/2 lenses are as well built as the 50/1.4, at least in pre-AI and AI versions. The FD 50/1.4 has very nice ball bearings for the aperture lever mechanism, while the FDn 50/1.8 does not have this luxury.

And i strongly feel the FD 50/1.4 is the best 50/1.4 of the Canon-Nikon-Pentax illustrious brands.

The FD new 50/1.4 was an improvement of the (famous) FD 50/1.4.
The FD 50/1.4 as well was the multicoated version of the FL 50/1.4 II. I have a "modern camera" magazine test of this lens (FL) compared to the previous version and other lenses, and the performance figures are impressive, and the reviewers were surprised as well. This lens was designed in 1968 "as part of a series of lenses with higher resolving power" (as the Canon museum puts it, see below). You can BET this was the year where the lenses for the future F-1 camera were designed, since the early (1971) FD lenses are mostly the same formula as those late (1968) FL lenses.

The FL 55/1.2 was designed almost simultaneously and from it, on a contemporary catalog, Canon said: "It is more advanced than the FL 50/1.4 II". Whatever that means. On other Canon text:



The FD 55/1.2 is the multicoated FL 55/1.2. Another catalog says, this time about the FD 55/1.2:



The FD new 50/1.2 is a totally different lens. And the FD new 50/1.2L is also a totally different lens to them.

Canon has a long pedigree of doing fast lenses, from the early 50/0.95 for rangefinder cameras to the R 58/1.2, the first f1.2 standard lens ever for SLR cameras. The evolution thus is:
R 58/1.2 --> FL 58/1.2 --> FL 58/1.2 2nd gen --//--> FL 55/1.2 ---> FD 55/1.2 --//--> FD 50/1.2

for the FD 50/1.8 the evolution is as follows:

R 50/1.8 (first version with a cemented front lens group) --//--> R 50/1.8 (2nd version, new 6/4 optical formula) ---> FL 50/1.8 ---//--> FL 50/1.8 II (2nd version, improved formula) --> FD 50/1.8 --//--> FD 50/1.8 S.C. (improved formula) --> FD new 50/1.8 (improved formula)

As i wrote before, i think the advantage of the 55/1.2 is on the very, very pleasing out of focus rendering. It also has very good definition once stopped down at f2.8 or narrower. It also looks fantastic on the F-1 !



Yes Benji, i agree that the 50/1.4 is the best value, but i'm talking about the FL 55/1.2 or the FD 55/1.2, they are not expensive at all. The FD 50/1.2L is a totally different lens, a luxury item with ground aspheric surfaces, much more expensive.

And, of course, the FD 55/1.2 S.S.C. is a totally different lens than the "FD 55/1.2 ASPHERICAL" which is perhaps the ultimate Canon standard lens.

I have the new type FD 50mm f1.8 and f1.4 and have never found any difference in the construction quality, the ball bearings in the diaphragm rings are exactly the same.

 

[miha]

The FD new 50/1.8 is a decent lens, contrasty, almost zero distortion, nice colors.
As canon put it on a brochure: "It passes lens tests with flying colors" and "It has a solid reputation for stable picture quality and sharp, crisp picture performance. "
Marco Cavina (has a website) has tested this one against a Summicron 50/2 (among others) and the image quality was comparable at f4-5.6, and together with the Leitz lens, the best of his test group. So it is not a bad or mediocre lens at all.

Do you mean this test: http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Canon_FD_lenses_and_Leica_M/00_pag.htm

I see that Canon lags far behing the Summicron at any apperture. Obvious even at f/5.8, even more at wider settings.

Both pictures courtesy of Marco Cavina.

 

[flavio81]

Do you mean this test: http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Canon_FD_lenses_and_Leica_M/00_pag.htm

I see that Canon lags far behing the Summicron at any apperture. Obvious even at f/5.8, even more at wider settings.

Miha,

You are looking at the images of the FD 50/1.8 S.C.

Now look at the images of the New FD 50/1.8, included in the same comparison.

 

[miha]

Miha,

You are looking at the images of the FD 50/1.8 S.C.

Now look at the images of the New FD 50/1.8, included in the same comparison.

True, my mistake.

Your statment is thus correct, but have a look at the lenses wide open! Summicron is still excellent, something that cannot be said for the canons at f/1.8-f/2.

 

[flavio81]

True, my mistake.

Your statment is thus correct, but have a look at the lenses wide open! Summicron is still excellent, something that cannot be said for the canons at f/1.8-f/2.

Yes, the Summicron is a better lens, and at 20x (?) the price of the Canon lens, it should be.

But my point is that, taking the Summicron as a benchmark, at f5.6 (the ideal aperture for a 50mm lens), the Canon New FD 50/1.8 is behaving really really good... Even more if you consider its cheap internal construction (barrel is plastic, lens retainers are plastic).

Even compared to the illustrious Canon New FD 50/1.2L, a "dream lens" for some, the 50/1.8 at f5.6 comes out really well, with an extra of 'crispness' and contrast over the f1.2 lens.

 

[flavio81]

Marco Cavina's words:

Il 50mm f/1,8 FD-new, seppure sotto le mentite spoglie di una montatura di plastica con serigrafie economiche, è un vero sound-performer, sempre in scia al poderoso Summicron e distanziato di inezie, spesso più legate al contrasto (facilmente implementabile in digitale) che alla risoluzione pura

(...)Un plauso dunque all'FD 50mm f/1,8, il più classico, diffuso ed economico degli obiettivi FD e tuttora in grado di fornire risultati di alto livello, perfettamente attuali, grazie anche al suo vecchio ma intramontabile schema "Planar" simmetrico, una soluzione che con queste aperture garantisce risultati eccellenti.

My translation:

The 50/1.8 FD-new, despite under the disguise of a plastic mount with cheap lettering, is a real "sound-performer", always traling after the Summicron but just at a small distance, more related to contrast (easily implementable in digital) than pure resolution.
(...)
Thus, applause for the FD 50/1.8, the most classical, popular and affordable of the FD objectives and still able to give high-level results, perfectly current, thanks also to is old but timeless "Planar" symmetrical scheme, a solution that at these apertures guarantees excellent results.

 

[TheToadMen]

I went out shooting yesterday with my F-1N and a FD 55/1.2 SSC lens. Camera and lens handles nicely. I hope to finish the film tomorrow and to see what this lens is up to ...

Here are some results for the 55/1.2 SSC lens. I made these images during a walk with a poet in her neighborhood. She pointed out some places I then shot for her to make a poet about that image.
(Deventer, The Netherlands, March 2017 ~ Canon F1-N, 55/1.2 SCC, Fomapan 100 in Ilfotec DD-X)

 

[flavio81]

Here are some results for the 55/1.2 SSC lens. I made these images during a walk with a poet in her neighborhood. She pointed out some places I then shot for her to make a poet about that image.
(Deventer, The Netherlands, March 2017 ~ Canon F1-N, 55/1.2 SCC, Fomapan 100 in Ilfotec DD-X)

Try it on portraits at f1.2, this lens really shines in these circumstances.

 

[TheToadMen]

Try it on portraits at f1.2, this lens really shines in these circumstances.

Will do, thanks for the tip!

 

[cooltouch]

Flavio, I enjoyed reading your treatise on the Canon normals, especially since I own four of those discussed: the FL 55/1.2, FD 55/1.2 SSC, FD 50/1.4 SSC, and 50/1.8 SC. I wonder, however, how the 55mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical fit into Canon's scheme of things back then. I know the Asphericals were the forerunners to the "L" lenses -- I also own an 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical, so I'm familiar with its place in the overall historical hierarchy of the 85s. So I guess the same is true with the 55/1.2 Asph being the forerunner to the 50/1.2 L.

Oh and just to remain on topic, after many years of rather snobbishly preferring the F-1n to all comers, I finally gave in and bought a clean F-1N with AE Finder FN few years ago. I was impressed. I didn't think it was possible for a camera to be more rugged than the original F-1, but I gotta say, if there is a camera that is more rugged than the original, the New one is. One of the nice things about the New F-1 is you can customize it to your liking because of its modularity. Shortly after buying mine, I equipped it with a plain matte focusing screen that provides partial metering (my preference since my early F-1 days), and added a Motor Drive FN. So not only does my F-1 have a wonderful manual mode, if desired, I now have both Aperture and Shutter Priority modes as well. Take that Nikon F3! (Although I do like the F3 as well, and own one.)

 

[TheToadMen]

.... I equipped it with a plain matte focusing screen that provides partial metering ...

Could you please explain how that works?

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Could you please explain how that works?

Seems strange, doesn't it? With the F-1N you can have 13 different screens and a total of 32 screen/metering combinations. Here is the best explanation I've found:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/canonf1n/metering/index.htm

 

[benjiboy]

Flavio, I enjoyed reading your treatise on the Canon normals, especially since I own four of those discussed: the FL 55/1.2, FD 55/1.2 SSC, FD 50/1.4 SSC, and 50/1.8 SC. I wonder, however, how the 55mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical fit into Canon's scheme of things back then. I know the Asphericals were the forerunners to the "L" lenses -- I also own an 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical, so I'm familiar with its place in the overall historical hierarchy of the 85s. So I guess the same is true with the 55/1.2 Asph being the forerunner to the 50/1.2 L.

Oh and just to remain on topic, after many years of rather snobbishly preferring the F-1n to all comers, I finally gave in and bought a clean F-1N with AE Finder FN few years ago. I was impressed. I didn't think it was possible for a camera to be more rugged than the original F-1, but I gotta say, if there is a camera that is more rugged than the original, the New one is. One of the nice things about the New F-1 is you can customize it to your liking because of its modularity. Shortly after buying mine, I equipped it with a plain matte focusing screen that provides partial metering (my preference since my early F-1 days), and added a Motor Drive FN. So not only does my F-1 have a wonderful manual mode, if desired, I now have both Aperture and Shutter Priority modes as well. Take that Nikon F3! (Although I do like the F3 as well, and own one.)

I've been shooting with F1-N's and F1n's for nearly thirty years and the thing all models of the F1 have in common is they are built like tiger tanks, you could literally knock nails in with them and they would still work. I have several of both models and in all the years I have been shooting with them I have only had one of them develop a minor shutter fault on one slow speed that was easily fixed by a local camera technician, and whereas if I had a A or T series Canon S.L.R. that needed repairing I wouldn't spend the money on it I would replace it, if it was an F1 I would.

 

[CMoore]

Is there much difference, in day to day use, between the two.....do you prefer one type of F-1 over the other for some reason(s).
Thank You

 

[TheToadMen]

Seems strange, doesn't it? With the F-1N you can have 13 different screens and a total of 32 screen/metering combinations. Here is the best explanation I've found:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/canonf1n/metering/index.htm

Thanks for the link, I didn't know that. But then, I don't know much yet about the F-1N system, but that I like using it already after just two films. This mir.com website is a good place to start reading and there's probably a good book about the Canon F-1N system out there?

I have the PE focussing screen, standard for the New F-1 it seems.

But I would like to try the PL screens also:

"A unique screen which divides the subject not only vertically, but also in the horizontal plane. The subject is in focus when the four quarters merge to become one unbroken image. For all lenses." (source)
Makes sense to me.

 

[benjiboy]

Thanks for the link, I didn't know that. But then, I don't know much yet about the F-1N system, but that I like using it already after just two films. This mir.com website is a good place to start reading and there's probably a good book about the Canon F-1N system out there?

I have the PE focussing screen, standard for the New F-1 it seems.

But I would like to try the PL screens also:

"A unique screen which divides the subject not only vertically, but also in the horizontal plane. The subject is in focus when the four quarters merge to become one unbroken image. For all lenses." (source)
Makes sense to me.

Be careful Bert New F1 focusing screens are expensive and can become addictive, and although it's good that they are available for specialized purposes (macro, architecture, extreme telephoto photography) you might eventually find yourself owning far more than you ever actually use although they seem like a good idea at the time, I recommend you only buy them if you can't do without them.

 

[TheToadMen]

Be careful Bert New F1 focusing screens are expensive and can become addictive, and although it's good that they are available for specialized purposes (macro, architecture, extreme telephoto photography) you might eventually find yourself owning far more than you ever actually use although they seem like a good idea at the time, I recommend you only buy them if you can't do without them.

Thanks for the warning, GAS is lurking everywhere indeed!

 

[cooltouch]

After buying my New F-1, I got lucky and found a PC screen at KEH for about $25. I didn't realize until much later how good of a deal this was. Mir says this about the C screens:

"A plain screen with matte/fresnel field and clear matte. Suitable for those who are accustomed to focusing with the matte area. Particularly effective for macro and telephoto photography. All three metering patterns available."

I got used to shooting with plain matte screens by the mid-1980s because I did quite a bit of long telephoto and macro work. My fastest tele back then was a Canon FD 300mm f/4, but if I needed more focal length, I'd add a good teleconverter, so I was shooting at 600mm f/8. I also owned a Sigma 600mm f/8 mirror, which was an excellent optic, so I was using both of these lenses a lot. Plus I had the Canon Auto Bellows and FD 50mm f/3.5 macro lens and did quite a bit of macro work, so for me, the plain matte screen wasn't just a good idea, it was a necessity. And, since I've become so used to using the plain matte screen, these days if I buy a camera with interchangeable focusing screens, one of the first accessories I buy for it is a plain matte screen. Now, with the New F-1, I was also able to specify the metering pattern. Because I had been using the old F-1 (and FTb) for so many years, I preferred (and still do) the partial metering pattern (hence the PC screen). It is much more useful than the standard averaging pattern, and if used wisely, most of the work done with a spot pattern can be duplicated with a partial pattern by carefully positioning it.

 

[TheToadMen]

It seems there are three versions of some types of the screens: A, P or S. Now I have the PE, but what is the difference with the AE and SE version?

Apparently the first letter "stands for metering Sensitivity pattern" (source). I'm guessing that it indicate the type of metering? And that these three letters stand for:

A = conventional center weighted average metering,

P = Partial metering (12%),

S = spot metering (3%)?

So if I want to switch for center metering to spot metering, I'll need to get me another focusing screen?

 

[benjiboy]

I carry three screens Bert one "AE" in the camera a "PE" and a "SE"in my pocket or camera bag, the "E" microprism/split image screen is good for most subjects I find there's no need to own all 32 available screens.

 

[flavio81]

It seems there are three versions of some types of the screens: A, P or S. Now I have the PE, but what is the difference with the AE and SE version?

Apparently the first letter "stands for metering Sensitivity pattern" (source). I'm guessing that it indicate the type of metering? And that these three letters stand for:

A = conventional center weighted average metering,

P = Partial metering (12%),

S = spot metering (3%)?

So if I want to switch for center metering to spot metering, I'll need to get me another focusing screen?

Yes. The idea is that you prepare the F-1 that suits your preferences. For example i prefer partial metering for everything.

 

[benjiboy]

I have a plain matte screen for both my New F1's and my F1n's, and have difficulty focusing with them especially with wide angle lenses, so it's a good thing you have the choice of changing the screen for a split image or microprism etc. depending on the subject and type of lens in use.

 

[benjiboy]

Yes. The idea is that you prepare the F-1 that suits your preferences. For example i prefer partial metering for everything.

Canon in the user manual recommends Flavio that for AE modes with the New F1 the best exposure is achieved with the A focusing screens