Do Canon FD lenses have a distinctive "LOOK?

[chip j]

I have a handful, but haven't used them yet. Leica has it's own look, so does Zeiss. How about Canon? Judging from my Canon 4X hi-res loupe, it looks warm and "comfortable".

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... Leica has it's own look, so does Zeiss. How about Canon? ...

Do they? If I made 10 transparencies (to avoid printing idiosyncracies) from Leica lenses and from Zeiss lenses and showed them to you and a group of people, could you determine which photo was made with which lens with better than 50% rate? I don't think you or anyone could.

I could mix in some other lenses as well and it wouldn't make a difference.

Note: I don't have any bias towards or against any manufacturer in this viewpoint. I have four Leica M's and two SL's, all with Leica lenses, plus four Hasselblads, all with Zeiss lenses.

 

[chip j]

Sounds like you simply don't know what you have, my friend.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

have a handful, but haven't used them yet.

Theo actually made some very good points.
But I'm concerned about your lack of validating what you say.

You say you haven't used any of the FD lenses? So they are paperweights??

Here's something for you to do.
Load a camera with transparency film (not negative!), mount an FD lens and start shooting with each of the Canon lenses you are referring to. Take notes of what you are doing.
Process and view the images on the lightbox.
When you're finished that, do the same with the Zeiss lenses. View those images beside the Canon shots. What do you see? Report all of your findings here. That way we will be proved wrong and you will be proved right. What could be easier than a bit of scientific research, hmm?

BTW, you are unlikely to see anything significant on 35mm with a 4x loupé. Try an APO-LD 8x to 10x.

 

[chip j]

I can't shoot right now because of health problems. I see PLENTY of significance w/ Leica & Zeiss 5X loupes (the great differences between them). I have shot Zeiss 35mm slides & Nikon ones--no comparison. My first GLANCE thru a Hasselblad revealed a world of class & prettiness my Mamiyas didn't possess.

 

[Soeren]

Its my findings that peoples ability to make interesting pictures and their obsession with the technical aspects like lenses and their contributions to the image are inverse proportional.
The best cure against that kind of magic bullit chasing is to go make some images, frame them and put them on the wall.

 

[TheRook]

I have a handful, but haven't used them yet. Leica has it's own look, so does Zeiss. How about Canon? Judging from my Canon 4X hi-res loupe, it looks warm and "comfortable".

I'm confused. Are you talking about the outer appearance (physical styling) of the lenses, or the images they produce?

 

[ruilourosa]

People see what they want to see...

Although lenses with similar manufacture processes tend to have some similarities that some people love, that does not mean that others are bad or "inconfortable".

Mamiya lenses are great, look at Leibovitz
Fujinon lenses are great, look at Avedon
Zeiss lenses are great look at Newton
Leica lenses are great look at Salgado
etc...

All these lenses are also bad if you do thing badly, all lenses are good for a purpose, even a cheap loupe!
I have seen holga images that are amazing!!!!

if you have a brand of lenses forget the others and use them!!! concentrate in your photography, (drawing with light!) and yo will forget the lenses you have!

Canon FD have some particular character that is more or less transversal with all the lenses of that time made in japan... if you want a magic lens that makes things for you that thing does not exist!

I love my nikkor 300mm for my Deardorff... but i think is mainly because of the things i do with it, not the lens it self... probably the apo symmar or apo-sironar or the fujinon or the kern dagor or the xxxxx are better, contrastier, more "confortable", but i do not have them so!!!!

i work with hasselblad V with a few lenses, rolleiflex with a planar, for some decades now, recently i bought a very "unconfortable", classless, charismaless, ugly Bronica GS-1 with 50,65,100 and now a 250... and the differences are mainly characteristics and not that abrupt, resolution not being one of them!
Comparing images i tend to prefer rolleiflex images... but mainly because i shoot more with it and the hit rate is higher....


most of this lens things: zeiss is and schneider does leica sparkles should be taken with care...

a tripod can make your shitty lens a much better one

 

[Dali]

Don't feed the troll. Our dear contributor "chip j" is a specialist of nonsense questions (see his recent posts).

No need to rationally argue with him as no logical argument will change his mind. Why? Because he does not care of getting an answer; his only pleasure is to post BS topic and see you guys trying to justify our points of view.

Want some evidences? Once again, look at his recent posts and tell me whet were his arguments. Pretty obvious that we don't live in the same planet.

 

[flavio81]

Don't feed the troll. Our dear contributor "chip j" is a specialist of nonsense questions (see his recent posts).

No need to rationally argue with him as no logical argument will change his mind. Why? Because he does not care of getting an answer; his only pleasure is to post BS topic and see you guys trying to justify our points of view.

Want some evidences? Once again, look at his recent posts and tell me whet were his arguments. Pretty obvious that we don't live in the same planet.

+100000000

 

[chip j]

"There will be those who LOOK, but cannot See"--Bible.

 

[bernard_L]

Here's something for you to do.
Load a camera with transparency film (not negative!), mount an FD lens and start shooting with each of the Canon lenses you are referring to. Take notes of what you are doing.
Process and view the images on the lightbox.
When you're finished that, do the same with the Zeiss lenses. View those images beside the Canon shots. What do you see? Report all of your findings here. That way we will be proved wrong and you will be proved right. What could be easier than a bit of scientific research, hmm?

Good point, but incomplete. It is OK for chip j to evaluate the slides, because the rest of us do not have the vision.
But...

1. The pics should be in identical pairs differing only in the taking lens. Shot near-simultaneously.
   
2. The frame numbers should be masked and replaced (by a trusted third party) by a randomized code

Otherwise, it is all too easy to be prey to self-delusion, like the "audiophiles" who swear that the sound is improved by placing a magic gizmo near the AC plug.
Unfortunately, such a proper experiment will not take place anytime soon. If it did, I would know where to bet my money (same as Poisson du Jour)

 

[MattKing]

"There will be those who LOOK, but cannot See"--Bible.

I am glad that chip j has found something (Leica lenses) that gives him a great sense of satisfaction and meaning.

Sadly, Leica lenses are not capable of giving most other people that same sort of satisfaction and meaning, but I can live with that.

 

[Dali]

I'm confused. Are you talking about the outer appearance (physical styling) of the lenses, or the images they produce?

The medium is the message.

 

[ic-racer]

Do they?

Yes. A Summicron with silver chromed brass has a distinctly different look to it than a black anodized aluminum Distagon which is still much different than a gray plastic Canon EF.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Don't feed the troll. Our dear contributor "chip j" is a specialist of nonsense questions (see his recent posts).

No need to rationally argue with him as no logical argument will change his mind. Why? Because he does not care of getting an answer; his only pleasure is to post BS topic and see you guys trying to justify our points of view.

Want some evidences? Once again, look at his recent posts and tell me whet were his arguments. Pretty obvious that we don't live in the same planet.

I thought that calling people trolls was against forum rules. Silly, silly me.

I agree completely with you about the OP, who lives under a bridge and subsists on goats.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Yes. A Summicron with silver chromed brass has a distinctly different look to it than a black anodized aluminum Distagon which is still much different than a gray plastic Canon EF.

You've convinced me. After further reflection, I do indeed see a difference. Strange that I never noticed it before.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I've owned them for over 30 years and never noticed a "look". My favorite Canon FD lens is my 85mm f/1.8. Beautiful bokeh.

 

[John Koehrer]

I'd suggest that if you have a problem with chip's posts you put him on your ignore list
rather than carping about trolls.

I've not really been too concerned by "look" or "glow" maybe I'm too unsophisticated.
I have, when shooting slides been very aware of subtle color differences in different
lens families.

 

[kobaltus]

Don't feed the troll. Our dear contributor "chip j" is a specialist of nonsense questions (see his recent posts).

No need to rationally argue with him as no logical argument will change his mind. Why? Because he does not care of getting an answer; his only pleasure is to post BS topic and see you guys trying to justify our points of view.

Want some evidences? Once again, look at his recent posts and tell me whet were his arguments. Pretty obvious that we don't live in the same planet.

Agree 100%. Can not ignore, such posts have distinctive smell.

 

[ruilourosa]

Italo Calvino put´s things well, as you can read in his "Adventure of a Photographer"... Seems like the tech craze creates such addicts to things that they even forget that they make the pictures... And although you are always determined by the camera in the way that we just do what is a technical possibility (we are our camera´s bitches), let´s take it as salt in the food! Lenses are good and bad and we all can see it regarding our purposes, but please do not throw arguments like: "if you cannot see it..." putting your self in a Zeus category and your lenses thunderbolts.

Technical aspects of photography are all quite solved since 100 years ago, and we just have, following our purposes, to choose our path... we can even stop taking pictures!!! it´s not mandatory.

Back to lenses: Try and choose! Canon fd are certainly good as are leicas, dont forget zeiss planars and the special biogon and the recent otus apo distagon, pass through petzvals, dagors, protars and tessars!!! cookes are also a good bet (that triplet makes a sweet portrait lens!!!) i love my takumars and nikkors, the zenzazons are amazing and cheap as are the mamiyas that i have put to digital use! The voigtlanders are nice too as are the russian industars and jupiters (that lubitel is a candy!!), i just tend to dislike zooms... they change... in all aspects!

The leicas are very nice indeed and made to last! go there if money is no issue! or if money is no issue i invite you to pursue large format or even ULF, maybe putting ambrotipes in the way or even better: daguerreotipes! lenses become less important... (i use a telescope tip ) as the process seems magical in it´s completeness (as you seem to seem things where nobody sees Mattking!! )

Meaning does not come from lens types or brands, comes from you! but ownership and materialism can dictate something about that meaning and satisfaction you are talking about!!! but was this forum about photographic images????????

 

[ciniframe]

For anyone with a lens brand fetish a good read is Mike Johnston's article from 2002, old but still very valid.
Google "The 50mm Lens and Metaphysical Doubt", the article is on 'Steve's Digicams' site.

 

[Helios 1984]

I am glad that chip j has found something (Leica lenses) that gives him a great sense of satisfaction and meaning.

Sadly, Leica lenses are not capable of giving most other people that same sort of satisfaction and meaning, but I can live with that.

Leicaman is not most people, most people use lesser equipment. ;-)

 

[chip j]

I'm in love w/my Contax G lenses, not Leica (although I like Leica too--I've had them, but they're second to the Gs).

 

[chip j]

Seems like most of you here in Doltland are incapable of appreciating me--it's like casting pearls before swine.