Do Canon FD lenses have a distinctive "LOOK?

[Terry Breedlove]

I can only say that I really noticed a big difference when i switched from my Mamiya RB67 to the Hasselblad 503. So I guess maybe that would mean that kind of thing can be true for any lens company. Maybe the Canon engineers had a different set of goals when designing those lenses. I don't know but if you like the look then shoot them.

 

[TheRook]

To be presented with a random photograph and, based on its "look", accurately state which brand of lens was used must be quite a skill to have! (Apparently, chip j has such skill. I certainly don't.)

 

[CMoore]

Generally Speaking.....I would assume the ostensible purpose is the same for all lens makers.?
They want to shepherd a "sharp" and in focus group of photons to the film surface.?
There are always several ways to accomplish things, and those differences could impart a unique "look" to photos depending on which type of lens was used.
Seems like if it was enough to be noticeable and identifiable, it would make said lens less valuable and less desirable than a lens that was photographically transparent.?
I have no idea...just a beginner and i am taking a beginners guess.
The only real way to know would be to take a blind test. Snap the same photo, with same camera and same film, but with different lens .....and then present pics to somebody and have them tell you what lens was used to for picture #1, #2, #3 etc etc.

 

[rpavich]

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.

I agree with you. The more I learn and shoot the more I just use my old beat up FM2 and your run of the mill Nikon lenses that go with it. I do have a Leica M6 and I have spent a lot of cash on Leica lenses but in the end, most of what was pleasing about photos (or not pleasing) came down to my own artistic choices when shooting and how the cameras made me "feel" when shooting.

 

[GRHazelton]

Way back in the day I shot a Praktica LTL with its standard f1.8 50mm. A friend shot some sort of Nikon with a 50mm f1.8 or f2 - no significant difference - he asserted that his kit would give better pictures than mine. Both were manual focus, manual exposure TTL bodies.

Long story short, we shot the same subject, same day, same film, same processing, same printing (by Joe, who shot Minolta!) and asked Gordon and Lale (neither of whom were photographers) to judge. The result? G and L couldn't see any substantive difference. Sad to say, my Nikon friend said that there were subtle differences that only Golden Eyes could discern. Interesting that my Praktica kit at about $100 new was about half the cost of his Nikon? Reminded me of the audiophiles lauding "Golden Ears."

BTW, I still have the Praktica. Shutter sounds about right. The 50mm needs cleaning, since the diaphragm is sticky. But, after sitting disused for 35 years....

 

[Gerald C Koch]

In my experience people see what they think they should see. This crops up all the time in photography. My lens is sharper than yours, my developer produces less grain, ... ad nauseam.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

I agree that one cannot tell looking at a slide or print, which optical company a lens came from. HOWEVER, when looking through a camera with a Rokkor lens or a pre Series I Vivitar lens, I could tell the difference. The Rokkor lens had more brilliance and contrast. But that was in the early 1970's, since then the difference between the best lens manufactures and the third party lenses has become much smaller. I have a 28mm to 300mm AF zoom Tamron 35mm lens and a 28mm to 200mm AF zoom Nikon 35mm lens which when I look through the Nikon cameras I can only tell the difference by the longer focal length and not by brightness nor contrast.

On the other hand, when I look through the Hasselblad Zeiss lenses, I see a big difference between them and any 35mm Nikon lens.

As for the OP trolling down the river, yes I have noticed that tendency but on occasion he manages to fumble the ball [mixed metaphor alert] and ask a good question.

 

[Alan W]

Theo Sulphate-Why do you store your Canon FD lenses upside down?I remember someone telling me once that if you store lenses upside down that the oil in the focusing helicoid can migrate to the aperture blades.Anyone else heard this?

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Theo Sulphate-Why do you store your Canon FD lenses upside down?I remember someone telling me once that if you store lenses upside down that the oil in the focusing helicoid can migrate to the aperture blades.Anyone else heard this?

Dust and prevention of fungus are my top priorities. Some lenses I store upside down to keep dust off the front element (you'll notice I have the rear caps on, but I keep them askew so that air circulates a bit).

As for lubricants and the aperture blades -- I think gravity will cause the lubricants to migrate to the lowest point, regardless of orientation - even if mounted on the camera (as many of my lenses are). Am I right?

Recently I did check all my lenses and their blades - because my prized 50/1.4 Nikkor suddenly got oily blades in the last few months. I'd bought that lens new in 1988 with my F3/T and it's been mounted on that camera this whole time (and, interestingly, the oil on the blades was heaviest at the lowest point).

However, I am totally open to correction - if I really am placing these lenses incorrectly, let me know.

 

[darinwc]

My understanding was that Canon color-balanced their FD line of lenses. An attempt to make sure that color slide film produced similar results with any lens.

But here is a discussion where someone tested some lenses: http://photo.net/canon-fd-camera-forum/00W9x0
But I don't know how this compares with other lens systems.

Other than that, it is really difficult to say things about an entire group of lenses. It is far better to all about specific lenses.

 

[flavio81]

Theo Sulphate-Why do you store your Canon FD lenses upside down?I remember someone telling me once that if you store lenses upside down that the oil in the focusing helicoid can migrate to the aperture blades.Anyone else heard this?

Consider that lenses use grease on the helicoid, not oil.

And the New FD lenses use a special (teflon?) lubrication that is sort of "eternal" and does not migrate.

 

[Alan W]

Where does the oil that ends up on aperture blades come from?Ive seen a lot of it.

 

[flavio81]

Where does the oil that ends up on aperture blades come from?Ive seen a lot of it.

... but in FD lenses?

I have a lot of FD lenses and none of them have suffered from oil on the aperture blades. Nor they have any residue that would indicate the presence of oil.

 

[M Carter]

I did have an interesting experience this year, but with Canon FL lenses which are 1960's era, more primitive coatings - FD glass seems like it's a bit more "modern" to me.

But anyway, for my commercial video projects I got my first 4K camera about a year ago and generally use my Nikkors on it. Noticed an FL/FD adapter that was affordable, and did some tests with my FLs - 19mm, 50mm and 100mm.

I was pretty freaking stunned by the beauty. Little idiosyncrasies in color rendering, overall a more muted palette but with a strange saturation to the cooler colors. Wide open, it seemed like "god's favorite diffusion filter", a bit of mistiness yet still sharp details where in-focus. Generally a sort of "rembrandt-ey" look.

Granted, this is one family of glass performing on one specific media (sensor or film), but I'm trying to come up with a beauty or music project to shoot entirely FL. Maybe not something the average consumer would notice (and not the best look for corporate work), but I think most shooters would pick up on it instantly. I've hear people go on and on and on about the "character" of various glass... this is the first time I've seen it so apparent (unless, like many people, by "character" you mean "Severely flawed image"...)

 

[Alan W]

Flávio-81 I've seen plenty of FD lenses with oil on the blades.Ive bought and sold enough of them online that I've had oil on every focal length that I have-28,,85 and I35mm but in particular the 50mm ssc.Maybe because it was a popular lens,but I've personally bought cameras with four of these lenses that had oil on the blades.If it's not coming from the focusing grease I don't know where else it could come from.I have a 50mm sc disassembled right now that is very oily.Cant get it back together but I only bought it for the ftb that came with it!

 

[flavio81]

Flávio-81 I've seen plenty of FD lenses with oil on the blades.Ive bought and sold enough of them online that I've had oil on every focal length that I have-28,,85 and I35mm but in particular the 50mm ssc.Maybe because it was a popular lens,but I've personally bought cameras with four of these lenses that had oil on the blades.If it's not coming from the focusing grease I don't know where else it could come from.I have a 50mm sc disassembled right now that is very oily.Cant get it back together but I only bought it for the ftb that came with it!

Maybe this is because 90% of my lenses are "New FD" lenses. Perhaps this happens with the older ones.

I did have a FL 35/2.5 that required a full stripdown of all the aperture blades before working again. But i did not see any oil in them, although they got stuck intermittently.

 

[BAC1967]

Oil is a component of grease and if stored improperly the grease can bleed off the oil. If the lens is left in an environment where it is exposed to heat the separation will likely happen over time. The attached article gives a good explanation of this even though it pertains to industrial applications of grease.

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/28761/storing-grease-to-avoid-bleed-separation-

 

[btaylor]

Trolling along... while the OP makes some statements:

judging from my Canon 4X hi-res loupe, it looks warm and "comfortable"

that I don't have the "Golden Eyes" for, M Carter's statements concerning cinema use do make sense. Cinematographers make important decisions on a film's "look" and lens choice is among them. With the new digital sensors there has been a big movement towards the use of vintage cinema glass to tone down the too clean/sharp look of digital sensors. Vintage Super Baltars, Cooke and even Lomo (especially the anamorphics) are all the rage, with prices to match. Cooke is having a bit of a renaissance with a look that is described as "warm" vs. the colder look of Zeiss-- a standard of the industry for many years.

 

[naaldvoerder]

Yes off course they have a certain look. They have the metal ring around the bayonet, and most of them have "Canon" written on the lenscap!

 

[flavio81]

Flávio-81 I've seen plenty of FD lenses with oil on the blades.Ive bought and sold enough of them online that I've had oil on every focal length that I have-28,,85 and I35mm but in particular the 50mm ssc.Maybe because it was a popular lens,but I've personally bought cameras with four of these lenses that had oil on the blades.If it's not coming from the focusing grease I don't know where else it could come from.I have a 50mm sc disassembled right now that is very oily.Cant get it back together but I only bought it for the ftb that came with it!

Alan, it seems you're correct, my FD 135/3.5 has just had the aperture blades frozen and after dissasembly, there it is -- horrible oil on the blades.

First time i see it on a FD lens, but you're correct.

 

[blockend]

Canon FD have some particular character that is more or less transversal with all the lenses of that time made in japan

Nailed it. There may be some superficial difference between my Japanese lenses of similar focal length and aperture, but if so it's beyond my capacity to see it. They were highly evolved for visual neutrality - given the technical limitations of the era - and by and large avoided scary (or interesting YMMV) optical effects.