Most interesting Canon FD-mount lenses

[TheFlyingCamera]

I've come into possession of a 1st version Canon F1 (the one that takes a mercury cell). The 50mm f1.4 on it has a non-working aperture stuck open at f/1.4 . Given that the cost of repairing the lens is probably greater than the value of the lens, I'm thinking of getting something else to put with it. I'm thinking of something with character that I can't get on one of my other systems - if I want a good quality 50mm, I have a Contax RTS III with the 50 1.4, which is a beautiful all-around lens. I'm thinking about for the F1 something like either the 55 1.2, the 58 1.2, the 85 soft-focus, or are there any other lenses I should consider that don't really have an analog on other systems (don't want/need super-telephoto stuff)? Also, I would love feedback on the 55 vs the 58 1.2 from anyone who has used both. I know that they both flare like crazy with a light source in frame, so that's not really a point of contention.

 

[loccdor]

I have the *FL* 58mm f/1.2, which does mount on the Canon F-1 without problems. It's a cool lens, but my copy seems to be misaligned and is only useful for portrait-type photography because the focus field is quite far from flat at infinity.

That being said it's a lens with tons of character, and I probably just got a bad copy. It was less than $200 which makes it one of the cheapest old f/1.2's you can buy.

The FD 135mm f/2.5, and nFD 100mm f/2.8, are both brilliant lenses. The later is extremely compact and sharp and the former, though heavy, has a built-in lens hood, sharp and extremely beautiful rendering.

Many praise the FD 35mm f/2 chrome nose, which I have, and it is a good lens, though not my favorite. FD 28mm f/2.8 is a stellar lens and was my Dad's old favorite.

 

[Radost]

i have a 16mm that is pretty interesting

 

[bluechromis]

I mention this because it is less common: the was an FD 35 mm f/2.8 tilt-shift lens. I think I was the first tilt-shift for 35 mm. People have been creative in using it for more than architecture.

 

[loccdor]

Here are some examples, all shot wide open, some with the F-1 and some with the T90.

FL 58mm f/1.2

FD 35mm f/2

nFD 100mm f/2.8

FD 135mm f/2.5

 

[Mackinaw]

You don't mention budget, but the FD 24/1.4 aspherical, FD 55/1.2 aspherical, or FD 85/1.2 aspherical are all top-notch, but also very pricey. I have a FL 58/1.2 which has tons of character especially wide-open. Can't comment on the FL or FD 55/1.2. The concave-front element FD 35/2.0 is legendary among Canon FD fans. I have one and use it a lot. The FD 85/2.8 soft-focus is an interesting lens, but hard to find. Likewise with the TS 35/2.8. The FD 50/1.4 is an excellent lens. Stanley Kubrick liked this lens so much he had one converted so it could be used on a movie camera. Lot of choices out there. Good luck.

Jim B.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

You don't mention budget, but the FD 24/1.4 aspherical, FD 55/1.2 aspherical, or FD 85/1.2 aspherical are all top-notch, but also very pricey. I have a FL 58/1.2 which has tons of character especially wide-open. Can't comment on the FL or FD 55/1.2. The concave-front element FD 35/2.0 is legendary among Canon FD fans. I have one and use it a lot. The FD 85/2.8 soft-focus is an interesting lens, but hard to find. Likewise with the TS 35/2.8. The FD 50/1.4 is an excellent lens. Stanley Kubrick liked this lens so much he had one converted so it could be used on a movie camera. Lot of choices out there. Good luck.

Jim B.

I'm trying to keep the price cheap, as I seldom shoot 35mm, so I don't want to tie up a whole lot of cash in a lens that won't get used often. The 58 FL and 55 FL are both within budget (I'm thinking under $200) but the 85 1.2 is definitely not something I want to invest in at this time.

 

[loccdor]

The ratings on this site are a good resource if you haven't seen it already. https://www.canonclassics.com/

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

(Mostly avoiding the pricy first rate lenses like the 85/1.2L, 24/2.8L, and super-teles):

The last version of the FD 135 is a great lens--usually one that people think should have gotten an "L" but maybe it didn't have enough special glass to qualify.

Also in the portrait range, consider the Tamron SP 90mm/2.5 Macro lens, which is an Adaptall lens, so you can get adapters to your other systems. Very sharp lens with nice bokeh wide open.

The 7.5mm fisheye is a fun lens that's reasonably priced for true fisheye lenses, and isn't a monster like the comparable Nikon.

If you don't need a super-tele but might want a long lens occasionally, the FD200mm/2.8 + 1.4xa +2xa is a very viable combination, and gives you four different tele options in a compact package--200/280/400/560. In general the 1.4xa adapter is excellent, but only works with lenses 200mm and longer due to the protruding front element. I think Canon say 300mm and longer, but I've used it with the 200/2.8.

I posted a test around here somewhere of the 50/1.8 /1.4 and 1.2L. The 1.2L is fantastic and gets you an extra half stop plus brighter focusing aperture plus solid metal construction, but there is much to be said for the compact, cheap 1.8, which has the character of a basic tessar and easily outperforms the other two as a macro lens in reversed position.

 

[benjiboy]

I would, if it was mine Scott sell the lens as a parts lens on eBay, and buy a working one, because the Canon FD 50 mm f 1.4 lens is one of the Canon flagships of the FD range, and was the "reference lens" of the system that was the one that the colour balance and optical quality of all the rest of the system was based on.
I have used one of these lenses for about 30 years on my F1's and It's a very good optic that I can recommend.

 

[dynachrome]

If your 50/1.4 is an FD SSC or a New FD, you should have it serviced. Canon FD and FD mount (breech lock) lenses can have non-
working apertures because their lubricants have dried up. This is less of a problem with the later New FD lenses. The 50/1.4 FD SSC was made from 1973 to 1978. This means that the first ones are now more than 50 years old. There were two f/1.2 Canon FL standard lenses, a 58 and a later 55. The 58 was a hold-over from the older Super Canomatic lens which was made for the Canonflex cameras. The 58 and 55 FLs are interesting. The 55 has less "character" than the 58. The 55 was the basis for the later 55/1.2 FD.

I have Canon lenses from Super Canomatic to New FD and only a modest EF collection. I find that both the 35/2 concave front FD SSC and the later convex front model are excellent. The later 35/2 New FD is also excellent optically but not as sturdy mechanically. I have a number of 200/2.8 FD lenses (both types) and find them as useful as my 180/2.8 Nikkors. The early pre-SSC FD lenses can be nice to use if the sun is over your shoulder. They are somewhat lower in contrast. The only one I really don't like is the 200/4. It's coating is just inadequate. The 200/4 FD SSC? Excellent. I think it's better than the New FD version.

 

[Craig]

I have the new FD 50/1.2 ( not L) and it is a fine performer. Makes handheld shots possible that couldn't be done with a slower lens.

An example: https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/pat.56122/

 

[dxqcanada]

Ohhhh, I would really take apart that lens and restore it before getting a replacement ... but I you are not me.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Ohhhh, I would really take apart that lens and restore it before getting a replacement ... but I you are not me.

I might attempt it at some point - the direct replacement cost is quite low (thus the not wanting to pay a repair tech for doing it).

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If your 50/1.4 is an FD SSC or a New FD, you should have it serviced. Canon FD and FD mount (breech lock) lenses can have non-
working apertures because their lubricants have dried up. This is less of a problem with the later New FD lenses. The 50/1.4 FD SSC was made from 1973 to 1978. This means that the first ones are now more than 50 years old. There were two f/1.2 Canon FL standard lenses, a 58 and a later 55. The 58 was a hold-over from the older Super Canomatic lens which was made for the Canonflex cameras. The 58 and 55 FLs are interesting. The 55 has less "character" than the 58. The 55 was the basis for the later 55/1.2 FD.

I have Canon lenses from Super Canomatic to New FD and only a modest EF collection. I find that both the 35/2 concave front FD SSC and the later convex front model are excellent. The later 35/2 New FD is also excellent optically but not as sturdy mechanically. I have a number of 200/2.8 FD lenses (both types) and find them as useful as my 180/2.8 Nikkors. The early pre-SSC FD lenses can be nice to use if the sun is over your shoulder. They are somewhat lower in contrast. The only one I really don't like is the 200/4. It's coating is just inadequate. The 200/4 FD SSC? Excellent. I think it's better than the New FD version.

The existing lens is a 50 1.4 SSC. The shop where I have all my stuff serviced would give me a quote for free, so I can find out what they'd charge. They also have a 55 1.2 (non-aspherical) in their used case that I might buy since it is local and would have a warranty.

 

[kl122002]

Been with FD system for almost 50 years, from pre ssc to the nFD , I never disappointed with any lenses, including zoom lenses.

Speaking of f/1.2 I just keep the FD 55/1.2 (without ssc) . It is my routine lens that with me for years since release. Funny is I actually had newer versions, like nFD 50/1.2 L but eventually I rarely used it and so I sold it for a good price. The new versions is always doing better in colour for sure.

Those days many makers used thorium to make large aperture lenes. Canon did it with 35mm f2 in few models. I am glad that they didn't make it happen on 55 or 50 , except FL58.

While for the other large aperture, been there but practically not my cup of tea, like 85/1.2 (ssc or L). It's too big, bulky, and especially taken up too much space while I am on travel/ projects. I prefer the more ordinary one 85/1.8 or 100/2.8

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Well, I ended up getting a 58 1.2 for a good price, so I'm going to play with that for a while.