What's the skinny on Canon F-1

[cooltouch]

I am considering some Canon R-series lenses (manual diaphragms), too, but the R 50/1.8 will not work on my F-1N (according to the instruction book).

The R lenses were Canon's first breechlock style, and are not compatible with either the FL or FD mount cameras. However, the FL lenses will fit your FD cameras, and offer you manual aperture control. In fact, you must use the stop down lever to meter with these lenses. The FL lenses were built to last. One of my all-time favorites is the 35mm f/2.5, which I used a lot with my F-1s and FTb. I recently bought an FL 55mm f/1.2 that I haven't had a chance to shoot with yet, but I am very looking forward to it. Good news about FL lenses is that they can often be picked up for next to nothing on eBay.

Michael

 

[cooltouch]

The 6X finder for the F-1N will not fit an F-1/F-1n so that's one disadvantage of these cameras.

Have you actually tried this, by any chance? Reason why I ask is because I have mounted a New F-1 standard prism to an Old F-1. It clicks into place, but the eye relief appears to be a bit different and thus focusing is a little strange. So even though Canon claimed finders between the two systems would not interchange, it is possible at least in that one instance.

So I'm wondering why the 6x finder won't work. Does it protrude too far into the finder cavity, perhaps?

Michael

 

[FilmOnly]

Thanks, cooltouch...perhaps I should have been more precise. What I like about Pentax screwmount lenses (as opposed to FL lenses) is that one may stop them down using a lever on the lens itself, as opposed to that somewhat awkward stop down mechanism on Canon bodies. I have found it very easy to go back and forth (from auto to manual) when using my screwmount lenses. If I have missed something here in regard to the operation of FL lenses, please point it out.

I could not agree more: the FLs and other such lenses are beautifully constructed. We will never see lenses like these again. I just love the knurled focusing rings on my screwmount lenses.

With regard to purchasing FLs--yes, they may be had for pennies. If I were to buy some, I would avoid those that employ radioactive materials. I have debated this point with others, and am aware that the levels are rather low. However, I would rather avoid these lenses anyway.

 

[cooltouch]

I don't know if all FL lenses have this capability, but my 55mm f/1.2 does. It has a selector at the rear of the lens labled A-M. When set to A the iris stays open, except when the stop-down lever is engaged and when the shutter is tripped. When set to M, the iris is in "manual mode" and opens and closes as the aperture ring is rotated. My 55/1.2 also has a little chrome nub on the A-M ring, so it's quite easy to switch back and forth between the two modes by pushing on this nub, the effect being to momentarily stop down the lens.

Plus, since most (all?) FL lenses I've seen have ridged grips on the aperture ring, it is a relatively easy process rotating it quickly to check DOF or what have you.

At least one FL zoom used a plunger for momentary checks of DOF -- the bazooka-sized 85-300 f/5, but that was the only FL lens I've seen with that feature. You can see the plunger at the rear of the lens in this photo:

And really I guess it depends on the Canon body, as to whether or not the stop-down mechanism is awkwardly placed. It lies directly under my left thumb on A-series bodies, on the New F-1 my left middle finger rests atop it, and on the FT/FTb/F-1/EF, I use my right middle or ring finger for this. I've never felt it to be particularly awkward. To each his own, though.

Michael

 

[FilmOnly]

I thank you, Michael, for your thoughtful reply. I, too, use a couple of F-1Ns and an A-1. In regard to the placement of the stop down lever on these bodies, in addition to where it is placed on the body, I had also meant the ability to go back and forth (manual to auto, auto to manual) without having to remove the lens and reset the lever in the lens mount area. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that once the lens is stopped down (using the body's stop down lever), one has to reset the lever in this manner.

I will have to look into whether the FL 55/1.2 has radioactive materials. I think it does. Would you know?

 

[cooltouch]

I thank you, Michael, for your thoughtful reply. I, too, use a couple of F-1Ns and an A-1. In regard to the placement of the stop down lever on these bodies, in addition to where it is placed on the body, I had also meant the ability to go back and forth (manual to auto, auto to manual) without having to remove the lens and reset the lever in the lens mount area. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that once the lens is stopped down (using the body's stop down lever), one has to reset the lever in this manner.

I will have to look into whether the FL 55/1.2 has radioactive materials. I think it does. Would you know?

According to this resource, only two Canon optics contained thorium oxide: the FL 58mm f/1.2 and the early-70s FD 35mm f/2.0

http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Radioactive

According to this one, the FL 55mm f/1.2 Aspherical has a rear element that contains the offending compound:

http://photo.net/canon-fd-camera-forum/00NufL

Mine isn't an Aspherical lens, and it shows no sign of a yellow or brown cast, which is typical of the lenses that contain the ThO2 elements.

I have personally never seen an FL lens that has any sort of lock on the rear that has to be manually engaged or disengaged. It isn't necessary, since the lens's iris can be stopped down, and then un-stopped down from the lens exterior. I recall owning a breechlock FD lens with this feature, though, and my Tamron Adaptall-II mount for Canon has it. True, it stops down the aperture when mounted to the camera, and it must be dismounted to unlock it, but you should understand that the original reason for this feature was so the lens could be mounted to accessories such as manual extension tubes, the Bellows FL, or even reverse mounted, and still be stopped down. Canon didn't come out with their auto bellows until several years after they released their FD line. So, while the FL lenses could be stopped down manually from the lens's exterior, in order to show some backward compatibility, Canon elected to have an interior based method using this switch. In later years, Canon sold a small accessory that was attached to the rear of the lens, which performed this same function.

But when using the stop down lever on the camera body, whether the lens is FL or FD, the lens is stopped down only for as long as the lever is engaged. When it's released, the lens is back in normal operation mode. (Obviously, with an FD lens, the aperture ring must be moved from the "A" position to stop down the lens.)

 

[FilmOnly]

Thanks, Michael...your descriptions have helped me. We Canon guys have to stick together

As far as I can tell, you are correct about Canon's (few) thoriated lenses. I will now be looking for some nice examples of these FL lenses: 35/2.5, 50/1.8, and 55/1.2. Do you find it difficult finding 48mm filters? I use only UV filters.

 

[cooltouch]

I haven't had an occasion to need a 48mm filter. My 55mm f/1.2 takes a 58mm filter, which appears to be the standard size for the smaller FL lenses. See here for technical data on FL lenses:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fllenses/index.htm

This website is also a good resource for Canon FD as well.

Interesting. I see it shows the 50/1.8 as taking a 48mm filter. Some older compact cameras use a 48mm filter. I want to say the Canon Canonet 17 G-III QL takes a 48mm, but I'm not sure. And I just don't know about new ones.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Yeah, the Canonet takes 48mm filters. How do I know this, never having owned a Canonet? I've acquired my share of 48mm filters trying to find ones that fit the FD 600/4.5 (and 800/5.6L and other big white lenses, including the current EOS versions) drop-in filter carrier, and they not only have to be 48mm, but they have to be thin. Why couldn't they have designed the drop-in holder to use 49mm filters, which are much more common?

 

[cooltouch]

Hey David,

Know anybody who has a milling machine? Because a regular 48mm filter has an outer thread ring, it's deeper than what you need. So you can cut the filter down with a mill. I did this just the other day with the extension tube for a slide duplicator -- it had a protruding lip that prevented it from screwing down on one of my lenses. Took a few minutes on my mill. Or you can do it the slow way: use sand paper taped down to a flat surface, and just run the filter face-down across it until you've taken off the amount you need removed. Then, if stray light reflecting off the aluminum may be a problem, just take a sharpie to the edge.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

"Why couldn't they have designed the drop-in holder to use 49mm filters, which are much more common?"

It's Canon! Because how else could they get you to buy all those 48mm filters?

"In later years, Canon sold a small accessory that was attached to the rear of the lens, which performed this same function."

Yeah, that will be easy to find now.

Sarcasm off now. I really really Like Canon, I really do. Big fan of their gear, from many eras. But the little stuff gets to you now and then.

 

[benjiboy]

Yeah, the Canonet takes 48mm filters. How do I know this, never having owned a Canonet? I've acquired my share of 48mm filters trying to find ones that fit the FD 600/4.5 (and 800/5.6L and other big white lenses, including the current EOS versions) drop-in filter carrier, and they not only have to be 48mm, but they have to be thin. Why couldn't they have designed the drop-in holder to use 49mm filters, which are much more common?

Have you tried gelatin filters David they're thin, and can be cut to size, they might not last long , but they may work

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Gelatin filters are inconvenient in this application, unless you happen to have the hard-to-find drop in gelatin filter holder, and , the filter thickness is part of the optical system, so this is one case where a glass filter is preferable to a gel filter for optical reasons.

As far as I can tell, Canon never really offered that many 48mm filters that fit the holder, and these aren't exactly their best selling lenses, so it's not like it would be a big source of profit.

I think I did once sand down a filter ring to make it fit, though.

 

[dynachrome]

Canon F-1

I have a 55/1.2 Canon FL but not the 58/1.2. My 55/1.2 FL does not have the same discoloration that I have seen in the 58 lenses. I don't believe there was ever a 55/1.2 FL marked Aspherical. The 35/2.5 FL is a nice lens. When stopped down a little it does a good job. It is not as good as any of the 35/2 FD models. Some of my favorite FL lenses are the 50/1.4 II, the 85/1.8, the 100/3.5 and the 135/2.5. What's really different about the FL lenses is their aperture rings. At the time that the FL lenses were designed in the early 1960s it was assumed that they would be used for in-camera manual matering. This is why they're made so well. By the time the FD lenses were made it was already thought that automatic exposure would become more popular. The Servo EE finder and battery pack are cumbersome but the FD mount and O position on the aperture ring would later be used on the EF, AE-1 etc. The plan was that you would set the aperture ring on the O position and leave it there. As the early FD lenses wore, their aperture rings would loosen a bit. The New FD lenses have very positive aperture ring settings and clearly were not made for heavy manual exposure use.

When I compare the aperture ring of a 50/1.4 II Canon FL to that of a 50/1.4pointy prong Nikkor-S, I prefer the Canon. This is also why I like some of the late Minolta MC Rokkor-X lenses more than the MD models. The MC lenses have metal aperture rings.

 

[FilmOnly]

I appreciate these comments, dynachrome. Any views on the FL 50/1.8 II?

PS: I, too, have been impressed with Minolta MC lenses. In fact, I was reluctant to give up my XG-M bodies and MC lenses. I ended up wanting to go with one system, and, after various experiences, I found the Canon FD system to be best. I just love the F-1N, A-1, and AE-1P. FD lenses, like the MCs, perform well and are inexpensive. I prefer Canon's range of accessories and the meters in the Canon bodies I have mentioned.

 

[cooltouch]

Not wishing to hijack a Canon F-1 thread, I would just like to mention as an aside that the Minolta MC lenses are not the only ones that were built more solidly. In fact, some MCs weren't built as solidly as others. Here's a quick rundown:

MCs exist in three basic designs: the early Rokkors with all-metal focusing rings, the later Rokkors that have rubber inserts on their focusing rings, and the Celtics, which were a cheaper, amateur-grade line (think Nikon Series E).

MD lenses were made in two basic styles: the early MD Rokkors and Rokkor-Xs, which are basically identical to the MCs except for their extra meter coupling tab, and the Minolta MDs, which were the latest plasicky versions. The Minolta MDs also have a switch for the Program/shutter priority setting on the aperture ring that will lock it into place; the MD Rokkors and Rokkor-Xs did not.

Minolta's very first line of SLR lenses were the Rokkor Auto PFs. They had auto diaphragms, but no meter coupling.

 

[Tony-S]

Oh, and what about battery-less operation.

Yes, the old F-1 shoots without a battery, but why don't you want to use one?

Well, I've found that most of my macro shots are not as sharp as they could be.

How are you shooting them? (What f/stop, lens and shutter speed? Ambient or flash?)

A lot of the time when I'm composing shots, and time is not a factor, I'd prefer to just lock up the mirror & have one iota more sharpness.

Have you tried with a flash?

 

[dynachrome]

Canon F-1

The Canon Camera Museum website refers to a 50/1.8 FL II but I have never seen one marked that way. These are the lenses which have the A/M switch (post) near the mounting ring. I have both types and they seem to have the same performance.

 

[FilmOnly]

Indeed, I have just purchased the type with the A-M switch near the mounting ring. It should arrive in a few days. Are you pleased with the performance of your FL 50/1.8s?

 

[benjiboy]

I have owned several F-1s, both old and New, an FTb, and an EF.

Regarding Canon's claim that no MLU was necessary with the New F-1, I was just the opposite from David. I believed it until I read an article in Modern Photography back in 1983 or 1984 about this very issue, and they showed photos of a test target taken at long exposure times with the old F-1 using its MLU feature and the New F-1. The difference was much more than negligible. They concluded by recommending the old F-1 or even the FTb if one was doing macro or long telephoto photography.

I will never forget that article. Shortly after reading it I bought an FTb because it was part of my plans at the time to engage in both macrophotography and long telephoto photography. Not long after that I bought my first F-1 (an old one) because I found I really needed interchangeable focusing screens, which the FTb doesn't have. I have used the FTb's and old F-1s' MLU capability on many occasions, and have always been glad they were available functions.

As it so happens, I never bothered using my New F-1 for high-magnification photography (honestly, I didn't own it very long -- a great camera, but I just liked the old one better).

About the EF -- it is most definitely not "mechanically the same as an F-1 in this specific regard" unless David mean specifically the MLU mechanism. Otherwise the EF was unique to all other Canon cameras of the time, possessing a vertically traveling metal blade focal plane Copal shutter (think Nikon FM/FE). Even with the new shutter design, though, Canon decided to keep the MLU capability. Smart move IMO. And not a smart move, IMO to have dropped that feature with the New F-1.

Finally about the OP's original request for info. To my knowledge, Canon has never made an FD-mount SLR that has Aperture and Shutter priority AE as well as MLU. Apparently, however, it is possible to retrofit the T-90 for MLU. I don't know anything about the procedure, I just know that it has been done. Thus, if all three of these features are essential, I would recommend a T90, and then find someone to modify it for MLU.

Canon said they didn't make the mirror lock up facility in the T90 because the shutter and mirror mechanism was well damped that it was unnecessary, I don't know personally if this is so, I have 2 T90s and I've never needed it, they seem very vibration free, but I don't do macro photography.

 

[cooltouch]

Canon said they didn't make the mirror lock up facility in the T90 because the shutter and mirror mechanism was well damped that it was unnecessary, I don't know personally if this is so, I have 2 T90s and I've never needed it, they seem very vibration free, but I don't do macro photography.

If you do long telephoto photography, and if you ever have the opportunity to do a comparison between your T90 and an FD mount Canon with MLU, you might try swapping between the two on your telephoto rig, and see which reveals the sharper image. It may be that MLU isn't needed on the T90, but that's one way to find out for sure.

 

[benjiboy]

If you do long telephoto photography, and if you ever have the opportunity to do a comparison between your T90 and an FD mount Canon with MLU, you might try swapping between the two on your telephoto rig, and see which reveals the sharper image. It may be that MLU isn't needed on the T90, but that's one way to find out for sure.

I have two FD cameras with MLU a FTbn and an EF, I'll do what you suggest some time when I go out with a tripod and my longest lens a FD 300 mm ( that I haven't used for years) and see what happens, I shoot mainly portraits,with my FD 85mm and rarely these days use anything longer than 100mm, and never use my mirror lock.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

One earlier posts mention why would you shoot without battery. Which I agree most of the time, but every once in a while the battery dies(not often of course) but is nice it will work. It only happen once with me!

Jeff

 

[cooltouch]

It's always a good idea, I have always felt, to have at least one camera in my gear bag that is not battery dependent. It is nice (and sometimes necessary) to have a camera that is fully functional even without battery support. I've been in this situation before and learned from my mistakes -- I was doing some night photography during the winter, and shooting with a battery dependent camera. The battery did not last long because of the temperature and the longer shutter speeds (that camera used battery power to keep the mirror up), and failed after only a few minutes. I had no mechanical cameras with me, so I was done. After that, I left the battery dependent cameras home when I went on cold-weather shoots, and brought my F-1s instead. In those situations, the onboard meter isn't really required anyway.

 

[Dennis S]

When that happens you can take the battery out and put it in a warm part of your body (you decide I don't need to know) and you can get a few more frames out of it.