• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

why are canon fd lenses so inexpensive

I don't really know how old most of you guys are. I bought my first camera around 1965, and watched Canon repeatedly burn their customers over the years with incompatible lens mounts every time they wanted to add some feature. Their lenses have always been great, and I owned several in Leica mount over the years, but when it came time to get a new SLR system a couple of years ago (having owned Oly before) I got a system that would use all the system lenses from day one--Nikon--and half my lenses are old Nikon ones now. I would have gotten Canon, but I really didn't want to join the hosts of the burned the next time Canon decided to add a feature.

I've got about a dozen lenses, and five bodies from different periods, a mix of from the 70s to now, including digital, and all the lenses fit all the bodies, and do what they're supposed to.

There's inexpensive. . . and then there's just plain cheap.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Canon isn't alone in obsoleting their products. Olympus abandoned SLRs entirely, Minolta not only changed lens mounts they came up with a proprietary flash shoe. Pentax scrapped m42 in favor of their K mount. Nikon? Try and use a non-AIS lens on a modern body.
 
Just go to flickr and see some photos shot with Canon fd lenses. It's good glass.
 
Canon is great glass, no doubt. But most of their vintage cameras just don't have the finish of say nikon, none of them are compact like pentax or olympus. (I consider the A series medium size) Add to that their incompatablity with most of the modern digital cameras. Dont forget the supply. There seems to be 10x the availability of pentax or olympus. And the final nail I would say is the availability of L series lenses, which the collectors and power users value over the regular series.

All this combined really keeps the price down. i was able to put together more FD lenses than I could use.
 
Canon is great glass, no doubt. But most of their vintage cameras just don't have the finish of say nikon, none of them are compact like pentax or olympus. (I consider the A series medium size) Add to that their incompatablity with most of the modern digital cameras. Dont forget the supply. There seems to be 10x the availability of pentax or olympus. And the final nail I would say is the availability of L series lenses, which the collectors and power users value over the regular series.

All this combined really keeps the price down. i was able to put together more FD lenses than I could use.
 
Wolfeye said:
... They made a lot of them and they last forever so they're still around. ...
Click to expand...

I recently bought an FTB, 50/1.8 & 28/3.5 for around $50. For some reason it took a long time to find a good condition 50 (in my price range, that is ) I came across quite a few with fogging, balsam separation or whathaveyou. Maybe it's just the city I live in?
 
I'm happy with the Canon FD system it's the one I've been using so long I can operate without too much concious thought and it has more than enough automation for my requirements, and partly due to the reduction in the current cost I have range of marque lenses that are ideal for the type of subjects that I'm interested in shooting, so I can forget about equipment and concentrate on shooting.
 
These are our gregarian moments benji; we are best traveling and taking pictures
 
Pumalite said:
These are our gregarian moments benji; we are best traveling and taking pictures
Click to expand...

To me the "best" equipment is the stuff that you're most used to,constantly changing it is counter productive, and being content with what you already have is a great feeling.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
benjiboy said:
I don't know or care why they are inexpensive, because it means I can afford to buy lenses that I've wanted for twenty years or more.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. That's why I'm selling at least 250 cameras.
 
Insert this above:
"To me the "best" equipment is the stuff that you're most used to,constantly changing it is counter productive, and being content with what you already have is a great feeling. "
 
I did a lot of my early breakthrough work with an AE-1 and A-1... still have my "retired" AE-1 and 50 1.4.... sold the rest when I was shooting a lot of chromes photojournalist style and the Nikon SB TTL series flash was like magic... oh and Canon abandoned the FD lens mount for AF.

I found the Tamron 60-300mm lens to be very useful... I used it FD style... but it was quite a decent piece of glass that most of the images in my early portfolio were made with.
 
It's inexpensive because of supply and demand. Nothing more.

There's more supply because Canon sold boatloads of them.
 
What I meant by my earlier post about being stuck with FD is that there is lower demand now because they only appeal to film users. Systems like M42 and OM are easily adaptable to modern digital slr's and 4/3 cameras so the demand remains much higher than say FD/FL Canon lenses or old Minolta stuff. Which is good anyways, for us
 
Only the really common prolific lenses are cheap, though... Just ask yourself how cheap it is after looking up the price of a 400mm+ zoom, or a 50mm f/1.2.... The primo lenses are $500-$1000 (and that's USED!) waaaaaaaay too rich for my blood.
 
not quite. You can still get excellent FD lenses like the 85mm f1.8, 200mm f2.8, 400mm f4.5, 20mm f2.8, 17mm f4, 15mm f2.8 fisheye.. for less than the comparable Nikkor, and considerably less than the comparable Pentax K-mount or Olyumpus OM.

The Pentax m42 lenses have some real steals and some overpriced lenses.
 
I bought a T 90 just so I could use FD lens. I had a 7s with Canon rangerfinder lens which were quite good, and I have a couple of fixed lens Canon finders, very good to excellent. I have the run of the mill FD lens, 28, 35, 50 or is a 55 1.4 85 1.8 100 200 and 300 with a couple of zooms, as good as any Nikon I have ever had. I have not costs compared Minolta or Konica with FD, but much less than good quaility M 42 or
K mounts fro Pentax, my other 35mm system. All I say about Pentax is that all of my M42 and K mounts will work in some capacity on my K7 and PZ1 which makes for easy travel, but I dont have a 85, 105 or 300 in K mount.
 
Yeah Canon FD lenses are cheap mainly because they are not compatible to too many great cameras. Many people hated Canon for abandoning the FD mount but I believe it was the best move Canon did. With the new lens mount Canon was able to at least catch up Nikon in 35mm and then surpassed Nikon in digital.
 

It's enough for me that Canon FD lenses are compatible with great cameras like the Canon F1, EF and T90, they did, and still do everything for me I require of a 35mm SLR, I was personally never interested in autofocus it was just something else to go wrong.
 
There is an ancient saying here :

You can not make a great meal with cheap meat. Canon bodies are designed by architects not photographers. They are angular , not hand friendly and weight is not balanced. I dont know why people loves toyotas and canons. If I am an artist and if there is an competition , I dont prefer toyotas as my race car but an mercedes, audi or bmw. This is correct analogy.
 

erm but the most important thing in film work is the lens and photographer not the bit in between.
 
I beg to differ

Mustafa Umut Sarac said:
There is an ancient saying here :

You can not make a great meal with cheap meat.
Click to expand...

Great cooks can make great meals with cheap cuts of meat just like a skilled photographer can make great photos with any lens. I love to cook and to photograph. I love to go to galleries and museums to see others works as well as go to restaurants to eat cooking of chefs to get inspiration. How many people do you know that have great camera gear that aren't good photographers just like people with fancy kitchens with fancy cooking gear that don't have a sense of taste?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register