why are canon fd lenses so inexpensive

[msbarnes]

I checked Keh.com, and they seem to be consistently lower-priced than its competitors.

 

[edp]

Because they don't auto focus, and they don't fit on EF-mount Canon cameras without an adapter, and that adapter needs optics in it because the FD-mount flange focal distance is shorter than the EF-mount distance.

 

[tomalophicon]

I checked Keh.com, and they seem to be consistently lower-priced than its competitors.

Because they are not as good as their competitor (Olympus)

 

[dnjl]

Because they are not as good as their competitor (Olympus)

I disagree. Canon made some top notch optics. FD glass is very inexpensive nowadays because, as has been mentions, it is incompatible with digital technology (except for 4/3).
I would also credit the large quantities of lenses Canon was able to sell, though it should be said that the top of the line lenses still command high prices.

 

[AgX]

I consider the L types not as inexpensive. I see Walter just refered to that.

On the other hand: I know one 2nd-hand camera dealer, who even refuses to acquire FD-stuff for sale.

 

[baachitraka]

Because they are not as good as their competitor (Olympus)

+1

 

[Focus No. 9]

dang it, i was hoping to unload some Canon excess to buy Oly excess.

 

[Vonder]

The lack of AF and lack of easy EOS mount adaptability are big factors, but the true reason is that nobody wants them. Supply and demand. They made a lot of them and they last forever so they're still around. I recently bought a m4/3 adapter for mine and love them even more. And then I bought a t-70 because I felt guilty going digital with them.

Now what I REALLY need is a T-70 data back... rarer than hen's teeth.

 

[benjiboy]

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.

 

[Les Sarile]

Relatively speaking, the most inexpensive are the Konicas particularly considering there doesn't seem to be as much of them.

 

[Ian Grant]

Canon FD lenses were on a par with Nikon, Pentax, Olympus & Minolta lenses, they re only cheap now, they were not when they were manufactured.

Otheres have stated why their incompatability with modern Canons means there's a smaller demand for them. So as Ben says he can buy great lenses at bargain prices now

Ian

 

[benjiboy]

Buy a Canon FD body and take advantage of them, they are great optics that are in many cases the exact same optical design as the current EF auto focus lenses without the A/F chip at a fraction of the price.

 

[stillsilver]

Shhh! You all are letting the cat out of the bag.

Mike

 

[michaelbsc]

I checked Keh.com, and they seem to be consistently lower-priced than its competitors.

They are all trash.

I'm running a free disposal program. Just send them to me and I will handle them from there. Don't worry about them.

 

[Markster]

Those f/1.4s and f/1.8s are really weak. Total garbage... You can sell about 10 for a cup of coffee... I'll take 'em off your hands if you don't want to clutter up your garbage can with them.....

No, I'm totally serious....

I'd be doing you a favor! Anything for an APUGer, right?


(*furtive glances*)

 

[holmburgers]

I won't be surprised however if the micro-4/3rds format conincides with a leveling off of the price discrepancy between Canon FD lenses and say, older Nikons.

 

[Klainmeister]

I wouldn't be surprised if Canon enters the 4/3rds market with an adaptation of the G11 or something and allows an FD mount. Everyone else is doing it and Canon has never been shy about waiting for the market to emerge and then dominate late in the game.

 

[ntenny]

There's some very good third-party FD glass as well as Canon's own lenses. It takes some decoding to figure out who made what---is that Vivitar lens made by Kiron or Cosina or Bob's Sandwich Shop And Lens Grinder?---but the good ones can be very, very good and practically free. I paid $9.99 on eBay for a Kiron 80-200 that's one of the sharpest SLR lenses I own.

-NT

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Even though the Canon FD lenses are inexpensive still good glass.

Jeff

 

[altim]

Same reason I'm unloading most of my Canon lenses, you're stuck with FD cameras. With say, M42, you can adapt that same set of lenses to all kinds of camera bodies.

 

[waynecrider]

When the 4/3rd's adapters came out the price on FD glass spiked a little and it seems to be maintaining it's price levels although everything seems to be more expensive nowadays, not just camera equipment. I did notice about 2 sales magazine issues back or so that KEH prices went up. Checking prices just now on the 50mm F1.4 manual focus lenses in Ex condition in the KEH catalog shows Nikon the highest followed by Pentax A series, Olympus, Canon then Minolta basically. The FD SSC glass in 50mm is one sharp cookie according to my testing, but not everyone wants a 100mm fov on a 4/3rd's camera or a 75mm FOV on a digital camera with a APS-C sensor which is why the much wider focal lengths are more expensive, and with film cameras continuing to loose users the excess of used equipment, as has been said, drops prices.

 

[Chan Tran]

Because they are not as good as their competitor (Olympus)

or Pentax, or Nikon

 

[2F/2F]

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

 

[2F/2F]

...you're stuck with FD cameras.

THE HORROR!

 

[Pumalite]

WOW!