Would you pay $800 for a Canon FD 85 1.8 lens?

[gone]

There's a bevy of Canon FD 85 1.8 lenses that have sold on eBay recently for loads of money. One eye opener sold for $699+tax+$45 shipping. The Leica R 90 2.8 Elmarits sell for less than that, and you could buy an R 90 2 Summicron for what these FD lenses are selling for.

Why? That's the question I keep asking. The FD 85 lenses are really good, but the FD cameras are not that great, and that's pretty much all that can shoot those FD/FL lenses. It all seems a little crazy, and for those of us that like classic SLR tele lenses, this doesn't bode well for the future. They're not going to make any more of those lenses, so the prices will probably just keep going up.

 

[Two23]

Cameras and lenses go through fads. Prices go up and down. If something is more than I want to pay I simply don't buy it. There's plenty of other interesting things out there for me.


Kent in SD

 

[MattKing]

They are probably being bought for use with mirrorless digital cameras.

 

[5150Bronco]

Will it serve a specific purpose? If so then it is worth it. I do agree with the mirrorless. That is where everything is going pretty much.

 

[ciniframe]

For some crazy reason that focal length in any name brand, Nikkor, Rokkor, Canon, Zuiko, Takumar, etc. all seem to be priced stratospheric. About 20 years ago I paid $200 for a fairly clean 85mm f2 Zuiko. That was the going rate then. Now days even an old Vivitar 85mm f1.8 preset T mount can sail past that price. I do see that there are some Chinese made 85’s but limited to Canon EF and Nikon F mounts that sell for $200.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Aren't Canon FD lenses, at least the exotic ones, being used as a set for cinema purposes? That would explain it.

 

[albada]

A zillion cheap zoom lenses cover 85mm. Are they going high? (I haven't been watching eBay, so I don't know what's happening out there.)

 

[mtnbkr]

but the FD cameras are not that great, and that's pretty much all that can shoot those FD/FL lenses.

My FT is crying now.

Actually, the FL/FD lenses can be adapted to a number of digital cameras. I use my FD lenses (my dad's old 50 1.8 and the 50 1.4 that came with my FT) on my Olympus M43 digital. If I ever upgrade to a FF Sony (which is my long-term plan), I would immediately buy an FL/FD adapter for that platform as well.

Aren't Canon FD lenses, at least the exotic ones, being used as a set for cinema purposes? That would explain it.

I think that's mainly the more exotic rangefinder lenses such as the 50 F0.95.

Chris

 

[Chan Tran]

This one here on Photrio were sold for $199 with the Canon A1 body and the 50mm.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/canon-a1-camera-with-50mm-85mm-lenses-sold.191004/

 

[benjiboy]

For some crazy reason that focal length in any name brand, Nikkor, Rokkor, Canon, Zuiko, Takumar, etc. all seem to be priced stratospheric. About 20 years ago I paid $200 for a fairly clean 85mm f2 Zuiko. That was the going rate then. Now days even an old Vivitar 85mm f1.8 preset T mount can sail past that price. I do see that there are some Chinese made 85s but limited to Canon EF and Nikon F mounts that sell for $200.

The "crazy reason," is that manufacturers sell in comparison with more popular focal length optics, very few 85mm lenses, I remember when I used to sell Canon FD lenses new at a professional dealer where I worked that the 85mm f 1.8 lenses cost more than two and a half times more than the 50 mm f1.8 lens, the reason is "economy of scale", because the manufacturer sells much more of the more popular less specialised focal lengths, and in mass production the more you make the cheaper they get.
Currently, $ 800 for an FD 85 mm f1.8 lens providing it's in good or better than good condition considering it's more than thirty years since they were made, and they will never be any more and are a diminishing resource is understandable under these circumstances.

 

[ic-racer]

Id keep looking for a more reasonable priced one, unless that one was still new in a sealed box.

 

[Paul Howell]

Fast 85 mm have always been pricy, as mentioned 85s were not in as large numbers as 100/105 or 135s which were the most common. I never thought much of the 85, a little too short, the 105 F2 always seemed a better buy.

 

[benjiboy]

Fast 85 mm have always been pricy, as mentioned 85s were not in as large numbers as 100/105 or 135s which were the most common. I never thought much of the 85, a little too short, the 105 F2 always seemed a better buy.

You are quite right Pau, a 100 or 105 mm or even 135 mm lens for tight headshots were more popular because they are less specialised, and more generally useful, and as I previously wrote, the more of a consumer item a company makes and sells the cheaper it gets.

 

[dynachrome]

I do not agree with momus that the FD cameras are "not that great." I have many nice FD cameras and I use them with FD and other lenses. The 85mm focal length is an odd one when it comes to what they cost today and what they have been fetching for some time now. I have many lenses but in the 85mm focal length I have only a few. They include an 85/1.8 Konica Hexanon, an 85/1.8 Canon FL, and 85/1.8 Canon New FD, an 85/1.8 Nikkor-H, an 85/2 AI Nikkor and a recently purchased but not yet tested 85/1.8 Neewer in Nikon mount. Over the years I have thought about 85mm manual focus Minolta, Pentax, Mamiya ES and Topcon lenses. For portraits of young people and small children I prefer a lens with closer focusing. I have made nice portraits with the 135/2.8 Vivitar Close Focusing. I have many of the slightly longer medium telephoto lenses, including macro lenses. These include Minolta 100/2.5, Nikkor 105, Konica 100, Takumar 105, Canon FL 100, Canon FD/N 100, Zuiko 100, Vvitar 90/2.5 Ser. 1, Rokunar 90/2.5 Macro and the 100mm Canon FD, Minolta 100/3.5/4 105/4/2.8 Nikkor Macro lenses. My 90/2.5 Tamron SP lenses can fit various mounts. My first longer than standard lens was a 135/2.8 Vivitar (not the close focusing model) which I got in 1973 for my 1971 Konica. It was and still is a decent lens but it didn't get close enough for portraits unless I used a thin extension tube or attached a lose-up lens. One of the Canon FD 85/1.2 lenses seems interesting but they sell for even more than $800.

 

[gone]

This may be a little off the wall, but maybe COVID had an effect on these price increases. I know that until a few years ago, many things were half as much, often a third. Canon FD 50 1.8 lenses used to cost around $20, and they were often hard to sell.

Not now, all the old, good film stuff is skyrocketing in price. Things are selling too, people aren't just listing the gear. You have to read the ads closely though, not all of these expensive items are in the same condition. Pentax 85 1.8 lenses are hovering around $300+, KEH had a Canon A1 listed recently for $149! At least you got free shipping.

 

[benjiboy]

I do not agree with momus that the FD cameras are "not that great." I have many nice FD cameras and I use them with FD and other lenses. The 85mm focal length is an odd one when it comes to what they cost today and what they have been fetching for some time now. I have many lenses but in the 85mm focal length I have only a few. They include an 85/1.8 Konica Hexanon, an 85/1.8 Canon FL, and 85/1.8 Canon New FD, an 85/1.8 Nikkor-H, an 85/2 AI Nikkor and a recently purchased but not yet tested 85/1.8 Neewer in Nikon mount. Over the years I have thought about 85mm manual focus Minolta, Pentax, Mamiya ES and Topcon lenses. For portraits of young people and small children I prefer a lens with closer focusing. I have made nice portraits with the 135/2.8 Vivitar Close Focusing. I have many of the slightly longer medium telephoto lenses, including macro lenses. These include Minolta 100/2.5, Nikkor 105, Konica 100, Takumar 105, Canon FL 100, Canon FD/N 100, Zuiko 100, Vvitar 90/2.5 Ser. 1, Rokunar 90/2.5 Macro and the 100mm Canon FD, Minolta 100/3.5/4 105/4/2.8 Nikkor Macro lenses. My 90/2.5 Tamron SP lenses can fit various mounts. My first longer than standard lens was a 135/2.8 Vivitar (not the close focusing model) which I got in 1973 for my 1971 Konica. It was and still is a decent lens but it didn't get close enough for portraits unless I used a thin extension tube or attached a lose-up lens. One of the Canon FD 85/1.2 lenses seems interesting but they sell for even more than $800.

I have the Canon FD 85 mm f1.2 L lens I bought it new when I worked at a pro. Dealers when they were current and even with my staff discount ( cost + V.A.T) it cost more than a months salary, and being a portrait shooter they will have to prise it out of my cold dead hands.

 

[Paul Howell]

Not now, all the old, good film stuff is skyrocketing in price. Things are selling too, people aren't just listing the gear.

True, camera shops are selling point and shoots from $75 to $200, not for the best of the class, just standard cameras. Shop near me sold a Konica Off Road 28mm wide for $300.

 

[250swb]

I think the point about the FD 85mm 1.8 is that it's a relatively rare lens outside Japan where the prices are cheaper. So that is what you pay for, it doesn't mean it's 'better' necessarily, just that for Canon shooters if you want an 85mm hard luck, somebody else owns it.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

The higher prices for the relatively pedestrian f/1.8 is from the explosive rise of the 85mm 1.2L, which has gone thru the roof due to the 'discovery' by shooters to be used on digital cinema cameras. A recent YouTube video 'revealed' that the 24L, 55L and 85L are basically the high-end Canon Cinema lenses of that focal lengths but in the 35mm film camera mount, and those Canon Cinema lenses have always been in limited supply and always expensive. The FD line of Canon glass used to be an open secret for low cost/high quality but no longer. I personally feel that this particular rise in prices for Canon is humorous, the Nikkor 85mm Ai-S f/1.4 is every bit of the lens of the Canon 1.2L (and likely faster, T-stops are not F-stops!) and that Nikkor is widely available at a fair and realistic price.
For now.

 

[__Brian]

The RF version of the Canon 85/1.8 typically sells in that range, the FD version- that is very high. Who knows, maybe someone looked at what Canon 85 f1.8 lenses had sold for and could not tell the difference.

 

[Steve906]

Many FD lenses are being converted to PL mount and cine style body, focus & iris drive etc. Some FDs are used to fill the gaps in very expensive K35 sets. Until very recently I worked and a company doing just this. Look at Media Division FD & K35 on YT. These sell for crazy money once converted.

 

[flavio81]

There's a bevy of Canon FD 85 1.8 lenses that have sold on eBay recently for loads of money. One eye opener sold for $699+tax+$45 shipping. The Leica R 90 2.8 Elmarits sell for less than that, and you could buy an R 90 2 Summicron for what these FD lenses are selling for.

Why? That's the question I keep asking. The FD 85 lenses are really good, but the FD cameras are not that great,

That's just your opinion.

Now, regarding the price of the 85/1.8, i agree, usd $800 doesn't make sense at all. It's all the fault of the cinematographers.

 

[flatulent1]

An FD 24mm f1.4L sold recently for $11,000. That's just nuts. Of course, now I'm wondering what I should do with mine. It's currently residing on a T90, waiting for better weather.

 

[ciniframe]

A zillion cheap zoom lenses cover 85mm. Are they going high? (I haven't been watching eBay, so I don't know what's happening out there.)

Sure, large, heavy and slow 80-200 zooms are plentiful, and cheap. Typically running about f4.5
Some short pro grade 28-85 zooms reach f2.8 and are much more expensive than the longer zooms. The 85 f2 or 1.8 are at least a stop faster and not much bigger than a 50.

 

[Huss]

For some crazy reason that focal length in any name brand, Nikkor, Rokkor, Canon, Zuiko, Takumar, etc. all seem to be priced stratospheric. About 20 years ago I paid $200 for a fairly clean 85mm f2 Zuiko...

20 years ago was a long long time ago. Maybe also in a place far far away.