canon fd 55/1.2 SSC

[joachim]

Hi,

I have an opportunity to buy a Canon FD 55/1.2 SSC (non AL/aspherical version). Right now the fastest lenses I have access to are 50/1.7 or 50/1.8 (my 50/1.4 got stolen a few years ago).

What are opinions on this one? Anyone here has or had one? Did you get any useful images at wide open? Clearly I am not intending to use this at f/5.6.

I have handed it today. It is surprisingly heavy but nicely build. I intend to mount it on an AE-1P.

Thanks for your replies.

 

[venchka]

The price? Gotta know that first. I woudn't trade my 50/1.4 S.S.C. for anything. It only cost $50.

 

[awilder]

Here's a link: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65683 you might find helpful. The 55/1.2 FD is the exact same optic as the 55/1.2 FL. Bottom line is that the Canon is one of the best in the f/1.2 class but optically, the f/1.4 is a better performer stop for stop. The only reason to own an f/1.2 is if you really need to shoot at f/1.2, otherwise you'll do better with a Canon 50/1.4 FD.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

The 55 1.2 FL is a great lens if you love bokeh. I've had one for years. Very smooth. But. It's a heavy lens and unless really want to shoot at 1.2 most of the time, the FD 50 1.4 is the only way to go.

 

[crawdiddy]

This is the only photo I have handy. I believe this is wide open. Nice bokeh, and sharp at the point of focus-- count the whiskers.

Andy, the cat.

This is the FD 55mm 1.2 S.S.C. I bought it for about $130 on the 'bay. Focus is a bit stiff. Optics are impressive.

 

[iamzip]

Here's a link to a post I started a while ago concerning 1.2 vs. 1.4 in general, although I was concerned with the Canon lenses as well:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69580
It seems like its more about the look than the speed. Personally if I could only have one, I'd take the 1.4.

 

[MCTuomey]

Try this thread over at FM:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/741299/0

Apparently very highly regarded, even by Irwin P.

 

[raid]

I used such a lens for many years, and then I sold it and got the 50/1.2L. I find the 50/1.2L to be better overall.

 

[joachim]

Here's a link: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65683 you might find helpful. The 55/1.2 FD is the exact same optic as the 55/1.2 FL. Bottom line is that the Canon is one of the best in the f/1.2 class but optically, the f/1.4 is a better performer stop for stop. The only reason to own an f/1.2 is if you really need to shoot at f/1.2, otherwise you'll do better with a Canon 50/1.4 FD.

Hi, thanks. The link referred to in the article seems not to work any more though the discussion is still useful. I always viewed this that the purpose of fast glass is being fast. If interested in f/5.6 shooting, nothing will beat my Zeiss Planar 45/2 (Contax G), the 50/2 Cron-M will equal it. There is no f/1.2 option for my Contax G. For the SLR I have the FDn 50/1.8 for light-weight and not so fast.

 

[joachim]

This is the only photo I have handy. I believe this is wide open. Nice bokeh, and sharp at the point of focus-- count the whiskers.

Andy, the cat.

This is the FD 55mm 1.2 S.S.C. I bought it for about $130 on the 'bay. Focus is a bit stiff. Optics are impressive.

Cool, thanks for sharing. Underlines nicely what a fast lens is good for.

 

[joachim]

I used such a lens for many years, and then I sold it and got the 50/1.2L. I find the 50/1.2L to be better overall.

Hi Raid,

thanks for replying. I figured that the non-aspherical versions are not as good as the the aspherical ones (asph., aspherical, L). The key question is, whether the 55/1.2 SSC is a disgrace. How would you compare the performance to the uncoated or single coated Zeiss Sonnars, which you are using on your Contax RF?

One has to be realistic, the 55/1.2 SSC is 35 years old and wasn't even the top of the line of the fast lenses (as you point out) when new. In the end I am not paying of this, what a new 50/1.2 L costs and hence can't expect the same performance.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

It's not a disgrace. Whatever the absolute resolution difference, the largest difficulty is accurately focusing and then steadily handholding an f1.2 in low light. If you are shooting all out at f1.2, resolution isn't your primary concern. Look at Noctilux photos people rave about. Few are sharp anywhere, but people drop $5,000 for the things.

 

[David Murphy]

It's a fine lens. The going rate for one in very good condition is around $200-$225. That's rather cheap for a F1.2 prime, the reason being that Canon was quite popular so many are on the market as opposed to, say, fast Olympus or Pentax primes.

 

[hans voralberg]

Or because Canon dumped the whole FD/FL line and most Canon user switched to EOS as oppose to Nikon/Pentax who still stick loyally to their mount for better or worse.

 

[raid]

Hi Raid,

thanks for replying. I figured that the non-aspherical versions are not as good as the the aspherical ones (asph., aspherical, L). The key question is, whether the 55/1.2 SSC is a disgrace. How would you compare the performance to the uncoated or single coated Zeiss Sonnars, which you are using on your Contax RF?

One has to be realistic, the 55/1.2 SSC is 35 years old and wasn't even the top of the line of the fast lenses (as you point out) when new. In the end I am not paying of this, what a new 50/1.2 L costs and hence can't expect the same performance.

Hi Joachim,

I liked using the non-ASPH 55/1.2 for night photos in New Orleans for quite some time. It is a very good lens, and it is most likely sharper than the Canon RF 50mm 1.2. The 5cm 1.5 Sonnar is much smaller, and it was adjusted by Brian Sweeney to be tack sharp. The 55 1.2 will have higher contrast than the pre-war Sonnar. Contrast can be tweeked with PS, so this is a smaller issue. It is a very heavy lens, and it looks impressive. You can show off .... !

 

[David Murphy]

Well yes I agree that's another factor. The fact that manual focus Nikon and Pentax lenses and bodies have some compatibility with their modern AF and digital implementations helps contribute to the demand for vintage Nikon and Pentax gear.

Or because Canon dumped the whole FD/FL line and most Canon user switched to EOS as oppose to Nikon/Pentax who still stick loyally to their mount for better or worse.