Favorite Canon FD portrait lens?

S

squirrel$$$bandit

Veteran
Local time
7:34 PM
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
6,249
Getting a few FD lenses to shoot on a Sony, but I'll probably end up with a film body, too, if I like them! There seem to be a bunch of affordable portrait lenses with a good reputation—the 85/1.8, the 100/2, the 100/2.8, several 135s. Any suggestions?
 
Check the 85s especially the 1.2. I like 100 (never cared for the 135 focal length) as a short tele, but far prefer the 75-85mm as a portrait lens
 
That is a real large hunk of glass and pretty expensive. I'm likely to go for something cheaper that I can also walk around with! But I would certainly love to give the 85/1.2 a try, one of these days.
 
I've tested them all, and the best two are the FD 85 1.8 and the FD 135 2.5 "beercan". The FL lenses are good too, but they're usually a different optical formula and not as good for portraits.

The 100 2 that I had was good, but not as good as the two I mentioned. The 85 1.8 is one of the best portrait lens you can find, period. I understand that Canon left it soft at 1.8 just for that purpose, and by 2.8 it sharpens right up.
 
Personal favorites, FD 85/1.8 and FD 100/2.8. As Steve mentioned, the lens was deliberately designed to be a bit soft wide-open (from Canon literature). Foolishly, I sold mine. The FD 100/2.8 is also excellent, plentiful and cheap.

Jim B.
 
The Canon FD 85 mm F1.8 is one of the best eightyfives for portraits, great bokeh too.
 
I have the FL 85 f1.8, 100mm f2.8, and 135mm f2.8

I enjoy all of them. The FL85 is a "character lens" for me. It was sold as a soft focus lens when used wide open, but it is sharp around 2.8 or 4.

Both the 100mm and 135mm are inexpensive and very modern in their rendering.

If I could only keep one, it would be the 85, if I could have two, I'd add the 135.
 
Sounds nearly unanimous. I put an offer in on an 85, and if I like it, perhaps I'll try a 135 down the line, too.

Wouldn't mind seeing photos from these, if y'all have them
 
Are we talking strict FD (the breech lock mount), or also including FDn lenses? More specifically are the FD and FDn 85/1.8 the same optical formula?
 
The 85 1.8 is a beautiful lens, not too bulky or heavy. Beautiful for portraits-- nice bokeh. I would love to have a 85 1.2, but it's pricey! I'm sure it's a lovely lens.
 
I recently bought a FDn 85mm f1.8 and am still testing it out. But so far it's looking pretty good though a little soft wide open (as per usual for these lenses). It has the added advantage of being small in the hand as well as a nice looking lens when mounted on a mirrorless camera. My bet is that I am going to be pretty happy with it (there are few 85mm lenses that really disappoint)
One other Canon FD portrait lens I have owned for a while is the chrome ring FD 100mm f2.8. It's a lovely lens too. Small but dense - obviously a lot of glass in this lens. I must admit I do like the 100mm class of lenses (including what in other marques are 105mm lenses). I am presently in the process of awaiting the arrival of a Canon LTM 100mm f3.5 that is a physically small and universally well regarded lens from an earlier Canon era. However people are onto these lenses like white on rice so they do come at a higher price than FL or FD lenses.
BTW one problem with early Canon seems to be that they suffer more than some from fungus and or haze. Not sure why this seems more prevalent than with some other makes is perhaps because if you buy from Japan where Canon lenses seem common (and which has a hot, wet summer) these problems are endemic. It pays to keep an eye out for this when buying is all I am saying.
 
Peter,

By early Canon, do you mean the Canon FD Breech Lock mount they started the FD line with? or just early runs in that mount? or...

And do others, with FD BL mounts not originating used from Japan, have the same experience? I'll go check my own.

Giorgio
 
pagpow said:
Peter,

By early Canon, do you mean the Canon FD Breech Lock mount they started the FD line with? or just early runs in that mount? or...

And do others, with FD BL mounts not originating used from Japan, have the same experience? I'll go check my own.

Giorgio
Click to expand...

My comment in relation to haze specifically was mainly directed at Canon LTM lenses but I was a bit imprecise in my terminology as I am not sure how long this issue persisted in Canon's lens line. There are lots of threads on the internet about this. But there is also some suggestion that the hazing issue carried over into the FL era at least and maybe beyond into the FD era (However, I have not resolved this to my own satisfaction and merely mention it as a caveat).

The haze problem is of course also well recognized with early Leica glass too - the suggestion being it is due to outgassing from lubricants used back then by some manufacturers. I have not experienced this at all with say Nikon lenses (admittedly not quite as old) but I have personally had the issue arise with both Canon lenses (FL and earlier) and Leica glass.

As to fungus, that can affect any lens of course but my comment was directed towards buying any vintage lens from Japan where climatic (and storage) conditions seem to make it more prevalent.

Both hazing and fungus can sometimes cause permanent coating damage to interior elements though unless it is a long standing and heavy infestation fungus seems to be regarded as less damaging than haze which can be impossible to remove without polishing off the affected coating once it has done its damage.

My attitude is that it just requires care when purchasing. Fortunately I find most Japanese sellers to be punctilious in describing (and showing in pictures) any such damage so I can make my own decision if to take the risk. Most times it is OK especially if there is full disclosure and any damage present is reflected in a lower price factoring in potential cost of a CLA and risk of not being able to fix the problem even then. Minor degradation of coatings etc from these causes does not necessarily require too much concern especially if using lenses mainly for portraits where backlighting, which could show up as flare in the image, tends not to be such an issue. I tend to be a little accepting of some degradation in older lenses. After all if buying a lens that might be 50 years old or older, it is not necessarily going to be like a brand new one.

Having said all of the above I started out with Canon lenses mainly buying FL mount lenses. There is not a huge range of lenses with that mount (Canon's range of FL lenses was mainly restricted to the "usual suspects" in terms of f stops and focal lengths with few "exotics") but they are good lenses optically and mechanically, they are relatively cheap to buy and they tend for the most part to be relatively lightly used. The FD era brought a larger range of lenses as Canon seemed to "hit its stride" and began to be accepted as a pro camera rivalling Nikon. I am only now exploring that range more and more and in general are finding them to be excellent lenses though I do like the heavy build of FL and early FD lenses over the later more lightly build FDn lenses. If you were to find a good Canon FL 85mm f1.8 for example it will fit your purpose just as well as the same lens in FD version and most likely at a lesser price. Same goes for the 100mm lenses.
 
I have used the FD system for over 30 years now. My favorite portrait FD lenses are:

1. 85/1.2L: super lens overall
2. 55/1.2 SSC: great vintage effect
3. Angenieux 70-210/3.5 FD : butter smooth bokeh but not cheap
4. Tamron 90/2.5 macro FD adapter: great lens overall. This is the manual lens.
 
raid said:
I have used the FD system for over 30 years now. My favorite portrait FD lenses are:

1. 85/1.2L: super lens overall
2. 55/1.2 SSC: great vintage effect
3. Angenieux 70-210/3.5 FD : butter smooth bokeh but not cheap
4. Tamron 90/2.5 macro FD adapter: great lens overall. This is the manual lens.
Click to expand...


I do have the 58mm f1.2 (a precursor to the 55mm f1.2 in FL and in FD mount) and enjoy using it both for portraits and otherwise. The only minor problem I have with that one is that it has a kind of metal shroud on the base which can interfere with the lever on some FL/FD mount adapters. I had to modify an adapter so the 58mm lens could be mounted on it by cutting off the little lever on the adapter that "locks" the lens aperture system.
 
I have never tried out the 58/1.2, but many of the older standard lenses have character.
 
Roger Hicks has suggested that the 58mm focal length is a good one for portraits. I agree. It may only be 8mm, but there’s a significantly different look compared to a 50mm.

I took this pic last fall. A Canon R58/1.2 (same optics as the FL version) on a Leica M240. Wide-open at F1.2. As Raid points out, great character.

CanonR58_1_2+_1_.jpg


Jim B.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom