FD lens question

[santino]

Hi!

I wonder if Canon Fd lenses are any good because they seem to fetch low prices. Is it generally known that fds are bad performers or is it just the fact that one can't adapt them to dslrs? Nikon, Pentax etc. lenses from that time are quite expensive compared to canon stuff.
btw. minoltas are pretty inexpensive and are capable of rendering beautiful images (and you can't easily adapt them to dslrs).

 

[dogberryjr]

Like any other line, FDs have excellent performers and a couple of dogs, I suppose. It's their abandonment that has left them less valuable than Nikon Fs for example. When m43 came along, FD prices rose and have gone up and down a bit since then.

 

[Mackinaw]

The best ones (aspherics, fluorite, and the “L” series) have always held their value (meaning expensive). The rise of mirrorless cameras has driven up the price of FD lenses in recent years. I use mine on a Olympus OM-D. A buddy of mine just bought a Leica M Type 240 and will be putting his FD lenses on that.

Jim B.

 

[Steve M.]

They're terrible lenses. Very soft. If you have any, especially the FD 50 1.4 chrome nose, FD 85 1.8, or the FD 135 2.5, send them to me and I will properly dispose of them for you. I'll even pay your shipping.

 

[uhoh7]

good value for use on a7s

 

[wakarimasen]

They're terrible lenses. Very soft. If you have any, especially the FD 50 1.4 chrome nose, FD 85 1.8, or the FD 135 2.5, send them to me and I will properly dispose of them for you. I'll even pay your shipping.

😀 considerate!

 

[Bille]

. Is it generally known that fds are bad performers (...)?

Canon may have been ahead of everyone at the time.

"This Canon 50mm f/1.2 L Aspherical Floating-Element lens is the most optically advanced 50mm manual-focus lens ever sold anywhere."
http://kenrockwell.com/canon/fd/50mm-f12-L.htm

"If you can find one, this one lens can lift your Canon FD system into the stratosphere. You can shoot this lens hand-held in just about any light."
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/fd/24mm-f14.htm

 

[DominikDUK]

Canon FD lenses are first rate, the low price is a result of the lack of new FD cameras and mass productions there are a lot of FD lenses on the market. The Canon K35 series of Motion Picture lenses won the Oscar in 1977 for technical achievement and was based on FD lenses. So enjoy the low prices compared to Nikon and Leica gear and buy as many first rate lenses as you can afford.

 

[stephan_cautaerts]

There are some very fine FD lenses: especially the 50 f1.2L and 135 f2.0. Even Cosina Voigtlander had for a short time some FD-mount lenses, long after the FD-system was discontinued by Canon. The Color-Heliar 75 f2.5 for instance produces fine results.

 

[uhoh7]

the worst one is the 85/1.2

that one you can send to me 😉

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

A British magazine called Practical Photography tested the consumer grade 50mm lenses from the leading makes in the early 'seventies. The Canon FD f1.8 came out ahead of the Nikkor f2.0 and the Super Takumar f1.8. My personal experience is that all the FD lenses I have tried are very, very good.

As has been said above, the FD (and the earlier FL) lenses are cheap because they were the only high quality SLR lenses that couldn't be adapted to the EF mount digital cameras. Now that the Sony full frame mirrorless cameras are out, I think we may see the prices start to climb.

In the meantime, I just aquired a very nice TLb with the 50/1.8 for the grand total of £16, so I'm quite happy with the price situation...

 

[santino]

I've just checked out that there is even a 24mm 1.4 lens 😱 and a 24mm f2 lens which both share floating elements - pretty innovative back in the early 80s 😎

But it's true, since the release of the A7 prices will probably rise up and I don't have neither an FD body nor an A7 so I'll leave the fd lenses for you guys 😀

Thanks for your input because I always get the feeling that people tend to rate Nikkor and Pentax lenes higher than fds and even efs (got the 40mm pancake ef lens and am pretty surprised by it's IQ).

 

[redisburning]

Canon might have been the best Japanese optics manufacturer of manual focus lenses when they were still making them.

Yes the prices reflect poor adaptability, the other thing is the lenses tend to be a bit more prone to CA than some other makers. Then they quit making lenses in FD mount and other companies kept coming out with new manual focus lenses (Olympus, Leica R, Zeiss) so Canon FD lenses were a bit dated in some cases. Not so much in others.

Ive not shot with them myself, but I can pass along in good faith recommendations for the following optics:
20/2.8
35/2.0 concave (<-- astonishingly good lens, btw)
50L
50/3.5 macro (one of the few non-xenotars of this type)
55/1.2 ASPHERICAL (a revelation at the time of its introduction)
any telephoto L lens, double for any L super tele
200/4 macro

Canon doesn't get a lot of love around here. Frankly, I am not always a fan of Canon's choices. Their current AF lenses aren't really to my preferences but I cannot deny the optical quality of their newest lenses. The 70-200/2.8 L IS II is the best lens in the most important range of lenses outside of kit zooms. IT. IS. STUNNING. The 24/3.5 TS-L II is also best in class. Between today's Canon and Nikon, I would choose Canon without question because of the lenses.

As far as pentax and nikkors, well those are active mounts. Their price reflects that.

There is no manual focus lens made by either company that even comes close to the newest serious Canon lenses. Nikon can't make a 70-200/2.8 today that beats Canon's.

 

[redisburning]

Like any other line, FDs have excellent performers and a couple of dogs, I suppose. It's their abandonment that has left them less valuable than Nikon Fs for example. When m43 came along, FD prices rose and have gone up and down a bit since then.

I really agree with this post, too.

You have to evaluate lenses individually. Zeiss makes a 50/1.4 that is weaker than Nikon's 50/1.4G but they make a 55/1.4 that makes the Nikkor look like a glass bottle lens.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

The point, to me, is that FD lenses are old fashioned manual focus and not all singing and all dancing auto-focus, which is what people expect these days. Add to that the thousands of AF lenses from Canon that there must be out there and the lower price should be obvious. I'm assuming that the AF, EOS cameras sold in huge quantities...

Regards, David

PS No problems or worries about my FD lenses, btw, can't really fault them.

 

[Steve M.]

Before there were Canon FD lenses, there were the Canomatic R lenses. They were even worse than the FD lenses. I'm almost ashamed to post these from an R 100 2 lens. Almost :}

 

[Anthony Harvey]

I had a Canon 35/2 FD lens that I used as my main lens on a T90. It was superb for black and white films and for colour prints. It had a little too much contrast for Ektachrome 64 slide film on a summer's day but it was fine with Kodachrome 25. A great lens. I didn't find any distortion in any of my images, and to my mind it was just as good as my 35/2 Summicron pre-asph seven-element lens that I used for years on an M4-P. I would have kept the Canon 35/2 if the T90 had proved reliable but the shutter let me down, and at the time I didn't want to try another Canon body. If I were considering an FD lens today I’d certainly buy this lens as my first choice

The 28/2 was marvellous too, and far better than the 28/2.8 which I bought when I wrongly thought I'd lost the f2 version.

I found the 50/1.4 extremely sharp but with too much contrast for my taste.

 

[drew.saunders]

I had a T70, F-1 and F-1N, along with a 24/2.8, 35/2.8 (engraved "US Navy"), 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 100/4 macro (with extension tube) and a 300/5.6. I sold the T70 to get the F-1 and the F-1 to get the F-1N (and not to have to deal with mercury batteries). A couple of years ago, before mirrorless cameras made FD lenses interesting, I sold the F-1N and all the lenses to fund a large format lens, which was a good idea at the time, but recently picked up a Fuji X-E1 and now I miss the 85/1.8 and 100/4 macro. All those lenses were great and served me well. I've since picked up a 50/3.5 macro and a cheap FD-XF adaptor for my X-E1 and the old glass works great on my little Fuji.

 

[Scrambler]

It's the poor adaptability.

The Canon FD (and earlier) bodies had the shortest film-flange distance of popular SLRs. When the EOS line came out, Canon made them slightly deeper and thereby eliminated the capacity for FD lenses to be mounted on EOS bodies. But as has been said, the EOS is an all-electronic mount while the FD is all-manual. So at the time it was not a big deal - people wanted the AF badly enough. And the late 80's EOS bodies had the kind of user interface that many now consider "dSLR" standard - they were revolutionary at the time. I mean, being able to adjust shutter and aperture without moving your finger off the release!

As has been said, the release of mirrorless bodies means that all manual-focus SLR lenses are fair game, and all-mechanical mounts are easier to adapt (because the aperture stop-down can be incorporated into the adapter)

I personally think we are coming to the end of the "boom" in used manual lens prices across the board. Old lenses were a fashion. Some photogs will persist but IMHO the FF mirrorless cameras won't affect FD prices that much. The reason is that the A7 twins cost a fair bit of money, and are pretty high resolution. Buyers will be putting glass they are familiar with, and know to be high quality, in front of them. For that reason, the long-dead FD line will be neither new enough to be "the greatest lens in the focal length" nor old enough to be truly "classic."

I think backwards compatibility isn't sought-after that much in reality. If it were, Pentax would have eaten Nikon and particularly Canon for breakfast. Every K-mount and even (standard) m42-mount lens can be used on a Pentax dSLR. The only limit is that the m42 lenses have to be manually stopped down (but they all have a switch for this anyway.)

Anyhoo, if you have something to attach them to, the FD lenses are good value. Minolta manual focus lenses also have no direct compatibility with modern SLRs and are also good value.

 

[Ezzie]

I'm considering ditching all 135 systems for FD and LTM/M. One SLR system, one rangefinder. All else out the window. The lens availabilty is fantastic. There are apart from Canon's own offerings, also a number of not too bad FD mount lenses from Komine, Kiron, Tokina/Hoya, Sigma, Tamron etc too. All to be had for reasonable money.