This Canon FD Glass is Pretty Good.

Raid,

I've been using a Canon FD 50mm macro lens on a Panasonic 4/3 body for copy work, and the combo delivers first-rate results.
The sweet spot is about f8-11, after that diffraction kicks in.

Regards,
Robert

raid said:
No, I have not. Maybe I should do this soon.
I have the amazing 500/4.5L too, and it is a very sharp lens. I would get effectively a 1000mm lens that is sharp when using it on the EP-2 or EPL-1.
I wonder how good macro lenses perform on the micro 4/3 system.

This is so much fun!
Click to expand...
 
Canon F-1 + Tri-X

1. (FD 35mm f/2)
U19407I1292283491.SEQ.0.jpg



2. (FD 50mm f/1.4)
U19407I1320828671.SEQ.0.jpg
 
Oh, you can definately tell the difference between a Canon lens and a Leica. I've owned a lot of them. For that matter, I can usually tell the difference between any lens and a Leica. The best, like the Summicrons, have a 3-D look that is unique. We're talking about arguably the best lenses in photography, and the most expensive. But the 85 and 135 FD Canons (the only Canon portrait lenses I have actual user experience with) have beautiful smooth bokeh, excellent build quality, and cost about 1/10th what a Leica lens costs. Actually, money aside, I think I'd prefer my Canon 85 1.8 to the Leica R 90 Summicron I used to own because I prefer the look of the shots it takes. Just my opinion about my photography, others will have other views.

I read somewhere that the Canon 85 1.8 was designed to be purposely a little soft at 1.8, which is where the magic comes from I think. The 135 2.5 is a wonderful lens too, and the prices are just crazy for a lens this good.

Excellent shot of the cat in the second photo Peter. He's a happy scratcher.
 
I'd bet money than in a totally blind test you could not.


Steve M. said:
Oh, you can definately tell the difference between a Canon lens and a Leica. I've owned a lot of them. For that matter, I can usually tell the difference between any lens and a Leica. The best, like the Summicrons, have a 3-D look that is unique. We're talking about arguably the best lenses in photography, and the most expensive. But the 85 and 135 FD Canons (the only Canon portrait lenses I have actual user experience with) have beautiful smooth bokeh, excellent build quality, and cost about 1/10th what a Leica lens costs. Actually, money aside, I think I'd prefer my Canon 85 1.8 to the Leica R 90 Summicron I used to own because I prefer the look of the shots it takes. Just my opinion about my photography, others will have other views.

I read somewhere that the Canon 85 1.8 was designed to be purposely a little soft at 1.8, which is where the magic comes from I think. The 135 2.5 is a wonderful lens too, and the prices are just crazy for a lens this good.

Excellent shot of the cat in the second photo Peter. He's a happy scratcher.
Click to expand...
 
I Love Film said:
I'd bet money than in a totally blind test you could not.
Click to expand...
+1

I have had 11x14 prints inspected by a Leica enthusiast Pulitzer prize winning photojournalist and he could not tell which ones were Leica and which ones were Minolta MD...
(He did however tell me that I sucked at printing)
 
While my main SLR kits are Nikon and Olympus, I learned on a Canon AE-1 12 years ago. I drifted away from the FD mount for about 8 years until a friend gifted me her FTb three years ago which I overhauled and I bought my brother's F1n just over a year ago.


Canon FT-b, My Tank by Bill Smith1, on Flickr

Guess what, with two nice bodies with a decent selection of FD lenses, in a fit of weakness and nostalgia I pulled the trigger on a nice chrome AE-1 off Ebay.
 
Not really on topic in a RF forum, eh?
Welcome to the FD world from an FD user since its early years. Still own & use 16 FD lenses with my F-1N and AE1-P.
Oh, by I also use a ZM RF too.
 
Nikon was viewed as being a better system than the Canon FD system, and the prices usually were higher for Nikkor lenses. I chose the FD instead.

I kept all my FD lenses and cameras.
 
Canon FD is excellent. The older breech-lock lenses are "heavy duty", the new FD type lenses are super compact and fit well with mirrorless digital.

I have used all sorts of lenses in the last years. Comparing FD to Nikon I simply fail to see why Nikon was considered "pro" back then while Canon FD (or Minolta) was not.

I also remember Leica guru Erwin Puts stating on his website, that if there would not have been Leica he would have chosen Canon as a system. The FD series had the edge in optics back then, according to him.
 
raid said:
Nikon was viewed as being a better system than the Canon FD system, and the prices usually were higher for Nikkor lenses. I chose the FD instead.

I kept all my FD lenses and cameras.
Click to expand...


Agreed mostly and while I'm a Nikon guy, I do think FD glass is on par and in some cases better than some Nikkor glass.
 
I heard of some pros having custom adaptions for the Canon 500/4.5L into Nikon mount, so the optics were certainly on par with the Nikkor lenses. I uased to have a few Nikon and a few Canon lenses and cameras, and when the Canon AF system came out, and Canon deserted the FD mount, I did the switch from Nikon to Canon since prices for excellent FD optics fell dramatically. The Nikon cameras seemed to be preferred. The F2 and then F3 were widely seen as pro cameras, whereas the F1n and F1N were maybe seen as less pro ... I don't know.
 
Nikons were considered pro because of the cameras not because of the lenses. I am mostly a Nikon guy and recently bought a FT-Ql for next to nothing. The out of focus rendering of the Canon's is smoother and mostly better than Nikon's sharpness is about equal.

FD lenses were often converted for motion picture camera use. Panavision uses FD elements for some of their tele lenses. This shows how good these lenses are.

Dominik
 
I was recently given a Canon A-1 with a third party lens....the lens was a bit hazy so I started looking for another one...I was able to find an FD 50mm 1.4 SSC lens for about $50
I haven't used it enough to form an opinion as yet but I do like what I see through the viewfinder...I was thinking of getting a wide angle lens for it but have decided to wait until I've used the camera a bit longer...
I don't want to complicate this camera with a bunch of lenses so it's the 50mm for now...next lens would most likely be a 24mm...

Interesting that this thread was started a year ago today...
 
Have just listed all of my FD gear on ebay.

After attending a photography course last week, I finally came to accept that having too many cameras is actually making photography less enjoyable for me. Instead of enjoying the process, I fret too much over which camera system I should use.

I really liked the FD lenses (especially their relative cheapness) but recently (i.e. since micro 4/3) prices seem to have risen dramatically - especially for the 'better' lenses. This and my failing to warm to any of the FD bodies (TX, AE, AE-1, AE-1 Program, A1, and finally F1N) has finally forced my hand.

I had a choice (in the 35mm realm) between EF, FD and Nikon F, and the FD is the one to go.

Now to choose whether to keep the Canon EF and Nikon F, or settle on one only!
 
I have a couple of Canon FD lenses but have probably 7 - 8 Canon FL lenses of various focal lengths. All could be rated as very good to excellent. One of the nice things about them is that they are relatively cheap to buy. Or were - the reason being that the register distance is very short and the lenses could eb used on few other camera types. Until that is, Sony NEX cameras and Micro 4/3 cameras came along. They were game changers and now these lensess can be used once more - but I think it has driven prices back up a little. Optically most are excellent and build quality is like the proverbial brick outhose. Very nice lenses. My two favourites are the 58mm f1.2 and the 85mm f1.8 both of which produce lovely images. Older style single coating on the FL lenses (unlike the SSC coating of the later FD lenses can flare but with a little care this turns out to be not much aof a problem. I have to say I think I prefer the FL lenses a bit - simply because they are so "old School" - all metal and glass and very little plastic. Later FD lenses began to be made with lighter materials and I think suffer by comparison - but not optically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Canon FD Lenses on an FL Mount Body?
Replies
12
Views
2K
David Murphy
David Murphy
wjlapier
Canon RF Viewfinder Magnifier
Replies
1
Views
645
Peter Jennings
Peter Jennings
J
  • Article Article
Camera Collecting, The Incurable Passion, Part 2: Tales of RegretGreat vintage cameras I never bought, and others I foolishly sold.
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
ranger9
R
J
  • Article Article
The Topcon Lens Saga: Optical Excellence, Mediocre Marketing
2
Replies
29
Views
10K
johnf04
J
S
Nikon F to Canon FD Adapter
Replies
2
Views
3K
Steve M.
S
Back
Top Bottom