What really is the difference between Canon FD 50mm 1.4 & 1.8?

[PhotoGog]

Like many, I have a " standard" FD 50mm f/1.8 that came with my father's AE-1. Obviously, the FD f/1.4 is "better" in so far as it's faster, but does anyone have real world experience with both and have an opinion of how they perform side by side from 2.8 to 22? Is speed all that is gained? Or is the 1.4 actually sharper with nicer rendering at all stops? I'm thinking here if the new FDs with black plastic bodies, but keen to hear views on the older SCC metal body lenses. I'm trying to work out of its worth spending money on a 1.4 over my existing 1.8...

 

[Sid836]

This is why the 1.4 FDn is considered a good one and fetches more than the 1.8:
12 lenses compared

Comparing the FDn with the SSC FD, the FDn is a lot sharper wide open. Also, have a look around for the 55mm 1.2 SSC. Its sharpness at f/1.2 is remarkable.

 

[raid]

Some photography magazines used to consider the Canon 50/1.4 the gold standard for 50mm lenses. No magazine ever claimed such a thing about the Canon 50/1.8.

 

[unixrevolution]

I googled "Canon FD 50mm lens comparison" and got this:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/50mm.htm

 

[Timmyjoe]

Have had the Canon FD 50mm f1.8 S.C., 50mm f1.4 S.S.C., 50mm f1.8 FDn, 50mm f1.4 FDn, and 50mm f1.2L FDn lenses. The only real clinker in the lot was the 50mm f1.8 FDn. The others all performed admirably, especially stopped down a bit. The only disappointment was the 50mm f1.2L FDn, I was expecting it to be much better than the others, due to it's higher cost, but found, even after having it serviced, that it was way too soft wide open for my tastes, and once stopped down, not noticeably better than the 50mm f1.4 S.S.C. version.

Sold off the rest and still use the 50mm f1.4 S.S.C. lens. For me, it was the best of the bunch.

 

[rodt16s]

I have the 50/1.4 FDn, 50/1.8 SC and 55/1.2 AL
Apart from what Timmyjoe mentions I notice the 50/1.4 gives a brighter viewfinder over the other two and is lighter

 

[PhotoGog]

Have had the Canon FD 50mm f1.8 S.C., 50mm f1.4 S.S.C., 50mm f1.8 FDn, 50mm f1.4 FDn, and 50mm f1.2L FDn lenses. The only real clinker in the lot was the 50mm f1.8 FDn. The others all performed admirably, especially stopped down a bit. The only disappointment was the 50mm f1.2L FDn, I was expecting it to be much better than the others, due to it's higher cost, but found, even after having it serviced, that it was way too soft wide open for my tastes, and once stopped down, not noticeably better than the 50mm f1.4 S.S.C. version.



Sold off the rest and still use the 50mm f1.4 S.S.C. lens. For me, it was the best of the bunch.

Cool. Advice taken. If you've owned and used all and the worst was the 1.8 then I'll look around for a 1.4 SSC. Thanks

 

[Timmyjoe]

The worst was the 50mm f1.8 FDn lens, the plastic newer one that came with the AE-1 and similar cameras. I still have an older 50mm f1.8 S.C. lens that came on a Canon TX, and that is quite a bit better than the plastic FDn version. But I still think a 50mm f1.4 S.S.C. lens would be best.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Chubberino]

This is why the 1.4 FDn is considered a good one and fetches more than the 1.8:
12 lenses compared

Comparing the FDn with the SSC FD, the FDn is a lot sharper wide open. Also, have a look around for the 55mm 1.2 SSC. Its sharpness at f/1.2 is remarkable.

Thanks for the link.

Also, does anyone remember a test of like 50 50mm lenses and comparisons? I seem to remember reading it but can't find anything on the internet or in Google searches. It was pretty comprehensive if I remember correctly.

 

[Mackinaw]

Kubrick thought so highly of the FD 50/1.4 he hacked one up so it'd fit a movie camera.

Also, Raid did a test of many 50m lenses some years back. Maybe he’ll see this and supply a link to the results.

Jim B.

 

[johannielscom]

...

The only disappointment was the 50mm f1.2L FDn, I was expecting it to be much better than the others, due to it's higher cost, but found, even after having it serviced, that it was way too soft wide open for my tastes, and once stopped down, not noticeably better than the 50mm f1.4 S.S.C. version.

...

Funny... Mine is fine when shot wide open...

Belle portrait by Johan Niels Kuiper, on Flickr​

I got it here for EUR 75 with a stuck aperture, and found a fella who could remedy that for EUR 60... My only 50mm SLR lens now! 😀

 

[Mackinaw]

.....The only disappointment was the 50mm f1.2L FDn, I was expecting it to be much better than the others, due to it's higher cost, but found, even after having it serviced, that it was way too soft wide open for my tastes, and once stopped down, not noticeably better than the 50mm f1.4......

I agree. I had the FD50/1.2L lens many years back but was disappointed by its wide-open performance. I sold it and bought the older (and much larger than heavier) FD 55/1.2 Aspherical. Now, that lens is superb. Really nice at f1.2.

Jim B.

 

[Timmyjoe]

I sold it and bought the older (and much larger than heavier) FD 55/1.2 Aspherical. Now, that lens is superb. Really nice at f1.2.

Jim B.

I've heard great things about that lens, though I've never tried one myself. Whenever I see them for sale, which is rarely, they are always outside my price range.

 

[ptpdprinter]

As a practical matter, half a stop and bragging rights.

 

[Anthony Harvey]

I had a Canon 50/1.4 FD lens that I used on a T90. It was supremely sharp. Using it for a wide range of real-life subjects under a wide variety of lighting over a long period of time, some three or four years, and assessing sharpness on projected images from Kodachrome 25 and 64 slides it was just as sharp as my 50/2 Summicron v3. For my samples of both lenses its contrast was higher than the Summicron's, and I found that for Kodachrome 64 in particular it was just a little bit too contrasty in sunlit scenes. Great lens though.

Anthony

 

[Chubberino]

I've heard great things about that lens, though I've never tried one myself. Whenever I see them for sale, which is rarely, they are always outside my price range.

Have one with a Metabones Speedbooster. It's sublime.

A recent shot from an X-T2 and processed as a Velvia jpeg.

 

[Mackinaw]

I've heard great things about that lens, though I've never tried one myself. Whenever I see them for sale, which is rarely, they are always outside my price range.

Optically the lens is excellent, but the downside is that it’s big and heavy. It’s also on the warm side which I heard is because they use Thorium (or some radioactive element). This is not a problem when shooting B&W and the warmness can be corrected fairly easily in Photoshop whenever I shoot color. I use the FD55/1.2 Aspherical on my old F-1 when I’m shooting film, and on my M240 when shooting digital. This is one lens I’ll never sell.

Jim B.

 

[PhotoGog]

it was just as sharp as my 50/2 Summicron v3.

Anthony

Whoah, that's heresy around these parts, but I believe you!

 

[raid]

The ASPH Canon 50/1.2 costs quite a lot of money.

 

[venchka]

The difference?
Quantity.
I own 2 of the 1.8 lenses and 1 of the 1.4 model.
The coatings are different according to Canon's labeling.
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk