Canon FD 55mm 1:1.2 S.S.C. ASPHERICAL samples on A7 (many!)

Koen Nhz · Joined: 07 Jul 2011 Posts: 84 Location: Antwerp, Belgium

It's always hard to compare in different circumstances, but I'm pretty sure my Asph doesn't have so much glow and low contrast wide open, of course there is some sample variation in old lenses, your chrome nose does look very sharp for an unedited image and more like what I would expect from the Asph as well.

This old German test confirms the Asph should be a bit sharper wide open in the center (lower figures are better) and a bit worse on the edge of the frame, which confirms my findings with other lenses: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3338/3561983301_6005527a79_o.jpg

In normal use and at normal market prices the non-Asph definitely seems to be the better choice, but at �79, no doubt I made a pretty good deal with my Asph, even if it was less sharp Twisted Evil

But I think your Asph might not be 100% in spec, I'm not sure, it might just be the light that was harder in your test than in my every day use.

I don't have unedited 100% crops online, only some full size images and this edited crop:

(Smart sharpens are both less than 1 pixel, something like 70% 0.7 px and 50% 0.1 px iirc)

DSC08546_copy_crop by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

Unedited 24Mp image:

DSC00621 by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

https://www.flickr.com/photos/koen_nhz/25748972561/sizes/o/

Edited 24Mp image, but no heavy PP: https://www.flickr.com/photos/koen_nhz/26364150686/sizes/o/

marino24 · Joined: 11 Feb 2016 Posts: 84 Location: italy

yes maybe is a stupid copy who knows anyway at f/2 is slightly better over the chromenose

bcostin · Joined: 12 Oct 2008 Posts: 9

Those are awesome. The bird photos, in particular.

I have the 55/1.2 non-ASPH and the FL 58/1.2. These shots are great for comparison purposes.

Koen Nhz · Joined: 07 Jul 2011 Posts: 84 Location: Antwerp, Belgium

@ bcostin: thanks a lot!
That was exactly what I was going for, as much different scenario's as possible to compare, only some posed model shots are still missing!

For sharpness there doesn't seem to be a meaningful difference between a perfect sample of the Asph and non-Asph, but bokeh wise I really have no idea, I was expecting the Asph element to give less pleasing bokeh, but it rarely ever shows and the bokeh is actually rather similar to that of my Rokkor, can you say anything about that? I know, that's almost impossible in different circumstances..

@ marino24: I guess "stupid copy" is somewhat 'lost in translation' and you didn't mean it like that, at least I didn't, it's not bad at all, it just doesn't look as I would expect compared to the non-asph and as test sites showed, especially for contrast! It would be strange if the non-asph was better at practically anything, considering it is and always was a lot more expensive and also newer (not that it could never happen)

I tried to take some similar shots, I know the light is much dimmer since I took them last night with artificial light, but I'm not sure that really matters as the harshness of the light matters more combined with the fact if there are overexposed area's or not, that's why I shone a bright led light on it in the bottom one.
I retried some shots in daylight today but the weather didn't permit to do it outside so only inside and the results were practically the same, even right against the light I think the contrast was still a bit better than your sample.

Canon_FD_55_Asph_crop by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

If it doesn't show the 1920px version directly here, you have to click this link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/koen_nhz/25841829923/sizes/o/

The bottom scene is about the worst CA I ever saw in a shot with this lens (it's almost free as long as you don't blow any highlights), but still the contrast seems a bit better than your sample with the Asph?

In my testing i noticed a few things that could explain your test I think:
1: your asph shot looks just a little more exposed than the non-asph which makes a huge difference with this (and probably every) lens.
2: It looks like you focussed just a little behing "Canon" in that shot which also gave the purple fringing / lower contrast in my testing
3: perhaps your lens isn't perfectly adjusted anymore, I noticed my sample gets (quite a lot) sharper and with less CA at MFD than at your testing size, so I guess that might mean that the stationary rear element's position compared to the rest of the optics is very important for maximizing the contrast and minimizing the amount of CA.

Click for full size unedited 24mp example wide open at MFD of 60cm:

DSC01925 by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

Finally 2 more samples (also wide open, unedited and full size after click) which I placed next to each other for a reason: if you look at them cross eyed it should look like 'real' 3D! If you can't see it look here how to: http://www.neilcreek.com/2008/02/28/how-to-see-3d-photos/
They also work zoomed in, if you have a progrma that can show 2 images at the same time and move them together that works better if you download the full size images Smile

It seems to work best when you watch from the same spot they were taken, so look straight at your screen from 60cm for best effect!

Koen Nhz · Joined: 07 Jul 2011 Posts: 84 Location: Antwerp, Belgium

Some more samples in totally different circumstances with my Canon FD 55mm 1:1.2 S.S.C. Aspherical wide open, +- ooc jpg's (only resize + copyright + usm 0.3 pc 35%)
In my opinion it really shines here too, it can produce some wild flares, but you really have to try quite hard to get them (using the original hood) and if it does I quite like it to be honest, the contrast is reduced a bit, but not too much.

More from the same party in this album: https://flic.kr/s/aHskGemooP

DSC04503_2048px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

DSC04524_2048px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

DSC04542_2048px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

DSC04632_2048px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

DSC04654_2048px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

DSC04658_2048px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

DSC04665_2048px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

DSC04671_2048px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

DSC04720_2048px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

DSC04721_2048px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

DSC04723_2048px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

DSC04724_2048px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

jamaeolus · Expire: 2015-08-20

Great shots, as usual. A fantastic lens, and photographer.

RTI · Joined: 15 Jul 2011 Posts: 282 Location: Moldova, Chisinau

For comparison reasons, and a nice review (55/1.2asph vs nFD 50/1.2L vs FD 50/1.4) - http://www.jeroenterlingen.com/blog/2015/7/19/canon-fd-50mm-lens-comparison

zanxion72 · Joined: 11 Dec 2012 Posts: 145 Location: Athens, Greece

Since long I am thinking of replacing my 1.4 SSC with a 1.2 SSC. Do you think that it is worth it, or would that be a waste of money?

RTI · Joined: 15 Jul 2011 Posts: 282 Location: Moldova, Chisinau

Koen Nhz · Joined: 07 Jul 2011 Posts: 84 Location: Antwerp, Belgium

@ jamaeolus: thanks a lot, really appreciatie it!
@ RTI: That test (and others) are one of the reasons for me to start this thread, I guess it all comes down to sample variation, I keep repeating myself, but this lens is probably my second sharpest '~50mm' wide open, after the FD 50 1:3.5 macro! (f/1.2 vs f/3.5)
Contrast is about the same as, for example, my Vivitar S1 90mm 1:2.5 macro wide open, resolution in the middle is also comparable, but outside the image center the Viv (and many other lenses) are better, the Asph has quite a lot of field curvature I guess, the 55 Asph has less CA at 1.2 than the Viv at 2.5.
My FD 50 1:1.4 is also a very good fast 50, but not in the same league as the 55 Asph, especially wide open it looks much more washed out, but again, if you want across the field sharpness at a few stops down, there are better options, including most 50mm macro lenses.
@ zanxion72: you do know that the non-Aspherical is a totally different optic (and price) than the Asph right? But from the tests I have seen they aren't that far apart considering IQ, but again, sample variation might be more important than engineering variation.
Edit: but to answer your question, if you have the patience to find one at a decent price it's always worth it imo, the 50 1.4 is a good lens, but not very special to me, so any 55 1.2 will always be interesting to try and if you don't like it, you won't loose much if you sell it again. The non-Asph can be found as low as ~�150 over here, the Asph in a good state usually doesn't go under ~�700.

RTI · Joined: 15 Jul 2011 Posts: 282 Location: Moldova, Chisinau

Koen Nhz · Joined: 07 Jul 2011 Posts: 84 Location: Antwerp, Belgium

No personal offence was taken RTI and thanks!

But it's always difficult to find accurate info for these older, less common lenses because of the sample variation (actually it's exactly the same for new lenses, for that reason Lensrentals are one of the 'test'sites I trust most, even though it's a commercial site), and one test with a less than optimal sample that keeps getting linked to can easily lower the reputation of a lens, but actually that might be a good thing for the price.. Smile

I did a 'quick and dirty' test between the FD and the Rokkor in the past when I just got the FD:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ly4g42yuaxv8bck/AADmMOOQgPljApE-cc7L3J0Ea?dl=0
(all sooc 24Mp images from my A7)

To conclude: they are not that far apart, but the Canon seems to have the edge in almost everything, except for fine resolution outside the image center at larger focus distances.
But viewed at screen resolution, or printed at normal size, unedited images from the Canon FD always look better to me, because of the better center sharpness, overall contrast and colors imo.
The Asph is also better close-up because of the floating elements, my sample even seems best around MFD when used wide open.
That said, the Rokkor did much better in this test than how I remembered it from my Canon 40D days, but I didn't really use it that much on my A7 (don't really know why, it's like that for several of my beloved lenses from the past) and now that I have the FD it never gets used anymore, but I feel restrained to sell because it was the first lens I converted (well and reversible, but crudely) myself to Eos (before easy diy kits became available)

I think one of the reasons why I never used the Rokkor too much on my A7 and why the FD is on my camera most of the time is the ease of use, the 55 Asph is much much easier to focus accurately because of the high contrast!

Some more shots from the same event, all unedited and wide open @ f/1.2:

DSC04494_2048px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

DSC04475_2048px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

DSC04479_2048px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

DSC04507_2048px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

DSC04522_2048px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

DSC04525_2048px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

DSC04558_2048px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

DSC04650_2048px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

DSC04656_2048px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

DSC04663_2048px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

DSC04715_2048px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

DSC04778_2048px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

Last one isn't focused exactly right but I was holding the camera over my head and focusing on screen that way is much harder than in the evf.

RTI · Joined: 15 Jul 2011 Posts: 282 Location: Moldova, Chisinau

Thx for the samples! Downloaded and compared them, well - the 55/1.2 asph is a much sharper lens, but the rokkor has a smoother rendering (thoough the FD isn't bad at all for a 55mm) Smile

Koen Nhz · Joined: 07 Jul 2011 Posts: 84 Location: Antwerp, Belgium

You're welcome, glad you found them interesting, the test was already on page one of this topic but without much interest, and you came to about the same conclusion as I did Smile

Although, if you try to make the Rokkor images look closer to the FD in sharpness and contrast, I think the bokeh will be about as harsh as the FD too, the focal length is probably the biggest difference concerning that, but I can see why someone would like the Rokkor better because you have more room to play with in PP, but it's hard to make an F/1.2 image look really sharp, at least from my copy of the Rokkor, so I prefer the FD, also because I don't really like to spend too much time on PP (if any Wink

).

smilebrain · Joined: 21 Sep 2020 Posts: 2

Good afternoon all together.
I got the 55 1.2 aspherical as well.
But I had to clean up front elements from dust and fungus. Rear elements look ok but I didn´t try to disassemble.
It looks more difficult for me with adjusting rear element and so on...

My concern is, that my pictures have some glow and a lot of CA. Yes that is normal in a kind of view. But in heavy light I have a lot of these.
Koen, did you clean up your pictures from CA?
I just want to compare the lenses. And maybe see that it is necessary to clean up the rest of my lens... unfortunately.

Thanks for your reply to that old topic.
But it is difficult to find one who could help in that issue.

Kind regards
Mario

I´ve uploaded two pictures which are slightly optimised in faces with clarity.

#1

#2