Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Canon FD starter lenses
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2016 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rudolfkremers wrote:
uhoh7 wrote:
for just 100 or so you can get a very nice FL 55/1.2


Please point me at such an opportunity and I will POUNCE!
Wink


here are the sold listings at eBay:

http://www.ebay.com/sch/Lenses-Filters/78997/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=canon%20fl%2055mm%201.2&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&rt=nc&_trksid=p2045573.m1684

looks like 150 is the going rate.

BTW that is very high performance lens and can hold it's own against nearly any superspeed.


PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2016 7:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:

...
looks like 150 is the going rate.

BTW that is very high performance lens and can hold it's own against nearly any superspeed.


I bought my Canon FL 1.2/58mm (in a pristine state!) together with an FT-QL and a FL 2.5/135mm for CHF 100.-- (USD 100.-- / EUR 90.--). The lens is OK, but i prefer the Minolta MC 1.2/58mm - not only because the Minolta is not radioactive (the Canon FL 1.2/58mm certainly is). The Minolta has more detail.

The focal length of 58mm is very nice - i prefer it over 50mm (btw the Minolta is in fact a 1.2/59.5mm, measured by popular photography around 1972).

Stephan


PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2016 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Canon FL 58mm f/1.2 can often be bought for less than the later 55mm f/1.2 because, I believe, of a perceived difference in quality between the two optics -- rightly or wrongly. I've never shot with a 58mm f/1.2, so I can't say.

My FL 55mm and FD 55mm have identical optical formulas (which I think helps bolster the FL 55mm's resale value). Because of this, and because the FL mount is simpler in design than the FD mount, I plan to do a non-destructive conversion of my FL 55mm to EOS mount. In anticipation of the day where I'll have a decent EOS DSLR that I can actually use it with.


PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2016 8:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
The Canon FL 58mm f/1.2 can often be bought for less than the later 55mm f/1.2 because, I believe, of a perceived difference in quality between the two optics -- rightly or wrongly. I've never shot with a 58mm f/1.2, so I can't say.

I would guess that the difference is probably not that substantial. If there is any visible difference at all (apart from the obvious yellowish color cast because of the 1.2/58mm thorium lenses) ...!!
During the 1960s it was quite a challenge to reduce the focal length from "58mm" (in reality 60mm) to 55mm and then to 50mm while maintaining the overall performance of even the f1.4 lenses, let alone the f1.2 ones.

There was, however, room for improvement if the manufacturer chose to keep the focal length at about 60mm and increase performance. The differences between the early Minolta Auto Rokkor 1.4/58mm (or MC-I) and the later MC-II version of the Minolta 1.4/58mm are quite visible. New glass developed by Minolta (five new low dispersion / high refraction glasses became available around 1968) plus the introduction of "supercomputers" were the main means to increase performance.

cooltouch wrote:

My FL 55mm and FD 55mm have identical optical formulas (which I think helps bolster the FL 55mm's resale value). Because of this, and because the FL mount is simpler in design than the FD mount, I plan to do a non-destructive conversion of my FL 55mm to EOS mount. In anticipation of the day where I'll have a decent EOS DSLR that I can actually use it with.

Is that worth the pain? The image quality of a used Sony A7 is so much better than of an EOS 5D MkII that i would go for the Sony - even though i usually prefer the OVF. But using the A7 you can use all your vintage glass, and believe me: Focusing is easier than with an DLSR (since DSLR don't have the split image screens).
And if you'd go for an A7II, even all your vintage lenses would be stabilized ...


PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2016 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
The Canon FL 58mm f/1.2 can often be bought for less than the later 55mm f/1.2 because, I believe, of a perceived difference in quality between the two optics -- rightly or wrongly. I've never shot with a 58mm f/1.2, so I can't say.

My FL 55mm and FD 55mm have identical optical formulas (which I think helps bolster the FL 55mm's resale value). Because of this, and because the FL mount is simpler in design than the FD mount, I plan to do a non-destructive conversion of my FL 55mm to EOS mount. In anticipation of the day where I'll have a decent EOS DSLR that I can actually use it with.


58/1.2 is cheaper because you cantt convert it to eos! i have both 55/1.2 (FD) and 58/1.2 and i think they pretty much the same in term of sharpness but render image quite differently.


PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2016 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
cooltouch wrote:
The Canon FL 58mm f/1.2 can often be bought for less than the later 55mm f/1.2 because, I believe, of a perceived difference in quality between the two optics -- rightly or wrongly. I've never shot with a 58mm f/1.2, so I can't say.

I would guess that the difference is probably not that substantial.


The 58 and 55 are totally different lenses. Basically as different as any two superspeed lenses can be. The 55 was meant to address numerous aberrations of the 58. It's way stronger from a technical point of view.

That doesn't mean you can't get some really sweet shots from the 58, which has it's own character.

But the 55 FL will astonish you. It's also very strong across the frame as you stop down. The major downside, aside from the funky mount, is the weight. It's heavy Smile


DSC07695 by Hailey Life, on Flickr


PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2016 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:
stevemark wrote:
cooltouch wrote:
The Canon FL 58mm f/1.2 can often be bought for less than the later 55mm f/1.2 because, I believe, of a perceived difference in quality between the two optics -- rightly or wrongly. I've never shot with a 58mm f/1.2, so I can't say.

I would guess that the difference is probably not that substantial.


The 58 and 55 are totally different lenses. Basically as different as any two superspeed lenses can be. The 55 was meant to address numerous aberrations of the 58. It's way stronger from a technical point of view.
...
But the 55 FL will astonish you. It's also very strong across the frame as you stop down. The major downside, aside from the funky mount, is the weight. It's heavy Smile


Is there any (optical) difference between the FD 1.2/55mm and the FL 1.2/55mm?

Stephan


PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
FD 55/1.2 has the same optical scheme, but features SSC coating.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
i get a 50mm 1.4 , i found it more contrasty wide open than my minolta rokkor PG 50mm 1.4 who has a very good reputation.
wide open the black are almost black on the canon and near the brown on the rokkor.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 03, 2016 3:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gardener wrote:
FD 55/1.2 has the same optical scheme, but features SSC coating.


Well, actually the very first chrome-nose FD 55/1.2 didn't have the SSC coatings. They did look different from the FL's coatings though. I have an FL 55/1.2 and used to own a chrome nose FD 55/1.2, and one of the things I did was just compare to coatings by looking at them. They were definitely different.

Gardener is correct about the optical formula, though. The Canon museum confirms this, in terms of element/group counts. I confirmed this for myself by shooting the same subject back-to-back with both lenses. There was absolutely no difference in the performance between the two.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:

...
The 58 and 55 are totally different lenses. Basically as different as any two superspeed lenses can be. The 55 was meant to address numerous aberrations of the 58. It's way stronger from a technical point of view.

That doesn't mean you can't get some really sweet shots from the 58, which has it's own character.

But the 55 FL will astonish you. It's also very strong across the frame as you stop down. The major downside, aside from the funky mount, is the weight. It's heavy Smile


In fact i do happen to have both the Canon FL 1.2/58 as well as the Canon FD 1.2/55 (along with other f1.2 lenses such as the Minolta MC 1.2/58 and different 1.2/50 lenses). I would not say that these two Canon f1.2 lenses are that different. Certainly there's a gradual improvement (as there is e.g. from the early Minolta Auto Rokkor and MC-I 1.4/58mm to the later MC-II 1.4/58mm). And the performance of the FD 1.2/55mm is quite similar to the Minolta MD 1.2/50mm ... but then i may have to look at these lenses again... maybe i am wrong.

Stephan


PostPosted: Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi Cooltouch, I actually have a 55mm f1.2 ssc chromenose, found in a local charity shop, Will post pictures when I get home later.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2