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

Fair prices for cool old Canon glass?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:33 pm    Post subject: Fair prices for cool old Canon glass? Reply with quote
Today I spotted a couple of cool old Canon optics at a local camera shop that seems to have cool old stuff every now and then.

Canon FL 55mm f/1.2: It's in very nice shape -- I'd give it a solid Ex+. They're asking $89.

Canon FD 85mm f/1.2 S.S.C. Aspherical. Good shape, I'd give it an EX. They're asking $499 for this lens.

Their prices are negotiable on the used stuff, so I can probably get both pieces for less. I did some searching on eBay, and I see where sellers are asking for anywhere between $250 and $450 for the 55/1.2. I could find only one dealer for an 85/1.2 Aspherical, and this guy's buy-it-now prices are always sky-high. He's asking between $765 for ugly ones to $1425 for pretty ones. Using his prices as a yardstick, I'd say he'd be asking $1300-something for the one at the camera shop.

I'm interested in buying both these lenses, but I'm not all that familiar with the market on Canon FL and cool Canon FD stuff these days, so of course, I thought I'd ask the Forum Mind. Chances are some of you guys will know.

I've never owned or shot with either of these. I owned a Canon screw-mount 55/1.2 once -- or was it a 50 or 58? It was somewhat soft wide open, and not all that sharp even closed down. But still, it was a 1.2. I've never even looked through an 85/1.2, whether L or aspherical, but I've seen photos taken by them, and the results were simply spectacular.

Geez, I want these lenses.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Grab em


PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I own a few Canon FL lenses and admire them a lot. But then I also have a couple of old Canon bodies to use them on. You just need to be aware that the Canon register distance is such that the lenses pretty well cannot be used on any digital cam (save Micro 4/3) and retain focusing at infinity. In fact getting suitable adapters even for full sized 4/3 bodies is hard.....there are a few available but again no infinity focus. Having said this Canon glass can of course be used on Leica M bodies but having no means of have to zone focus - tough ask with either of these lenses. (I occasionally do it with a 35 and a 2Cool I do not know about the 85 but the price asked for the 55 is a song!


PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I know a couple here and/or at FredMiranda (cogitech, JimBuchanan) had converted 55 and 85 FD glass, but it was a bit of an involved process and both are quite experienced. Jim especially, as he machines some very precise parts to convert the lenses.

I believe both are using similar lenses on 5Ds with shaved mirrors or without using infinity focus (ie focusing only on close targets to avoid mirror hang)

I'd like a crack at either of these lenses one of these days, especially because they look like they are very comfortable to use and produce really nice images. I'd pick one or both up if you have the cash and desire to convert.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have converted the FL 55mm f/1.2 to Minolta AF mount, and it is possible without shaving parts of the lens itself, but needs complete re-setting of the infinity focus (including replacing the focusing range stop with a smaller part and getting the helicoid on one specific thread out of about a dozen possibilities). In other words, complete disassembly and lots of tweaking involved…

Decent lens, but not as good as 58mm f/1.2 Rokkor (which is easier to convert, too). I did get good infinity focus non-destructively, though (although the aperture ring must be left just a bit loose or it will not turn at infinity focus). As a bonus from changing the focusing range limiter, I also got almost 10 cm more close focus capability. =)


PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow, I appreciate all the input.

As an update, I bought both lenses today, and then some. Memory has a way of playing tricks on a guy, and often is distant from reality. As it turns out the 55mm f/1.2 FL lens has quite a bit of wear around the focusing ring, especially in two spots, where the thumb and finger(s) would be placed. But its glass is spotless. That's fine, I like it when I find well-used but well-cared for lenses. The 85mm Aspherical lens is in better shape than I remembered it, with only a few marks on the lens, and with flawless glass.

I have NO intentions of converting these lenses. I'm a Canon FD user from way back, and during my tenure as an FD guy, I've used a number of FL lenses, my favorite being the 35mm f/2.5.

It would be nice to shoot with these lenses on my Canon DSLR, and I will probably order a couple of adapters -- one with the corrective glass and one without. IF the one with corrective glass ends up not working well with these fast lenses, then I'll just plan on using them in closer situations -- like for portrait work (duh!). So the fact that the glassless EOS adapter for FD will not allow for infinity focus doesn't really bother me.

If I just simply have to use my FD glass on a digital camera in all situations, then I'll probably check out a Micro 4/3 camera and spring for one.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
I will probably order a couple of adapters -- one with the corrective glass and one without.


I think the adapters with glass kind of defeat the purpose of f/1.2 lenses, since the glass acts as a mild teleconverter and therefore also causes loss of maximum aperture; e.g. if the glass was a 1.2× teleconverter the 55mm f/1.2 would become a 66mm f/1.44, so why not just get an f/1.4 lens to begin with (cheaper and likely better performance)…

This is why I prefer converting them—but the conversion is reversible, of course, I don't damage the lenses. =)


PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm almost considering going the Panasonic route for my next DSLR just so that I can use FD lenses without having to convert or go for a glass adapter. The adaptation troubles with FD lenses have to be one of the reasons why they're still more reasonably priced (in most cases) compared to their M42 and other easily adaptable counterparts. No?


PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Definitely a GREAT move. Way to go! Very Happy


PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence wrote:
Definitely a GREAT move. Way to go! Very Happy

+1


PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here a sample with a Leica lens.
http://forum.mflenses.com/panasonic-g1-and-leica-elmarit-r-4-180mm-t20763.html

Still wait for the fd to m4/3 adpter.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
cooltouch wrote:
I will probably order a couple of adapters -- one with the corrective glass and one without.


I think the adapters with glass kind of defeat the purpose of f/1.2 lenses, since the glass acts as a mild teleconverter and therefore also causes loss of maximum aperture; e.g. if the glass was a 1.2× teleconverter the 55mm f/1.2 would become a 66mm f/1.44, so why not just get an f/1.4 lens to begin with (cheaper and likely better performance)…

This is why I prefer converting them—but the conversion is reversible, of course, I don't damage the lenses. =)


Cheaper? Yes. Better performance? Doubtful. The 85/1.2 SSC Aspherical is a legendary lens. Quite a few folks agree it is the best 85mm that Canon has ever made. I'm gonna find out soon. I've been taking pics of the kid with it since last night on my AE-1P. The bokeh with this lens are amazing (another thing you won't get with the 1.4).

Is there more info available on your conversion process? And what is involved in reversing the conversion. I've dismantled a fair number of lenses (and even put them back together again) in my day, and thus I'm wondering what all's involved. I have lots of precision hand and machine tools with which I can fabricate parts, even.

Look at me. Here I am, already discussing conversion when I just stated above that I don't have plans to convert them. Actually, I don't plan to, but it would be nice to know the process in case I change my mind in the future.

Last edited by cooltouch on Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:13 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
By the way, I've been jonesin' for a Canon Old F-1 for years, but never seemed to have the bucks for it when I came across one. Well, I had some funds left over from the lens purchases, so I searched Craigslist, and found a guy in Chicago selling one for a good price. So I went for it. Now I'll have a proper camera to mount that 85mm f/1.2 to. Can't wait for it to get here Very Happy


PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:

I think the adapters with glass kind of defeat the purpose of f/1.2 lenses, since the glass acts as a mild teleconverter and therefore also causes loss of maximum aperture; e.g. if the glass was a 1.2× teleconverter the 55mm f/1.2 would become a 66mm f/1.44, so why not just get an f/1.4 lens to begin with (cheaper and likely better performance)…

This is why I prefer converting them...


I agree 100%.

That 85/1.2 deserves a second life on FF digital.

Here's how I converted mine: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/787723/0

The process I used is not reversible, and I did not consider that to be important (flame away, but I honestly don't care about ever using the lens on an FD body and I'll never sell the lens).

However, it could be done in such a way to make it reversible if you can fabricate a new part to mount the stationary rear element. Others are working out such a method, in fact.

Anyway, my method will at least give you some ideas.

In case you didn't see this in another thread, here is a sample shot wide open on my 5D:



100% crop:


PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="cooltouch"]
Arkku wrote:
e.g. if the glass was a 1.2× teleconverter the 55mm f/1.2 would become a 66mm f/1.44, so why not just get an f/1.4 lens to begin with (cheaper and likely better performance)…


Cheaper? Yes. Better performance? Doubtful. The 85/1.2 SSC Aspherical is a legendary lens.[quote="cooltouch"]

Yes, but what about the 102mm f/1.44 lens you end up when you stick in on the adapter with a very cheap teleconverter element? Perhaps it could still be great, and at least it would be fast for a 100mm, but I personally feel that if I'm paying for an f/1.2 lens I don't want to change that part of it.

cooltouch wrote:

The bokeh with this lens are amazing (another thing you won't get with the 1.4).


Which “the” f/1.4? I think the Samyang 85mm f/1.4, for example, could be a good contestant in that regard. And there are plenty of great f/1.4's in the 50-58mm range.


cooltouch wrote:

Is there more info available on your conversion process? And what is involved in reversing the conversion.


I haven't posted any info on the conversion, and in fact I avoid even naming the lens in question, since I don't really want too many people to start buying up these lenses for conversions.

However, if you're comfortable disassembling the lens all the way, there's nothing extraordinarily tricky involved. Also, the conversion will be simpler to Canon EOS than it is to Sony Alpha and you won't necessarily even need to replace the focusing range limiter with a smaller piece (or drill new holes for repositioning the distance scale after the focusing range has changed).

In my case I found that the infinity focus position could not be adjusted far enough without using both the “regular” factory adjustment method and putting the entire focusing helicoid on a different thread. The added focusing range also meant that the lens would press against the aperture ring (which is in the front) at infinity focus, and hence the aperture ring needed to be left just slightly loose to allow it to “rise” up in this position (and a hole in the ring deepened accordingly). All in all, both finding the exact position for infinity focus and adjusting aperture ring tension are not particularly difficult, but potentially time-consuming (especially if you are a perfectionist like me and want to have the infinity position exact =).

For the replacement mount I used a flanged M42 adapter. An easier solution for modifying this lens would be cutting off a part of the mount and drilling + tapping new screw-holes, but that would be destructive and presumably require a lathe to get it done evenly.

To reverse my modification, the simple way would be to just unscrew the new mount and screw the old one back in, but after the infinity focus adjustment it would focus well beyond infinity, costing plenty of close focusing range (even if it has been extended by the modification). To restore original infinity focus position, one would either need to re-do the whole process of finding the right thread and adjustment position, or to add shims under the original mount.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
cooltouch wrote:
Arkku wrote:
e.g. if the glass was a 1.2× teleconverter the 55mm f/1.2 would become a 66mm f/1.44, so why not just get an f/1.4 lens to begin with (cheaper and likely better performance)…


Cheaper? Yes. Better performance? Doubtful. The 85/1.2 SSC Aspherical is a legendary lens.


Yes, but what about the 102mm f/1.44 lens you end up when you stick in on the adapter with a very cheap teleconverter element? Perhaps it could still be great, and at least it would be fast for a 100mm, but I personally feel that if I'm paying for an f/1.2 lens I don't want to change that part of it.


Okay, I think it bears repeating again. My primary intention is to use these lenses with a Canon FD camera. I plan to enjoy shooting slides again, and trying out Kodak's new Ektar. If I have to have the images in digital format, I'll scan the negs or slides.

But I have seen test images recently, either posted on a forum or at a link that I followed from a forum, which I cannot recall now. Anyway, these images showed minimal image degradation. However, I have since learned that the degradation is much more severe with very fast lenses -- one of our own members -- maybe it was koji? -- clued me in on this. So, I might still pick up an adapter to see how it will work with my slower glass.

Sort of related to this -- a few months ago I bought an Opteka slide duplicator designed for use with DSLRs. It screws onto the front of a lens. It has an optical element, which is basically just a close-up lens, so that the lens can focus at the correct distance. I heard many horror stories about how dreadful these things were, but then I came across a set of photos on Flickr, where the guy showed a scan of a slide and a dupe of the slide side by side. It was a good quality scanner, but I don't recall the name or model. I couldn't see much difference between the two images, so I decided to give the Opteka duplicator a try and bought it. My results were surprisingly good. The duped slides were noticeably sharper than the scans, and, yes, even at the edges. So all I'm saying is, if this element is constructed properly, it does not necessarily have to result in inferior images.

I am still working up the learning curve on 4/3 micro, which appears to be the best answer to using FD glass on a DSLR. But any purchase along those lines is still a long way off. I had to sell a guitar to buy these lenses, and I don't plan on selling another one any time soon to buy even more photo gear. Who knows, though. GAS can be a powerful thing. Cool

Arkku wrote:

cooltouch wrote:

The bokeh with this lens are amazing (another thing you won't get with the 1.4).


Which “the” f/1.4? I think the Samyang 85mm f/1.4, for example, could be a good contestant in that regard. And there are plenty of great f/1.4's in the 50-58mm range.


Sorry. I was referring specifically to the Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 since it appeared that that was what you were referring to.

I don't disagree about the Samyang, by the way. Some of the images I've seen produced by that lens are amazingly good.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
One thing to consider when using large aperture lenses with teleconverters, whether of the 1.2x variety such as many FD-Eos adapters or other 1.4x and 2x types is that the diameter of these converters is fairly small. This converter may act as a second aperture, cutting off part of the light coming through the lens. A 55/1.2 with a 1.2x converter is more likely to act like a slower lens than a 66/1.4, with little difference in light throughput between the f/1.2 and f/1.4 settings on the lens.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:

Okay, I think it bears repeating again. My primary intention is to use these lenses with a Canon FD camera. I plan to enjoy shooting slides again, and trying out Kodak's new Ektar. If I have to have the images in digital format, I'll scan the negs or slides.


Yes, I wasn't contesting this use or arguing for conversion in your case… I was just pointing out that in my opinion use of the adapter with glass defeats the purpose of having an f/1.2 lens because it'll end up being slower than an f/1.4 with no extra glass. That's why I converted mine, because I don't have suitable film bodies. =)

cooltouch wrote:

I am still working up the learning curve on 4/3 micro, which appears to be the best answer to using FD glass on a DSLR.


I'm really hoping someone comes up with mirrorless SLR system that uses a sensor bigger than the 4/3 cameras have; I'd love to have a small camera like that to carry along and use with e.g. rangefinder lenses, but the 2× crop factor is too much for general-purpose use and old manual focus lenses, in my opinion…

cooltouch wrote:

Arkku wrote:

Which “the” f/1.4?


Sorry. I was referring specifically to the Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 since it appeared that that was what you were referring to.


Ah, no, when I said that it would probably be better to get “an f/1.4 lens [instead of using an f/1.2 with an adapter than has a glass element]” I meant just some good f/1.4 lens that can be used without extra glass in the adapter. The FD 50mm f/1.4 would end up being something like a 60mm f/1.68, so again it would be better to get something that doesn't require the extra glass for use on such a camera…


PostPosted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 2:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
cooltouch wrote:

I am still working up the learning curve on 4/3 micro, which appears to be the best answer to using FD glass on a DSLR.


I'm really hoping someone comes up with mirrorless SLR system that uses a sensor bigger than the 4/3 cameras have; I'd love to have a small camera like that to carry along and use with e.g. rangefinder lenses, but the 2× crop factor is too much for general-purpose use and old manual focus lenses, in my opinion…


I agree completely that the 2x crop factor presents problems, especially on the wide end. And yes, rangefinder lenses don't have to deal with the whole mirror issue, thus their formulas are more "pure" than the rectilinear formulations that have been required for use with SLRs. As a result, pedestrian lenses such as the 50mm f/3.5 Elmar are capable of incredibly sharp and contrasty results.

My main objection also to the micro 4/3 format is the sensor size. Even the 1.6x crop factor sensor on my Canon DSLR introduces compromises that I'd just as soon avoid. Unfortunately FF sensors are still very expensive, so it looks as if we'll have to be making compromises in this regard for quite a while to come. Nonetheless, I've been seeing some very nice images posted here by users of 4/3 cameras, so the whole micro 4/3 thing is tempting.

Arkku wrote:

Ah, no, when I said that it would probably be better to get “an f/1.4 lens [instead of using an f/1.2 with an adapter than has a glass element]” I meant just some good f/1.4 lens that can be used without extra glass in the adapter. The FD 50mm f/1.4 would end up being something like a 60mm f/1.68, so again it would be better to get something that doesn't require the extra glass for use on such a camera…


Well, as it so happens, I do have one 1.4 lens that I can mount to my Canon DSLR without using a glass element adapter: a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AI. I would like very much to get a 1.2 Nocturnal, but their prices remain prohibitive.

I have not used the 50/1.4 Nikkor much with my Canon, mostly I guess because it's a 50mm Cool But I've used it enough with my F2 to know what it's all about. You know, I still have such an ingrained 35mm mindset that I forget about the crop factor. I already have an 85mm f/1.4 -- or almost. My Nikkor 50mm f/1.4, multiplied by the 1.6x crop factor, becomes an 80mm f/1.4. Guess I oughta pull it out of the bag and use it more often. Unfortunately, one of the problems with using a crop body, is the depth of field is increased somewhat, so even though it might be a 1.4 lens, it won't wash out the details on the crop body the way it will on an FF camera.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1