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

Is this lens haze? FD 85mm f/1.2 L
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 8:44 am    Post subject: Is this lens haze? FD 85mm f/1.2 L Reply with quote
I've bought a very old FD 85mm f/1.2 L (code UE) with cheap price ($520) through an online shop. There are few scratches on the front glass and many small, unnoticeable marks can be seen under strong light. It's not very bad to an old lens. I don't have the FD-NEX adapter now to test it on NEX-6, so I decided to handhold the lens in front of the camera to test it wide open. I'm quite disappointed because the images look quite hazy to me, the edge is soft, even though CA was not bad. I wonder if it's common with this lens? Could it be better if I try disassembling and cleaning the glasses?

I just changed the brightness a bit to make them equal, otherwise they're exported directly from the camera









Last edited by Langstrum on Sun Oct 19, 2014 12:44 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Are you sure there is no light leak between the lens and the camera?


PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
calvin83 wrote:
Are you sure there is no light leak between the lens and the camera?


Not significant, because actually I put a PK-NEX adapter on the camera and try to fit the rear part of the FD lens inside the adapter to prevent light leak. With that setting, this lens is just a macro lens.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 8:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't have this lens, but for a bit vintage f1.2/85 lens I'd think that the results look normal


PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
You cannot expect better handheld results.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The old F1.2 lenses were very soft even on a FF camera. On a cropped sensor camera the problem gets much worse. If the optical elements are clean and clear (this can be checked without disassembling the lens!), there is nothing to do. I think you should not disassemble an expensive lens unless you are absolutely sure that it is necessary.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It could be vailing flare, shine a flashlight through one end of the lens while you look at the other end, if there is anything on the elements, it will show up.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
These fast oldies certainly can benefit from some help. Contrast can be low, and detail gets lost because of the slightly glowy effect. Fortunately in this digital age contrast can be put back in, and a surprising amount of detail is there with a bit of selective sharpening to reduce the glow.



PostPosted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:
I don't have this lens, but for a bit vintage f1.2/85 lens I'd think that the results look normal


Yes, it's quite normal if this lens is the SSC version. The main difference between the L version and the SSC is the sharpness at f/1.2, that's why it's much more expensive and people rated the L version very high. I also tried to find this lens because of that, but here, it's not different from the SSC, so I want to know if it's the actual performance of this lens or not Sad

Pancolart wrote:
You cannot expect better handheld results


I fixed the lens to the PK-NEX adapter by tape and got better images, but not much. The worst thing is the glowing edge, it's very annoying to me.

Gerald wrote:
The old F1.2 lenses were very soft even on a FF camera. On a cropped sensor camera the problem gets much worse. If the optical elements are clean and clear (this can be checked without disassembling the lens!), there is nothing to do. I think you should not disassemble an expensive lens unless you are absolutely sure that it is necessary.


I analyzed the lens carefully and found out that one of the glass in the center still has lots of cleaning marks, seems like someone repaired it before and made it more dirty instead. I have an instruction for disassembling this lens and I did in the past with Samyang 85/1.4, which was constructed very similarly to this lens. I'm afraid to get it bricked, too, so I will try until the step that I still can revert.

[quote-"Lightshow"]It could be vailing flare, shine a flashlight through one end of the lens while you look at the other end, if there is anything on the elements, it will show up.[/quote]

Yes, it's exactly what I did. Normally the problem showed up clearly, but this time I had to tilt the lens to certain angle until I saw the surface of the glass in the middle, which has many cleaning marks. I suspected that before because I did the same thing to other lens and it produced glowing photos like this case.

Basilisk wrote:
These fast oldies certainly can benefit from some help. Contrast can be low, and detail gets lost because of the slightly glowy effect. Fortunately in this digital age contrast can be put back in, and a surprising amount of detail is there with a bit of selective sharpening to reduce the glow.


Totally agree, and I always do that in pp. It's not a big deal, but I want the lens to be, at least, as good as in many reviews that I've read. Otherwise, I just need a cheap lens and rely mainly on pp. Thank you very much for the nice retouched image, now it looks very nice Very Happy

And thank you all for the constructive comments, I really appreciate that. Now I'm trying to disassemble the lens with all of my carefulness, I hope that it will be okay.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 7:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi Langstrum

If you're disappointed with the lens, please send it to me Smile

As far as I know, if the lens is not in the proper position against sensor/film plane, all other optical errors are multiplied

Flange focal distance for FD lenses is 42 mm, if you're holding the lens by hand in front of the camera, you can also expect an increase of all the imperfections, i.e. extended comma

Please follow this link below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance

What we see on these examples is extended comma in my opinion

I have had a few copies of this lens in my hands both L version and SSC ASPHERICAL version and they are both great performers

[EDIT]

Langstrum wrote:


Yes, it's quite normal if this lens is the SSC version. The main difference between the L version and the SSC is the sharpness at f/1.2, that's why it's much more expensive and people rated the L version very high. I also tried to find this lens because of that, but here, it's not different from the SSC, so I want to know if it's the actual performance of this lens or not Sad


They're both great performers - almost equal
there is NO DIFFERENCE between these two giants in sharpness. I mean between FDn 85 f1.2 L and 85 f1.2 SSC ASPHERICAL


tf


PostPosted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
trifox wrote:
Hi Langstrum

If you're disappointed with the lens, please send it to me Smile

As far as I know, if the lens is not in the proper position against sensor/film plane, all other optical errors are multiplied

Flange focal distance for FD lenses is 42 mm, if you're holding the lens by hand in front of the camera, you can also expect an increase of all the imperfections, i.e. extended comma

Please follow this link below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance

What we see on these examples is extended comma in my opinion

I have had a few copies of this lens in my hands both L version and SSC ASPHERICAL version and they are both great performers

[EDIT]

Langstrum wrote:


Yes, it's quite normal if this lens is the SSC version. The main difference between the L version and the SSC is the sharpness at f/1.2, that's why it's much more expensive and people rated the L version very high. I also tried to find this lens because of that, but here, it's not different from the SSC, so I want to know if it's the actual performance of this lens or not Sad


They're both great performers - almost equal
there is NO DIFFERENCE between these two giants in sharpness. I mean between FDn 85 f1.2 L and 85 f1.2 SSC ASPHERICAL


tf


You're right, I had to adjust the position of the lens and it needs to be fixed on the camera to get better results. I tried cleaning the rear and front glasses on both two sides. The image quality was a bit better. Since the PK-NEX adapter is too thick, I decided to fix the lens on the Roxsen Canon-NEX focal reducer to be able to focus with longer distances, and used the ability of the booster to have wider photos.
As many people has been discussed, the focal reducer clearly reduces the image quality and increases noise, so I expected the same to this lens. However, I was so surprised that it actually reduced the glowing effect that I want to eliminate, so now the images at wide open are acceptable to me.

In my previous comment, I mentioned the FD 85/1.2 SSC, but maybe I remember wrong, it should be the FD 85/1.8 SSC

So here are few photos I took with the lens and focal reducer and I'm happy with them now

#1. The lens is fixed on the focal reducer by tape



#2. Wide open



#3. Wide open



#4. Wide open



#5. f/1.4



#6. f/4 (very sharp)



#7. f/4



PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2014 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A reversed back lens causes much glowing in this lens, see here the full sized comparison images in the mid off the page (German language):



Canon FD 85mm 1:1,2 L

wrong direction

right back lens direction


But because this lens is a floating element design, correct flange back distance is critical too. I have not testes how bad wrong distance is, but you alter this correction.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 19, 2014 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Finally I got my FD-NEX adapter to properly test this lens. And really thank to trifox and ZoneV for your information, I was calmed down to wait for the adapter.
I didn't have experience with float element lenses and I learn a lot from this case. Using proper adapter to get the correct distance from the rear element to the sensor, then the lens is at its best, otherwise it will look more terrible at different distance. That's why it was recommended not to use the extender or extension tube with this lens.
Here is few examples, mostly shoot with f/1.2 and I just adjusted the light. The sharpness is better and there is not much halo, it's not ideal for pixel peepers but the overall images are good. The sharpness increases to f5.6, not much different by stopping down. I found out that my lens focus closer to normal and can focus to just near infinity, but I let it to be that way, it actually has more benefits to me because I don't use it for landscape anyway.

#1.




#2.



#3.



#4. F4



#5. F5.6



#6. F/1.2, BW conversion, slightly boosted the contrast, no sharpening



#7. F/1.2, colors boosted



PostPosted: Sun Oct 19, 2014 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice to see it's working out for you, have fun with it.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lightshow wrote:
Nice to see it's working out for you, have fun with it.


Thank you, it's a very great lens, on my NEX6 it's superb

And I'm glad that I joined this forum sibce I've learned a lot from our members, thanks everyone Very Happy
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1