Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Canon nFD 50/1,4 lens
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anktonio wrote:
I tested a nFD with a Zeiss Planar, both 50/1.4 of the same time, on an M4/3. The results were indistinguishable in all conditions, color, contrast, bokeh... all equal. They both looked like the same lens. I have pending another test with these lenses in an FF, I do not think to find much difference.

Papasito, if you think that your nFD 50/1.4 is no better than Super Tak-8, especially wide open, you may need to check your copy.

Happy shots!


Awaiting results of FF test. Smile


PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Teemō wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The Summicron-R 2/50 is nothing special.


Probably something special in 1964, when the Summicron was developed, while the Minolta MD 50 1.7 and 2.0 both comparing well to the Leica, were developed in 1977. That's why the rumour persists about the Minolta 50/2 being a tech exchange/Summicron-R copy with Leitz.


Yes, the reputation of the Summicron was earned in the 60s, and I compared it to lenses from the 70s that had the advantage of multi-coating, so not entirely fair. I'm sure the Summicron did stand out among it's peers in the 60s, but a decade later, not really.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Teemō wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The Summicron-R 2/50 is nothing special.


Probably something special in 1964, when the Summicron was developed, while the Minolta MD 50 1.7 and 2.0 both comparing well to the Leica, were developed in 1977. That's why the rumour persists about the Minolta 50/2 being a tech exchange/Summicron-R copy with Leitz.


Yes, the reputation of the Summicron was earned in the 60s, and I compared it to lenses from the 70s that had the advantage of multi-coating, so not entirely fair. I'm sure the Summicron did stand out among it's peers in the 60s, but a decade later, not really.


The Cron R 2/50 V.1 is a very good lens, especially at far focus images.

In the other hand, the V.2 is better in the close focus range, from 1976.

The V.2 is really a very good to my eyes, from F/4 to F/11.

I had all the normals Minolta from the 1,9/55 to the 1,4 MD (49 mm).

The best IQ in Minolta normals to me is the 1,2/58 (except the tendency to CA). By far.

I shall try the nFD 50/1,4 another time again.

May be I have to know it better.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It was the V1 Summicron I had and in no way was it a bad or mediocre lens, it was a good lens, I just failed to find anything in the results it gave that impressed me, nothing about it was disappointing, just nothing made it stand out. Then again, it's hard to say too much based on just one copy and mine had been heavily used.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

papasito wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Teemō wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The Summicron-R 2/50 is nothing special.


Probably something special in 1964, when the Summicron was developed, while the Minolta MD 50 1.7 and 2.0 both comparing well to the Leica, were developed in 1977. That's why the rumour persists about the Minolta 50/2 being a tech exchange/Summicron-R copy with Leitz.


Yes, the reputation of the Summicron was earned in the 60s, and I compared it to lenses from the 70s that had the advantage of multi-coating, so not entirely fair. I'm sure the Summicron did stand out among it's peers in the 60s, but a decade later, not really.


The Cron R 2/50 V.1 is a very good lens, especially at far focus images.

In the other hand, the V.2 is better in the close focus range, from 1976.

The V.2 is really a very good to my eyes, from F/4 to F/11.

I had all the normals Minolta from the 1,9/55 to the 1,4 MD (49 mm).

The best IQ in Minolta normals to me is the 1,2/58 (except the tendency to CA). By far.

I shall try the nFD 50/1,4 another time again.

May be I have to know it better.


I agree about the 58/1.2. Wide open it's aberrations galore but also very detailed underneath. Bokeh is not really pleasing at far distances until F2. I had to return mine but I knew I wouldn't use it anyway due to size and value. I now use the MC 50/1.4 with the same optical design and it's also regarded as being their most detailed 50mm. In my experience, my MC-II 55/1.7 is very sharp across the field stopped down - never seemed to have an issue getting a quality picture with it on film - and MC-I 58/1.4 is very sharp in the centre but has field curvature issues. It's nice for portraits - lower contrast and softer bokeh than the MC 50/1.4 which is harsher than even the later MD 50/1.4's.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

“Conclusion: Clearly, both these Leica '50s” are fine performaers that , to a great extent, justify their lengendary status. They are beautifully made and , not surprisingly, carry princely prices,especially the f2.8 Elmar. which is produced in small quantities and is the only collapsible 50mm lens in current production. No, neither of these German optical jewels will blow their competors into the weeds; going strictly by the numbers, a handful of Japanese 50mm lenses for SLRs actually edge them out. What really matters is that the Summicron-M and theElmar-M are top-level performers and among the best lenses that can be fitted to an M-series Leica."

1996.11- Popular Photography

As you know that I also collected some microscope items, so that I could view the negatives with a 50-60x power microscope.A humble Soviet Kiev mount Helios-103 is as sharp as my Canon FD 50/1.4,or OM Zuiko 50/1.4. The quality of film made bigger difference than lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Taken at F/4 handheld. You will notice it quickly.


#1




Taken at F/5,6 handheld. Rainy day. Flat image

#2



Both haven't any photografic interest.

Only made to see the IQ in flat light.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:42 pm    Post subject: Close Focus issue? Reply with quote

Hi all, I have a nice 50mm 1.4 s.s.c lens on my A1, and it seems to me that either the lens or the camera is close focusing on every picture I shoot. It seems perfectly clear in the viewfinder, but resulting prints are rarely spot on. Even with a tripod I've noticed this, and with varying apertures and shutter speeds, so I doubt it's because of subject/camera shake or movement. Any thoughts on what this could be, or any ways to test the lens and camera to see if what it could be? I'm a bit lost using old SLR's as this A1 is my first, but I love it!


PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Adjust mirror?


PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
Adjust mirror?

Is this possible and could it make a difference? I don't think the mirror has much to do with the focus as far as I understand... Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Philtr wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
Adjust mirror?

Is this possible and could it make a difference? I don't think the mirror has much to do with the focus as far as I understand... Rolling Eyes


Light travels a different path depending on mirror up or down -- different distances = different focus...



The other less likely, imho, cause is incorrect shimming of the focus screen.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 24, 2017 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very nice graphic, and yes of course you're right that it could affect the focus. I've checked as best I can, and the mirror and focus screen both seem to be in proper position according to all the information I can find online. Mirror seems fully descended and at right angle, and focus screen is in correctly, with the glossy side down and large ridge visible at the back. Perhaps it's the lens instead? But then how would it appear clear and in focus through the viewfinder and be off on the film? I'm no expert, so perhaps would have to take a picture at what the lens marks as a specific distance (3ft) and then make a physical check at the same distance and see if the image comes out clear. This should show if the lens focus needs adjustment right? This would be so much easier with a digital haha. Perhaps getting an FD-X adapter and trying on my Fuji X-T1 would help to show if the problem is the lens or not.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 24, 2017 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, please try another lens or camera...


PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Two more pics.

They seem to be a little better than the taken in forst time.

Both at F/2,8

#1


#2


PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 3:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Regarding mirror adjustment, a few years ago, I bought a clean used Pentax LX that had one perplexing problem. Focusing was way off. It showed a much greater distance on the lens's distance scale than what I was getting by viewing an item through the viewfinder and focusing on it. So all the images were blurry because the lens was focusing at a greater distance than actual.

I took the camera to a highly reputable local repair facility and they corrected the condition.

So, that which visualopsins spelled out to you can easily have occurred. The point at which the mirror rests is probably off or out of adjustment.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 8:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very interesting, thanks for your input cooltouch. I'll try to find one around me here in the South of France...might be tough!


PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 10:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mirror bounce prevention lever needs adjust? (Page 96 )

http://jameskbeard.com/Photography/Legacy_Canon_Manuals/CANON A - SERIES CAMERAS/A-1 Camera Owners Manual (1978).pdf

(need to copy and paste entire url...)