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 "L" lenses compared with older MF lenses.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Another really nice lens to add to that list, Stan - the FL 2.5/35.


A man after my own heart. I bought an FL 35mm f/2.5 on a whim at the same time I bought a Canon FTbn, which was the item I was really after that day. I still recall the details, even though this took place in 1984. After buying the new-to-me camera and lens, I loaded it up with Kodachrome 64, and drove around a bit, taking pics. Back then I lived in Bakersfield, CA, and I had driven all the way down to Torrance, CA (Los Angeles area over 100 miles south of B-town) to buy that camera at a store called Silvio's Photo Works. So as long as I was down in the LA area and so close to the ocean, I headed for the coast, and burned through at least one roll of Kodachrome with that old FTb and the FL 35mm.

When I got the slides back, I was stunned at the quality of the images I'd gotten from that FL 35. Ever since then -- some 27 years and counting -- the FL 35mm f/2.5 has been one of my all-time-favorite Canon-mount lenses.

This is a keeper from that first roll, taken maybe an hour or two after I bought the FTb and the 35/2.5:


And a couple more:




PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:

I've come close to bidding, and I've looked at many pics, and read the rants. What I gleen is the 50L is the penultimate of the superfast 50's and can shoot well in many conditions. The far more rare ASPH 55s, I read are great after dark, but not quite as steallar all around as the 50 L.


Please understand it is not my desire to correct your usage, but I've had to do it before with the word "penultimate," including with a friend of mine who is a certifiable genius and has a PhD in Chemistry from Rice University! "Penultimate" means, in essence, 'second best.'

So, if this is what you actually meant, then which is 'best' to you? Cool

Quote:
For bokeh the old FL 55s and the original LTM 50/1.2 have the flavors . . .


Well, this is good to hear from someone else. I own an FL 55mm f/1.2 and I consider it to be a great lens, although it does tend to show some CA in some narrow situations. By the way, I had an opportunity to test a "chrome nose" (1st version) FD 55mm f/1.2 that Trifox ordered from an eBay seller who was unwilling to ship outside the US, so I acted as a relay for Stan. While I had his FD 55/1.2 in my possession, I put it through a set of comparison tests with my FL 55/1.2 that I will admit were not comprehensive, but nonetheless, I did spend a good amount of time shooting with the two lenses. And with every single comparison I shot, I could not tell any difference at all between the two lenses in terms of sharpness, contrast, or color. I also noted that both lenses had the same minimum focusing distances. So, based on these tests, I concluded that the two lenses most likely have the same optical formula, but that based on visual inspection of the lenses, the FD has a different, and most likely better, coating. I also feel I should mention that my tests did not include any sort of situations where high-contrast glare or flare were in the frame, which would have given some indication of coating performance.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just thank Hiroshi Ito and Jiro Mukai, the two Canon Optics giants. The first "L" lenses had no "L"s, just superb performance, best examples being the early 60's LTMs 85/1.8, 100/2 and the 35/2.

Those were Mukai, but Ito did much of the great classic Canon LTM glass.

Here's the progenitor of your 85/1.2s



Canon LTM 85/1.5 from around 1957. This after sundown, at f/4 Smile

below, 100/2 @ f/2 yesterday:



and the legendary 85/1.8 at dusk, wide open:


One of my clients just had her new 7D and 24-105 f/4 L arrive tonite, after I finnally convinced to upgrade her 40D. Smile


PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Some may say penultimate referring to a creation while remembering as there was a previous penultimate there could be yet another, concluding ultimate does not and cannot ever exist, something can always be made better in some way.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
Some may say penultimate referring to a creation while remembering as there was a previous penultimate there could be yet another, concluding ultimate does not and cannot ever exist, something can always be made better in some way.


Urgh, whatever. Look it up, if you don't believe me. Sheesh. "Penultimate" means 'next to the last' or 'next to final,' and in some usages, 'next to the top'.

I'll leave the new-age philosophizing to the rest of you.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Freudian slip there, sorry.

"PENultimate":

Smile

Here is the 85/1.8 lens design and patent:
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT3066575&id=jMBjAAAAEBAJ&pg=PP1&dq=jiro-mukai#v=onepage&q&f=false

the aberation curves are famous.

The 85/1.8 could be seen as the benchmark against which all the "true" L lenses might be compared. It's the first "Perfect" canon lens.

Whatever caoting they used is very good, it resists flare strongly, and is sharp accross the frame at 1.8 --crystalline like a great 50/1.8.

Here it is next to the "no slouch" non-tele 85/1.9, which is about 1/3 heavier.


Last edited by uhoh7 on Thu Aug 04, 2011 7:03 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
Some may say penultimate referring to a creation while remembering as there was a previous penultimate there could be yet another, concluding ultimate does not and cannot ever exist, something can always be made better in some way.


Urgh, whatever. Look it up, if you don't believe me. Sheesh. "Penultimate" means 'next to the last' or 'next to final,' and in some usages, 'next to the top'.

I'll leave the new-age philosophizing to the rest of you.


We agree on meaning of the word. I'm writing about how the term can be, and sometimes is, applied.

Actually the philosophy is quite old! If I'm not mistaken, Uther Pendragon was a later example of the far older philosophy, which has branches throughout the World.

Last edited by visualopsins on Thu Aug 04, 2011 7:02 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 7:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Woodrim Smile

As for the 35/2.5 FL...I picked one up for a tenner a while back, the images posted have inspired me to use it on my Nex Smile


PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 7:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
or maybe this was the first perfect Canon lens--1959:



100/2

When I look at it I think: why did I just buy a nikon RF 105/2.5?


PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 7:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:

When I look at it I think: why did I just buy a nikon RF 105/2.5?


For comparison purpose? Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
There is more in modern Canon L lenses than IQ only.
Build quality, fast USM focusing, internal focusing, weather sealing and all this must be reflected in price.
Sometimes is more important to avoid sand or water inside lens than absolutely top notch image quality.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:
The lens widely considered to be the best in the FD line, without exception, the nFD 24/2, is not an L lens.

On the other hand there is an nFD 100-300 which has the L, and is nothing special.

That all said, the nFD 50/1.2 L may be the finest high speed lens ever made in terms of pure performance. Almost certainly it is the sharpest MF superspeed.

24/2:


the also superb nFD 20/2.8



These are very sharp photographs. What camera do you use with FD lenses


PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I think the op was asking what MF lenses will give him IQ of a similar level to what L glass can offer on average.

On example off the top of my head is the Tair-3C 4.5/300. I've never owned a Canon L 300mm but when I look at shots from expensive Canon glass I'm not seeing much better (if at all) than I see from the Tair.

I bought my Tair last year for 35ukp.

How much is a Canon L 300?


Thank you, yes that was what I was after.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
killwilly wrote:
uhoh7 wrote:
The lens widely considered to be the best in the FD line, without exception, the nFD 24/2, is not an L lens.

On the other hand there is an nFD 100-300 which has the L, and is nothing special.

That all said, the nFD 50/1.2 L may be the finest high speed lens ever made in terms of pure performance. Almost certainly it is the sharpest MF superspeed.

24/2:

the also superb nFD 20/2.8



These are very sharp photographs. What camera do you use with FD lenses


Resized to 1024px and from crop camera 99% lenses looks sharp with little PP Neutral


PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
killwilly wrote:

These are very sharp photographs. What camera do you use with FD lenses


heres a 100 on the 20/2.8




The Sony Nex has really breathed some life into the problematic FD mount Smile

The 4/3 sensors are fine for playing around, and certainly can make some real sharp shots, but the 2x crop is a killer. The Nex's 1.5x is alot better, though we wish it was full frame.

It will be interesting to see how the 24mp Nex-7 does Smile


PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Uhoh, whenever you drag out pics of your NEX and all those fabulous Canon lenses you own, and then --- urgh! pics you took with them -- I find I have to grab a paper towel and start wiping the drool off my keyboard. Keep it up and this keyboard is gonna be junk and I'll know who to blame!


PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Uhoh, whenever you drag out pics of your NEX and all those fabulous Canon lenses you own, and then --- urgh! pics you took with them -- I find I have to grab a paper towel and start wiping the drool off my keyboard. Keep it up and this keyboard is gonna be junk and I'll know who to blame!


MFlenses and Sony are to blame, I'm afraid.

In Jr HIgh I had a wonderful art teacher, and we shot, developed and enlarged our own stuff--on our own schedule!

I shot 35mm back in the 70s and early 80s, but gave up because they were such a pain to travel with. Once video editing became possible at home around 2000, I started filming weddings here, and have now shot over 100, but for my own still work I just used pani superzooms.

7D sized cameras just do not interest me.

But the appearence of the Nex changed everything for me. All that pent up SLR upbringing was given a direct channel. Mounts? ANY mount! I was attracted to FD because, as you know, they are some of the best values because mount conversion is a nightmare.

So a very nice FL 55/1.2 is still only around 170USD, the real premium FD lenses like the 20/2.8 run no more than around 220USD: not bad for what might be the highest performance MF 20 ever made.

My entire lens collection is post-nex! Go ahead, puke Wink

I like film fine--to look at or read about, but have no desire to deal with the chemicals, not to mention the workflow in general. I never really got very good because I could not shoot 1000 shots at an event. I'd take a roll of 36, with one or two keepers which I saw long after the moment.

Now there is plenty to be said about the working and the waiting in the classic 35mm sense--and I can totally see how a person could buy an M3 and go crazy Smile or any of the great SLRs for that matter.

But I'm old (53), busy, with ADD and digital is great for me.

My early lens choices were also with video in mind, so speed was a concern. AT first I did not understand the RF lenses, and they seemed pricey anyway.

Based more than a small amount on the posts I read here I started with a Kiron 28/2 FD 35/2 SSC, a bokina, kiron 105, the FL55 and these two wider nFDs.

Then I came accross the little Canon LTM 100/3.5, and realised how easy it would be to carry the small RF glass.

What's a lens worth if you don't have it with you?

I annoyed the old guard over at RFF learning what was what and bought a bunch of RF lenses, mostly CV and Canon.

Now I'd guess I have 45 lenses, each with several hours of research behind it. Too many--I'm getting ready to consolidate down to around 30 I hope.

Some of those lenses were not easy to find, at least at market price, like the CV 28/3.5 or the Canon LTM 50/1.2, while other quite rare ones just fell into my lap.

I've had several people email me out of the blue to offer unusal glass they are not using.

Now it's just a terrible obsession Smile
I DON'T need any more lenses......except a helios 40, a ZM 25/2.8, a Pen 65/1.5, a CV 35/1.2 and maybe some of these nice east german things you read about around here Wink

oh and a 85/1.2 L

In the mail are two nikon RF lenses and the special adapter which allows you to focus the "internal" mount 50s

I found a 105 for 225USD, and a 50/1.4--the lens that bulit Nikon's rep for 200, and could not pass them up. Glass is supposed to be excellent.

For now, I'm loving my little Pen 25/2.8 Smile It can't match the nFD 24/2, I'm sure, but it's half the size and weight.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:
killwilly wrote:

These are very sharp photographs. What camera do you use with FD lenses


heres a 100 on the 20/2.8




The Sony Nex has really breathed some life into the problematic FD mount Smile

The 4/3 sensors are fine for playing around, and certainly can make some real sharp shots, but the 2x crop is a killer. The Nex's 1.5x is alot better, though we wish it was full frame.

It will be interesting to see how the 24mp Nex-7 does Smile


Thanks for your reply. When I first went DSLR, I looked a Sony and dismissed the idea thinking I would be able to use some of my old Canon gear if I stuck with Canon, how wrong I was.

I think for me a used 4/3 camera would be the cheapest option, rather than have my FD lenses converted, not that I have many, only five, but I would like to get more whilst the prices are reasonable.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great post uhoh. I just bought a NEX-3 and am now collecting Canon FL/FD glass to use with it, I already have a FD 1.4/50 S.S.C. and I just bought a mint Panagor (Kiron) 2/28 like yours, but it's in Konica AR mount (no problem, I have a couple of Hexanons too so I'll get an adapter) and I'm really excited about trying all the old lenses I couldn't adapt to my EOS.

I am really looking forward to using the gorgeous Schneider Variogon zoom I removed from a Braun Nizo Super8 camera, just hope it covers the NEX sensor!


PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
What type of adapter would you need to use FD lenses on a Sony Nex body?

PS. Sorry guys just found it, should have read the other posts first. Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have experience with L lens, it was my friend's 17-40 L
At the same time I brought my RMC Tokina 35-70/4
We swapped the lenses. My friend was surprised when he saw the result almost same, specially the sharpness. Tokina's lost in contrast, but not sharpness.
Well, not bad for cheap lens


PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Tokina 70-210 4.5 I have is also surprisingly sharp.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi,
Some very nice images posted and felt like have a lot to learn... Very Happy

From my experience, both (new) CANON "L" lenses and old Canon MF are excellent! I used to have 3 "L" AF Canon lenses, but currently only got ONE! That is because as opposite you many of you I started with photography with DIGITAL cameras and lenses and later became more and more ANALOGUE cameras and mf lenses too!
From Digital time have 3 "L" Lenses - 28-70 L, 80-200 L and 300 L. Later replaced the 28-70 to a 24-105 L IS, and after experienced the MF Lenses sold the 80-200 and the 300... (The 300L was, by far, my best lens and I do regret had it gone.)
Nowadays, I reduced the number of AF lenses ("L" and not-L) so only keep ONE: the Canon 24-105L. In opposite direction, the MF lenses keep growing in number and amount €€€ Shocked Most of my MF lenses are Zeiss, but still have space to some "old Canon pearls". Have 2x Canon FD 24mm 2.0, 1x Canon FD 35 2.0, 1x Canon FL 85mm 1.8, 1x Canon FD 85mm 1.2 L and 1x Canon FD 135mm 2.0

My reviews:
AF Canon 24-105 L IS:
PROS: is a superb lens that covers all my needs. Fast to focus, razor sharp and ImageStablization is a must. A fantastic pair to my Canon 5Dmk2. As long I keep the 5D2 this lens will be never sold!
CONS: None

MF Canon FD 135 2.0 was converted to EF (bought from Stan) so can have a full use on Canon 5d2.
PROS: It is a overall fantastic lens. Sharp wide open, fantastic DOF, CA controlled if a bit stopped.
CONS: Heavy.. and I do prefer the colours of Zeiss and tair...
(Since have a bunch of 135mm lenses I must do a comparative test soon)

MF Canon FD 24 2.0 not converted so only ran a few tests recently with 2weeks purchased NEX3 .
PROS: Fast. Wide if converted to EF and nice focal length on nex (equiv 36mm f/2). Nice colours.
CONS: Pricey. Not easy focusing (probably due my (in)ability to focus with wide and fast focal lens on NEX). Would like to use it on 5D2, so that will be my next FD-EF conversion.

MF Canon FD 35 2.0 not converted so only ran a few tests recently with 2weeks purchased NEX3 .
PROS: Cheap. Fast. Nice focal length on nex (equiv 52mm f/2). Neutral colours.
CONS: None so far

MF Canon FL 85 1.8 not converted so only ran a few tests recently with 2weeks purchased NEX3 .
PROS: Cheap. Fast. Easy to focus. Amazing colours. Great for portrait. I am drilled by the IQ photos it produces. Beautiful and astonishing lens! Very Happy
CONS: Really none!!

MF Canon FD 85 1.2 L not converted . Purchased faulty to repair...
Well this lens has some problems (messed aperture mechanism, rear mount, ...) and still had not time and courage to try its repair!! Finally, 1 week ago did some tests on NEX, but since the mount is faulty, they were not accurate so cannot review yet. When repaired I do believe that will one of my finest lens...


I am very pleased with my MF Lenses which I use a lot more than the autofocus "L", but still cannot give away a fantastic AF lens such the 24-105L...

Confused


PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 9:59 am    Post subject: Re: Canon "L" lenses compared with older MF lenses Reply with quote
killwilly wrote:
... ' L glass is the best and nothing can beat it'. Is there anyone on this forum that has put this claim to the test and done a comparison between L lenses and the older manual focus lens, which can now be purchased for a fraction of the cost?
...


As you see many here love the old Canon FD L lenses - I do as well.
I have converted and tested the FD 24/1.4L, 85/1.2L 300/2.8L 400/2.8L and 500/4.5L. And they are all good - the 24 has no sharp borders, but that is no problem for me.
The non L FD lenses are also pretty good - have there the 20/2.8, 28/2,8, 50/1.4, 50/1,8 and 100/4 macro.

But as well as the others, I have not made a real 1:1 comparison with a matching Canon EF L lens.

There are some rare comparisons, for example the Canon FD 80-200/4L seems to outperform the newer EF 70-200/4L.
MTF tests states that the old FD SSC 85/1.2 ASPH are nearly as good as one of the EF 85/1.2L.
Astrophotography guys prefer the old FD L supertele lenses because of image quality.
Zeiss (West) lenses seems to outperform AF lenses in terms of microcontrast - it seems that there are different lens design philosophys at different manufacturers.
As soon as you search not only for image quality regarding MTF but bokeh, you will find many alternative lenses that are different to Canon EF L lenses. AF lenses are build to give "neutral" realistic images, some manual focus lenses are very different (Meyer Trioplan 100, Zeiss Biotar 75 and Helios 40 as extreme examples).

But as someone wrote, you have to know if you could be happy without AF, automatic iris, EXIF data, IS,...
I am very happy with my manual lenses Smile


PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 4:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Canon "L" lenses compared with older MF lenses Reply with quote
ZoneV wrote:

MTF tests states that the old FD SSC 85/1.2 ASPH are nearly as good as one of the EF 85/1.2L.


I own this old lens, and while I have not had the opportunity to test it against the FD 85/1.2L or any of the EF 85/1.2Ls, I have read more than once that the old Aspherical is still considered best. I guess one reason is because of its 9-bladed iris. Ultimately to me it's all hearsay anyway, but I can state from personal experience that it is a very well corrected optic, and is capable of exceptional sharpness, even wide open.

One comparison I'd like to see is between the FD 200mm f/2.8 and the modern L version. I used to own one of the New FD 200mm IF lenses and while it was very sharp its CA problems were rather severe. Just read a review on the EF II version and apparently this one still has color fringing problems, even with two UD elements. No excuse for that, in my book.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3