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 1,4/50. Which ?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:33 am    Post subject: Canon 1,4/50. Which ? Reply with quote

I saw different versions of the Canon 1,4/50 - FD, SSC, FL.

Here, in the forum, there are a lot of very good images taken with the 1,4 lens.

But, which is the version to looking for?

Anybody knows?

Rino


PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just about any of them, Rino. The original 50mm/1.4 dates back to the introduction of the FL series in 1964. It was redesigned in 1968 and referred to as 50mm 1.4 II. It appears the optical design remains the same to the current day, surviving through changes from FL to FD, FD-SSC, New FD and EOS versions. Coatings schemes varied, the most notable change occurring with the introduction of SSC/Super Spectra Coating.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
But, which is the version to looking for?


Quote:
It appears the optical design remains the same to the current day, surviving through changes from FL to FD, FD-SSC, New FD and EOS versions.


So it looks like, the one with the best price! Very Happy I recently played around with the Canon FL 50mm f/1.2 and I was impressed with the sharpness wide open. It was crisp where it needed to be and fell out of focus beautifully. Picked it up at a flea market for peanuts.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Warning on the FL: assuming you're gonna use it on the AV-1 I see in the signature (or any other FD body for that matter) you 'll have to stop down in order to meter correctly. The FL mount, although it will mount fine, has a linkage missing in respect to the FD one. That being said I quote casualcollector.

Cheers, M.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks guys.

I saw a SSC more expensive than the FD version. From that, my doubt.

Rino.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

estudleon wrote:
Thanks guys.

I saw a SSC more expensive than the FD version. From that, my doubt.

Rino.
That's no reason that I'm aware of for that. Apart the mount they're identical (optically at least). The one marked SSC is of the first generation of FD, the kind with the silver rotating ring bayonet. The only other evident difference is the filter thread: 55mm for the older, 52mm for the newer.

Cheers, M.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks. As they are the same lens, the different prices may be a market question (there are few SSC or they are more wanted).

It´s a very attractive lens. A lot of canon FD lenses are subvaluate in IQ. I hear a lot of good things about the 1,4/50, 1,8/85, 1,2/85, 2,8/100, and the FL 1,2/55 (not MC, perhaps prone to flare, I guess)

Bets regards.

Rino


PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
A lot of canon FD lenses are subvaluate in IQ. I hear a lot of good things about the 1,4/50, 1,8/85, 1,2/85, 2,8/100, and the FL 1,2/55 (not MC, perhaps prone to flare, I guess)
I own the 1.8/85 and 2.8/100, both are excellent. The 85 is a bit more expensive due to being faster. They perform reasonably well even for close-up work with an extension tube.

M-


PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

marty wrote:
Quote:
A lot of canon FD lenses are subvaluate in IQ. I hear a lot of good things about the 1,4/50, 1,8/85, 1,2/85, 2,8/100, and the FL 1,2/55 (not MC, perhaps prone to flare, I guess)
I own the 1.8/85 and 2.8/100, both are excellent. The 85 is a bit more expensive due to being faster. They perform reasonably well even for close-up work with an extension tube.

M-


I saw pics taken with both, and as you sadi, they were excelent pics. The 2,8/100 is very nice lens, and very nice color rendering, isn't it?

Rino


PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also, dont forget that the later FD lenses, the so called FDn's are made of plastic not metal


PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The 2,8/100 is very nice lens, and very nice color rendering, isn't it?
Yes indeed, maybe better than 85 in this regard(which is nonetheless overall excellent). A bit more contrasty and saturated.

M.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To use a late 1960's FL 50mm/1.4 lens on the AV-1, you need to set the A-M ring to M (manual). Then the aperture opens and closes as you adjust the aperture ring.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

trev wrote:
Also, dont forget that the later FD lenses, the so called FDn's are made of plastic not metal


Thanks Trev. I will remember that.

Rino.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ramiller500 wrote:
To use a late 1960's FL 50mm/1.4 lens on the AV-1, you need to set the A-M ring to M (manual). Then the aperture opens and closes as you adjust the aperture ring.


Thanks ramiller500.

Like a manual lens, before the preset time.

Rino.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Canon 1,4/50. Which ?


EF

Laughing