Canon FD, SSC vs. New

[drjs]

I want to pickup a few FD lenses for my new A7. I was not able to shoot FD before using my Canon EF. Now with my A7 everything has changed!

Does anyone have any opinion on SSC FD vs. nFD? Prices are comparable on fleabay. I read some like SSC's build quality better than the new FD but new FD seem to be more plentiful (probably more made?).

I am looking to pickup fast primes between 70-120 range for portraits, I would like to consolidate suggestions on which one you would recommend.

Oh yeah, price is not critically important but I would like to keep the first few purchases under $150 each.

[David]

I prefer the SSC lenses. My FD heirarchy: SSC > FDn > SC

I think that FDn lenses have improved coatings for less ghosting and better flare resistance. That said, a sunshade on any lens will reduce ghosting and flare.

[Oldhand]

I'm not at all sure that every FD lens was available in SSC.
This may be a factor if you want the SSC so badly.
Frankly, any of the FD's are good - FDn is just a simpler mount.
Great lenses
OH

[dnas]

[Gardener]

New FD have coatings that are at least as good as SSC, better mount, they are lighter, but there's no denying SSC lenses are prettier.

PS. Re: price. There are really just 85/1.8 and 100/2.8 for you in 70-120 range. There's apparently a 100/2.0 but I've never seen one for sale, and you don't want to know what a 85/1.2 is worth these days. 85/1.8 is very nice, I have to boast here - I own both SSC and nFD. 100/2.8 is not bad either but I sold my copy when I got the 85. Price-wise 85's are expensive, and are getting more so. My original copy was a bit of beater, I sold it for close to what your budget is and the person who bought off me was ecstatic. With a bit of luck you can snag a 100 for $60-70, so that's a bit more realistic.

[duckrider]

Comparing SSC and nFD directly in Your hands You'll never choose nFD:
SSCs are an enjoyment in handling! They give You the impress of heavy metal, not cheap plastics. Coming from that (old)F1 times these lenses make a very much more valuable appeal!

Don't worry about differences in coating, our ancestors were able to take pictures with these lenses

Have a look through the older lenses, some tent to become yellowish in the glass, my 2/35 did so. Canon used obviously Thorium Glass.
People say, only the concave version seemed to do so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_FD_35mm_f/2

I was a fool to sell may SC & SSCs some years ago, when there was no A7...
Thomas

[drjs]

All very helpful comments. Thanks all!

[barryreid]

I used Canon FD all the way from 1990-2005 when I went digital - I never saw the point in AF . Being a geek I'm quite well read up on the subject too. The differences have been set out quite well by dnas but there is one little tidbit that's been missed. Apparently the coatings used after the change to FDn are give greater colour consistency and a slightly more neutral tone.

On canon FD cameras I strongly preferred the FDn versions, for a couple of operational reasons. Firstly the button push approach is faster to operate and more secure than the older breechlock method, secondly the lockable A position was essential for the programmed cameras like the T90 and finally all of the decent zooms and a few other lenses are FDn only.

It's not so clear cut when using them on an adapter, indeed the older lenses have an advantage - in many cases the aperture can be locked into stop down mode (IIRC the nFD 50 macro can do this too). There are also a couple of lenses that were only available and B/L versions such as the 55/1.2 & 1.2 Asph or the first/second version 35/2 concave with the thorium element.

Even without going "L" there are quite a lot of good lenses in the range overall. Lenses I'd recommend from use would include the 35/2 concave, 35/2.8, 50/1.4 (cheap enough theres no need to go for the 1., 50/1.2L, 50/3.5 Macro, 85/1.8, 28-85/5, 135/2 and 400/4.5. By reputation also consider any fixed focal length L series and 80-200L if you can find one at a good price.

I would, however, be very wary of the super-wides on a high resolution digital camera. Being brutally honest my 17mm was absolutely not better than a good copy of Tokina or Tamron at that FL and, like my FD20-35L, was comfortably outperformed for micro contrast and colour by the original EF16-35L on film, never mind digital. Also avoid the non-L 300/4, one which was known for CA issues even before digital.