Canon FD vs K-35 Glass - Can you tell the differences between $1k and $15k glass?

[mercer]

16 minutes ago, tweak said:

Honestly I drew the same conclusions as this person - https://lensqaworks.com/2018/09/12/lenswars-canon-fdn-50mm-f-1-2-vs-canon-fdn-50mm-f-1-4/

I just can't justify the price or weight when I'm carrying this stuff around 80% of my life, especially if there's no perceivable advantage to me. Who knows, maybe there's some super copies out there that tip the scales, but I'm sure it still wouldn't be enough for anyone but yourself to notice.

That review was with the nFD 50mm 1.2 and not the L version. I assume you based your conclusions on the L version and not the regular nFD 50mm 1.2 as they are two totally different lenses.

I probably should have added that I’m not looking to build an FD L set, I’m looking for a 50mm lens that I can intercut with my EF lenses. The 1.4 is close but still isnt a great match. I’ve come to realize that I don’t really use my 85mm 1.8 that often because it is just too long for my style of shooting but my 35mm just isn’t quite long enough sometimes.

But yes, of course, we’re the only ones that will even notice the difference. If the story is good enough, we could all get by with kit lenses and some cheap LEDs until we don’t have that light, or the batteries died and we could use that extra half a stop.

Even though it doesn’t seem like it, I actually agree with you... I’m trying to lessen my load and if I don’t see a definitive improvement over the 1.4, I will sell it. And then I will decide if I’d rather have the L or sell it to buy the Sigma Art 50mm 1.4, since I don’t have many “modern” lenses.

[HockeyFan12]

3 hours ago, mercer said:

That review was with the nFD 50mm 1.2 and not the L version. I assume you based your conclusions on the L version and not the regular nFD 50mm 1.2 as they are two totally different lenses.

I probably should have added that I’m not looking to build an FD L set, I’m looking for a 50mm lens that I can intercut with my EF lenses. The 1.4 is close but still isnt a great match. I’ve come to realize that I don’t really use my 85mm 1.8 that often because it is just too long for my style of shooting but my 35mm just isn’t quite long enough sometimes.

But yes, of course, we’re the only ones that will even notice the difference. If the story is good enough, we could all get by with kit lenses and some cheap LEDs until we don’t have that light, or the batteries died and we could use that extra half a stop.

Even though it doesn’t seem like it, I actually agree with you... I’m trying to lessen my load and if I don’t see a definitive improvement over the 1.4, I will sell it. And then I will decide if I’d rather have the L or sell it to buy the Sigma Art 50mm 1.4, since I don’t have many “modern” lenses.

Have you considered the 50mm STM?  (EF, not FD.)

It's... not that bad. 

[noone]

3 hours ago, tweak said:

Honestly I drew the same conclusions as this person - https://lensqaworks.com/2018/09/12/lenswars-canon-fdn-50mm-f-1-2-vs-canon-fdn-50mm-f-1-4/

I just can't justify the price or weight when I'm carrying this stuff around 80% of my life, especially if there's no perceivable advantage to me. Who knows, maybe there's some super copies out there that tip the scales, but I'm sure it still wouldn't be enough for anyone but yourself to notice.

That test is not using an FD L 50 1.2 but a non L which is like many other make old fast 50s I think.      Out of all the 50s and near 50s I have had I rate the top four being Sony Zeiss 55 1.8, then the FD L 50 1.2 and the Pentax K 50 1.2 a distant third and the Nikon 50 1.8 AF (non D made in Japan) after that with all the others (and that is a few) following.    That said, I have never had a BAD normal lens but most of the non aspheric normal lenses from all makers are pretty similar (other than ones that have party tricks like bubble bokeh or what have you).

 

I was also wrong about the older 55 FD 1.2 AL lens (if THAT is the one the expensive lens is based on) as that one DID have an aspheric element (which is THE main difference between the Canon L FD primes - 24/50/85 at least and "normal" normals).

Those aspheric elements also account for a much greater price tag (like the Noct Nikkor 58 1.2 which is about the only other aspheric fast normal from the old days.

I find my old 24 1.4 L to be quite good wide open and one of the best older lenses I have owned.    Mine is rather beat up externally but the glass is good.    I listed it on Ebay a couple of years ago for a low price but had no takers.   Never being sold now.     I would have thought they would have started coming down in price now that there are lots of other 24 1.4s around (until recently there were only around a half dozen makes ever made in 24 1.4 which and the FD version could be used on many mirrorless cameras is why they were dear).

This is an old lame video I posted before using the 24 1.4 (used as a zoom on my dead A7s).  

 

[tweak]

8 minutes ago, noone said:

That test is not using an FD L 50 1.2 but a non L which is like many other make old fast 50s I think.   

Also @mercer, I realise that, just that my conclusions were still very similar.

I also had the 55mm 1.2 at one point which I'd agree was a touch better in some ways, still wasn't enough to warrant the price for me so I sold it and bought basically the rest of my nFD set with the change.

Personally I like the idea of the 24mm f1.2 the best out of all the 1.2s if I were to have one. I have the 24mm f2 though which is a stellar performer even wide open on my MB XL, so I don't really see the cost Vs use ratio fitting my needs. I think it really depends on your needs and use, I'd argue that most people don't really make films at 1.2 to warrant their purchase though and I don't believe there's much of a difference between the 1.2s and the next step down. Sometimes the 1.2s have been pushed so far to optimise wide open shooting that the simpler designs actually look better IMO.

Also @mercer I don't think FDs intercut that well with EF lenses mostly. They are something between a vintage and newer looking lens (nFDs in particular), if you were in a pinch you could match them, but I wouldn't set out with it in mind.

[Ed_David]

13 hours ago, tweak said:

You should do a test after this on the L versus the peasant models ? . From my tests the L simply aren't worth the extra over the slightly slower models, most the time the Ls aren't really sharp enough to use wide open anyway and at the same apertures both lenses are so close it's hard to pick them apart, sometimes the slower is even better ? . I have a set of nFD, I really like them.

i actually did do a test!  uploading asap

12 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

B looked sharper at least in the color graded close up. 

i have to reevaluate the test but it's also possible because I may have shot at T1.2 not T1.4 hence the k35 which is T1.4 or so (might be sharper) or I screwed up focus.  i'm not really the best at testing stuff in a scientific way.  I'm sloppy and lazy.

[mercer]

10 hours ago, tweak said:

Also @mercer, I realise that, just that my conclusions were still very similar.

I figured that but it was worth mentioning just in case.

10 hours ago, tweak said:

Also @mercer I don't think FDs intercut that well with EF lenses mostly. They are something between a vintage and newer looking lens (nFDs in particular), if you were in a pinch you could match them, but I wouldn't set out with it in mind.

I tend to use a single lens a lot. My favorite focal lengths are between 28-50mm. My go to lens, on one of my short films, is the EF 28mm 1.8, which is its own thing compared to my other EF lenses, so I was hoping the FD 50mm 1.2 L could pop in when I need the extra length.

I only paid a little more than the used prices for the EF 50mm 1.4, so I figured it was worth a test at that price.

We’ll see.

10 hours ago, noone said:

This is an old lame video I posted before using the 24 1.4 (used as a zoom on my dead A7s). 

Not lame at all, the second shot really shows off the strength of that 24mm... there is just something about a fast wide angle.

Also, as a side note, Sony’s Clear Zoom is really cool.

11 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

Have you considered the 50mm STM?  (EF, not FD.)

It's... not that bad. 

Yeah, optically it is pretty great, especially for the price, but that focus ring... ugh.

[mercer]

Sorry for the OT @Ed_David but I’ve been thinking about the FD-K35 comparison for a couple weeks now and how it correlates with the lenses I already own...

I guess it’s better than my obsession a few months ago with the triangular aperture, Rollei Zeiss lenses that were derived from the late 60s Super Speeds, Scorsese used in Taxi Driver.

[tweak]

@mercer I think stopped down maybe you could match them ok, not wide open though. Maybe you could even them out a bit in camera with WB if you have to, just need to do a few tests I guess. I mean almost anything can go together if you really want.  

[Ed_David]

7 hours ago, mercer said:

Sorry for the OT @Ed_David but I’ve been thinking about the FD-K35 comparison for a couple weeks now and how it correlates with the lenses I already own...

I guess it’s better than my obsession a few months ago with the triangular aperture, Rollei Zeiss lenses that were derived from the late 60s Super Speeds, Scorsese used in Taxi Driver.

the b speed superspeeds?

[mercer]

42 minutes ago, Ed_David said:

the b speed superspeeds?

Yeah, Zeiss put out a 35mm 1.4 and an 85mm 1.4 for Rollei QBM that have the triangular shaped aperture blades like the Zeiss B Super Speeds. The 35mm 1.4 is supposed to be amazing but it’s a little pricey for me. 

[Zach Goodwin2]

You can get cinematic FD lenses by using an edmika adapter.