I put together a collection of nFD lenses when I went canon FF mirrorless. I have the 28 f2.8, 50 f1.4, 100 f2.8. They are all fantastic and thanks to the R6, now are stabilized. My favorite manual primes for video and artsy photography.
Based on my own, personal experience, this review is accurate. The 28 and both 50s are excellent, but the 70-210 mm is a bit mediocre, with vignetting being a problem. If you are looking for low-cost alternative short to medium telephoto primes, then I recommend the 135 mm f/3.5, or f/2.8 and the 200 mm f/4 lenses. Slightly rarer, and slightly more expensive is the 100 mm f/2.8, which is a superb lens. If you want a cheap telephoto longer then 200 mm, then look for the 300 mm f/5.6 lens. For a super convenient zoom, you can't go wrong with the 35-70 mm f/3.5-4.5 macro zoom, which, being the kit lens on many Canon cameras, usually comes with a free camera included in the price (or the other way around). All of these lenses accept 52 mm filters. In addition to modern on-line reviews and information, a good guide to Canon new-FD lenses is the book "Lens Work" published by Canon, Amsterdam (1981).
The 50 1.8 is mono-coated which leaves it with softer focus (different wavelengths focusing at different distances rather than the actual film plane). "Nice flare"? what? Flare is a sign of a poor quality lens design. As I recall, the 70-210 is a 58mm, not 52, but that's just my memory from 40 years ago. I may be wrong. Exepting the 28mm and 50mm what do all these have in common? They're fucking slow! At least a stop or two slower than every other major manufacturer of the day so its no wonder they're cheap. No one wants them.
@@lenzielenski3276 The coating on a lens has no effect on chromatic aberration. Chromatic aberration is corrected by combining lens elements with different refractive indices. The simplest solution is a doublet, but a triplet will do better. The purpose of lens coatings is to reduce the fraction of reflected light at each lens surface. Internal surface are the source of flare. Since all practical lenses have internal surfaces, they inevitably exhibit flare. A more complex lens with more elements has more surfaces, so will likely have more flare than a cheaper, simpler one. All of the prime lenses that I recommend accept 52 mm filters. I do not recommend the 70-210 mm zoom, but you are correct that filter size for this lens is 58 mm, which could be another reason not to get it. Swearing is out of keeping with the Zenography channel. Please mind your language. The Canon FD lenses are relatively cheap because they cannot easily be adapted to fit any modern SLR cameras because the flange focal distance of FD lenses is too small.
@@bartlebyjargon I do not possess the 80-200 mm f/4 zoom, and have never tried one; however, I looked it up in my copy of "Lens Work", and find the following. It has 15 elements in 11 groups, includes high-refraction glass elements, closest focus is 1 m, takes a 58 mm filter, has a built-in hood, and weighs 765 g. The zoom ratio is 2.5, which is quite modest, so this combined with the other details suggests to me that there is some hope this lens may be good, and better than the 70-210 mm zoom.
Canon abandoned and made FD cameras and lenses obsolete in 1987 when they went to EOS but not for mirrorless camera users. Canon FD lenses are underrated because they are relatively inexpensive and had good image quality.
Just got myself the Canon FD 50mm S.S.C. I am already in love with it, most satisfying vintage portrait lens for me. Still love the swirl from helios and jenas but this one is straight up perfect for creamy bokeh and VERY sharp shots. Even wide open it's quite sharp.
Thanks for this very good overview of these lenses! I have an X-T3 and currently have two FD lenses I use with it; the 50mm f1.8 and the 135mm f.5. The 135mm really surprised me. I've been looking at the 28, but the prices have gone up. I have a 70-210, but it's a Promaster with a PK mount that I bought in the 80s with my Ricoh XR-P. Lastly, I have a 35-70mm Rikenon from the XR-P as well. I have played quite a bit with the FD lenses, the two PK mounts not so much yet.
The Canon 50mm F1.8 always punches above its weight - it's the lens that normally came as the default with a new camera, or was the first lens you bought after the original kit zoom - so it had to make the camera feel worthwhile. It was the one that made sure you weren't dissapointed with your new AE-1 or T70
I use Panasonic g9s and recently purchased Canon fd 50mm f1.8. At f2 images are crazy sharp for video. I've done three test videos and I can't believe how sharp images come out with such an old lens. Bought one at $33 shipped and another $40 shipped. Best bang for my money.
Luckily they made loads of these FD lenses, so they're not that expensive on the second hand market. Great stuff, very well made too. I have that 28mm and it's definitely a stunner!
Nice review. I just picked up a Canon slr film camera and 50mm f1.8 for £26. Looking forward to using the lens adapted to my micro 4/3 panasonic avccam ag-af101e As an aside here is a compelling reason why the fd lenses are good for digital! Short Protrusion Distance from Camera Body: Canon FD lenses have the shortest flange mount to focal plane focus distance of all SLR lenses. It's 42mm. Nikon is 46.5mm. This means that the adapters are shorter and therefore the lens doesn't stick out so far from the camera body as other glass from Nikon or Minolta.
You are so right about the increase i the prices of Legacy lenses... As an example, I purchased both a Meyer Gorlitz Oreston and a Meyer-Gorlitz Orestor a few years ago. Both these lenses were really inexpensive but, I have noticed that these lenses have drastically increased in price. IMO: the culprit (if you are buying) or hero (if you are selling) is the mirrorless camera, especially the Sony variety which enables the photographer to easily adapt these old lenses to the modern camera. The Orestor and Oreston are two of my favorite vintage lenses. Another oldie but, goodie that I like is the Carl Zeiss Jena Triotar 135mm f/4. All three of these lenses render wonderful images with various types of interesting aberrations to spice up my photography...
I've got the 50mm f/1.8, complete with an "Official 35mm Camera of the 1984 Olympic Games" lens cap. It's a relatively recent acquisition and came at the same time as some other things, so it hasn't seen that much use yet, but I've been very happy with the pictures I've taken with it so far.
I got that lens plus a cheapo FD/EF adapter so it goes on my DSLR Canon bodies. Feels well made and good value. Don't like it as much as my Pentax SMC lenses which seem to give a more 3D look but the FD lenses are a real bargain if you don't mind using manual settings.
@@jameswburke Many low quality Canon FD/EOS adapters has cheap optical glass inside to allow focus-to-infinity but they *severely* reduce image quality. Not a real, accurate representation of Canon FD lens potential and no wonder why it wasn't comparable to your Pentax SMC lenses.
Zenography, could you kindly do a series of videos on cleaning these lenses.. What tools are needed, which cleaning fluids and cloths and the process. Or are their downloadable maintenenance documents for these lenses that describe for each of them how to service them? I would consider that if one could clean these lenses by oneself, which is probably neccessary for almost all vintage lenses, then we can take advantage of buying cheaper lenses and improving them ourselves. Also it would make the whole process more fun and immersive by getting involved directly with an action that will improve the quality of our photos.
I’we used the 28 and tha 50 f1.4 on my Canon A1 for decades and now with an adapter I find that they cover the sensor in my recently bought Hasselblad X1D - with a slight but correctable vignette. That is amazing performance for these old lenses.
@@zenography7923 Yeah that's right, and recently I acquired the completely fantastic FD 85mm 1.2. A lens that I never found the money for in my younger days. But that lens produces stunning images on the Hasselblad X1D - by the way also on my Fujifilm X-T2/T1 - I haven't upgraded the Fujis, still quite satisfied with them.
I actually have 2 of these lenses myself. I have one of the 70-210 mm f/4, which I had to go look at just to make sure it was the fixed f/4! I got this lenses with an AE-1, along with a copy of the other lens from the video I have. The camera, 2 lenses, and a small bag I didn't keep cost me $40 US. The other lens I actually have 3 copies of! That would be the 50mm f/1.8. I have the one that was purchased by my parents with our T-70 in the mid 80's. I also had one that came with the AE-1 mentioned above, and one that came with another AE-1 I got for free! That AE-1 was given to me by my Grandmother. She took is as collateral for a small loan she gave to a guy that worked for the business she & my Grandfather owned. He had a Canon AE-1, the 50mm, a 35-70mm, and a bag. I kept the bag for a long time, but don't have it anymore. This AE-1's mirror also locked up, and I never got it fixed. I've got a couple other FD mount lenses, and I use them on my Canon FD mount bodies. I still have 1 of the AE-1's, my parent's T-70, a T-90, and a New F-1 with motor drive, and the regular eye level finder. I'd love to get the AE Finder to allow Amateur Priority AE. I'd also like to get an F-1 body that's in a little nicer shape, and a different focusing screen. I love my FD gear, and will likely never sale them!!
These fd lenses really are nice pieces of glass, to which I'm a relative newcomer. I was most impressed by the 50mm 1.4, and the 28mm 2.8, but that 1.8 certainly takes some beating!
Hi Nigel, thanks a lot for this review! Canon FD lenses indeed have an impressive image quality. One more lens I highly recommend for you is the breech lock Canon FD 3.5/35mm Mk. III. Mine is from 1977. It has an exceptional image quality, even wide open! You won’t be disappointed. It’s one of my favorite lenses. Check it out if you can get a copy. It is bitingly sharp and it’s focal length is very useful. You don’t need to break you bank. Another nice lens is the 4/200mm, both FD and nFD. A better zoom choice is the 4.0/80-200mm L, better than the 70-210mm, but at a higher price. It is as sharp and contrasty as it gets, really nice image quality without color fringing, even better than the 200mm primes I mentioned before. The Macro nFD 4/100mm also is an excellent choice for close-up photography for little money. Cheers, Ralf
Another wonderful video, thank you. I'll add a few items to it, if I might: I picked up a Lumix and was hyped to start with vintage glass, but not so hyped to pay for a metabones. So I gave a Pixco booster a try. Under $90 off Amazon and it is significantly better than "good". I assume this is due to two things. The lens config for a booster isn't all that demanding. And a booster takes the image and narrows the beam, thus making the image sharper. That said, I went out and got QUITE A FEW FD lenses: 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 50/1.4, 35-70/3.5, 200mm, and another zoom which I forget now as it was not in good shape and I never touch it. Same with the 35-70, which I will rebuy again and hope for better. I tend to prefer the N(new) FDs as the mounting is a bit less klunky, the plastic looks a lot nicer than the older FDs, especially as most have scratches (which aren't as bad on the newer plastic), they are lighter, and I do not see any significant difference in optical quality, better or worse. The 50/1.4 is an absolute gem. GET IT. The fact that it is so plentifully available and cheap...is no reflection on the quality. On the speed booster on my M43 sensor, it ends up being a 35m, f/1.0!!! And this lens is so well made that using it wide open is a pleasure. The edges are a bit soft, yes, but the brightness and the bokeh blow me away. By f/2.0 (on the dial), everything is totally sharp across. Think, almost modern lens sharpness (maybe even Art series), but with a distinct something else (maybe that 70s look?). All the other lenses are very good as well, but not in the same league, aside from more or less all having that classic Canon color pallet. The others are sharp, but not nearly as crisp, if that makes sense. And they do not compare wide open. Not at all. The 24 and 28 wide open are passable, and don't really shine until you get closer to f4.0. My booster give me back that stop, so it's fine. But ironically would not be great on a full frame, which they were of course designed for. I would say if you wish to spend, go for the (much) higher priced f2.0 versions. I'd love to hear from someone who has those-are they worth it? Overall, the FDs are a wonderful and affordable and generally available way to assemble a line of lenses with character, with a few real gems (they had an FD L line!). Plus the hunting is sort of fun (except when you get a dud), and Canon made so many, that this silliness can go on for years and piss off many a wife!
Thanks for the info - those FD lenses are great aren't they? And it's funny you should mention speed boosters - I hope to explore them in future videos!
I always wondered why these lenses have been so underrated. I paid plenty for mine years ago, now they can be had for buttons. The 35/2 concave is my favorite, never used any of the zooms. Very beautiful pictures you made here.
I have I have the 28 mm and 50mm mm 1.4 and 135 f2.8 and they're all really lovely lenses and agree with your assessment thanks for another great video.
Good points! FD lenses are good quality lenses; I have several. There is one small problem: FD lenses when attached to an modern Canon DSLR ( with EF mount ) needs an FD/EOS adapter with a small lens. I for one , do not want a non Canon lens ( with dubious quality ) between my Canon FD lens and my Canon EOS camera sensor! Some claim this is not a problem, I believe otherwise.
I didn't realise they were tricky to mount on Canon DSLRs, I thought they went straight on with a adaptor. I guess the extra element would cause the image to degrade, but not, I wouldn't think by very much?
@@zenography7923 Like I said, I have several FD lenses with adapters - and yes, there is a small glass element within the adapter. ( The element can be removed; but, focus to infinity will be lost.) Will the image degrade with the FD/EOS adapter? Simple Optical Physics says it will; but will it be noticeable? That's the debate. I think we have discovered why vintage FD lenses are inexpensive. If you want to know the truth, and I am hesitant to let the entire world know this, a vintage NIKON lens work better on a modern EOS camera than a vintage FD lens. The main reason? The Nikon to EOS adapter has no glass element to degrade the image - and we know Nikon makes quality lenses!
Focal flange distance is the key. Canon's FD flange distance from the lens mount to the film surface is shorter than Canon EF flange distance which in turn, FD lenses can't focus-to-infinity properly and only can be used for Macro, like an extension tube. The additional of an optical element in cheap FD-EF adapters pretty much corrects this by altering the distance between the FD flange distance closer to EF so it can now focus to infinity but the cheap optics hurt image quality and it also loses 1/3 stop of light.
@@zenography7923 In the early days of EF bodies, Canon offered an FD adapter but it was ONLY intended/compatible for a few long FD lenses. That adapter, considered "the best," has long been out of production.
❤Nice review! You should try the FD 28-50 f3.5 and 24-35 f3.5 two of the best FD zooms, sharp wide open and parfocal. You can also get the early chrome nose 35mm f2 concave at a good price and is optically identical to the SSC version.
thanks for pointing out its pros and cons you did that exceptionally and yes I will be subscribing to you in the future to see what other great stuff...you may have... Im a newly minted rookie and I want to take my pic taking to a whole new level but ive already got that tunnel vision of an eye for taking pics ...just starting out...
The nFD line had Canon's earlier "S.S.C." coatings _standard_ . If more people realized that I doubt many would be wanting the older breech-lock FD lenses unless they have a metal fetish and enjoy carrying more weight. When I re-bought into the FD lineup last year I picked up that same 28 and the 50 1.4, which incidentally someone else online says is better overall than the Contax/Zeiss Planar 1.4. There were something like 5 iterations of Vivitar's Series 1 70-210, made by 2-3 manufacturers and I can never remember which is which, but that one's worth researching for a zoom in that range at potentially low cost, even though the filter sizes are gonna be larger. But if money was no object I'd be looking for Canon's 80-200 ƒ/2.8 (along with everyone else of course.)
YOUR VOICE calls to be recorded ..........you need to do a podcast or a live stream for the world needs to feel good again .....and it can be your voice and love of photography that can help us in these uncertain times ...
Darko, thank you. These are difficult times for all the world, but they will end, and the light will come again. Thank you for your very kind comments.
Wonderful. As always. You can do a half dozen episodes on FDs, there is so much there! I'd love to hear your thoughts on the differences between Canon 70-210, 80-200 (regular and "L"), all the similar variations (75-150, etc.), compared with the Kino 70-210/3.5.
And he's inadvertently driving the prices of these gems UP !. Latecomers to the game like me are finding it more expensive than the suggested prices, although I must admit I do not have the patience for auctions. Buy it now or offer, may be why I end up paying more.
@@okay1904 I do the same thing. Five or ten or fifteen dollars I save is not worth the auction headaches. Most of the lenses are still very affordable. Except when you get into the under 28 mm category. Those are getting very pricey.
well some does have a very tempting price, but not all of it, especialy the K35-related lenses like the 55mm f1.2 aspherical or 24mm f1.4 aspherical, had went skyrocketed lately, and kinda hard to find a good one
Love your videos! I am particularly partial to the Canon FD fast 135mm lenses (f/2.5 or f/2.8. While not a substitute for the 70-210mm f/4 zoom in this case, it's a lovely long lens for portraits and easy to carry all day.
You have many many really good sample photos, and the video editing is rather pro. I, and probably some of the other subscribers, would welcome an episode about the digital cameras you adapt these lenses to. If a note to self I made is correct, you use a Sony A7 Mark 1 and a Lumix GH2? Do you miss sensor stabilization, and if so, what camera body would you buy to get it?
Many thanks, glad you're enjoying the shots! You're quite right, I use a Sony A7 mark 1 and a Lumix GH2. I use the Sony almost exclusively for stills and the GH2 mostly for video - to be honest I don't much like the colours from the Lumix and find it needs careful white balancing to get right. It has no focus peaking either, which is a shame, as my eyesight isn't as good as it was when I was 18! And of course, being m43, vintage lenses don't quite perform as designed on it. If I were to buy a body with sensor stabilisation, it would be an A7 2, which I think has it?
I have the 50/1.4 which I've adapted to ef and then use on my viltrox speedbooster m43 camera. The lens is very soft wide open for me. I think it's because of the glass in the ef adapter? Other vintage lens are great on my viltrox
The adaptor glass could be affecting the image, I've found the 1.4 to be pretty sharp wide open (the black nose version more so) although the very thin dof can make nailing focus a little tricky...
Hi Flora, it's not a macro lens, in fact as I recall the minimum focus distance is quite long on this one. Are you looking for a macro lens? If so, the most recent video looks at two very nice ones, both affordable too!
@@zenography7923 Dear Sir thank you for reply, but why is the word macro, is written on the lens. I actually have the same lens and the word macro is written on my lens too, and somewhere I heared that it is macro after the 70mm focal length
is there a video recommending canon cameras that have the FD mount? that would be a very nice video to go together with this one recommending lens . thank you for all the videos you have produced
Look also into the professional, mechanical engineered beast that is called the Canon F-1. A bulletproof camera that probably is the best FD SLR camera ever made.
I'd recommend the T70, T90, AE-1, and New(1980's) F-1 from personal experience with these cameras. They are all amazing bodies! I love the T70 because it was my childhood, but shot mostly with the T90 after I purchased it along with my New F-1. I like to use the F-1 either with the motor drive I got with it, or completely manual with B&W film. Other notable FD mount cameras would be the other earlier F series bodies, including the original F-1/F-1n. The other A series camera like the AE-1 Program, AV-1, AT-1. The last two I believe are either Shutter, or Aperture Priority only respectively. In my opinion from reputation, one of the best ever FD mount bodies was the A-1. If I am not mistaken, it was the first Canon camera to have a Program mode, as well as Shutter Priority, Aperture Priority, and Manual modes all in one. It's reputation is it's almost as solid as either F-1. My personal advice would be if you don't mind shooting fully manual/semi manual, to get an AE-1, or either F-1 without any accessories. You will get shutter priority with the F-1 if you have a motor drive attached, and Aperture Priorety if you have a specific finder attached, but you will not get Program mode I don't think. If you want a Program mode I'd stick with the AE-1 Program, T70, T90, or A-1.
This is a great review. Thank you. I managed to find a mint condition 50mm 1.8. Very happy. I am thinking of looking for the 55mm f1.2. When adapted to my Fuji X-T2 it should make for a lovely portrait lens. Have you any experience with that it?
I purchased a 55mm f/1.2 over eBay from a Japanese source. The lens is remarkably sharp and has a lot of character. However, it was not in usable condition when I purchased it, despite assurances from the seller, but was fixed by a local camera repair shop. Just saying, buyer beware.
Shai Yammanee according to the order history in EBay, I paid $30.75 tax on a purchase of $299.99. That is 10.3%. I don’t know whether that is California sales tax or some import duties or a combination, but it wasn’t enough to raise any concerns. However, in hindsight, the $299.99 was way too much, especially since the lens was not in working condition and had to be overhauled.
@@davidlarson3419 - That's good to know. Thank you. I was more concerned about having to go to the post office to pay extra amounts in import taxes. I've come across this in other countries. Thanks again.
Love Fd lenses and own many (nFD, FL, etc). Better resolution off center than other lenses of its era and less aberrations than most My nFD 20mm f2.8 blows away the MD 20mm f2.8, for example. That said, their bokeh is ok, but lacks the character of comparable lenses from the same era. An example would be the nFD 50mm v1.4 versus the Pentax SMC 50mm f1.4. The nFD is as sharp as any lens, but the Tak wins on rendition and character.
It's strange but I prefer the blur from the Canon - the Tak 1.4, at least my copy, has a couple of rough spots and didn't seem quite as nice. I actually prefer the Tak 1.8 to the 1.4.
Zenography thank you! I figured as I plan to use for video mostly any way. I really enjoy my Konica’s I have the 135mm 3.2, 50mm 1.7, 40mm 1.8, and 28mm 3.5 with A7 iii 👍🏾
Help me, I'm a bit confused: I want to buy FD lenses for Canon EOS crop sensor DSLR. I read that this doesn't work (even with adapter) but some of you say it works great. I don't mind manual control of focus or exposure.
@zenography I wonder if you've had any experience with the 80-200mm f2.8 or the 135mm f2.5... I have the 135mm and it rendered really well but 2.5 seems to be problematic with haze/loss of sharpness. So I usually opt for 2.8 most of the time
I'm afraid I've used neither of these lenses so can't comment, although it does sound as though there may be a fault with your 135. Is this a lens you've bought secondhand, or have you had it from new?
@@SamuelObafemi flange distance not the best. Only cheap adapters to EF have the worst optical corrections. Digital evf is recommended over optical viewfinder when using the older lenses. Mirror slap possible. Go to my website I have info on Canon FD.
If you use an adapter with a element, it will work, but you will get loss of speed and quality. Tried it and cried... An adapter without glass will not focus to infinity. I have the 5Dmk2, and have been rebuilding some fd/nFD lenses to fit ef. Not by using adapter with glass, but by shortening the back end of the housing, and then screw a M42-ef adapterplate to the end. The rear lens in the 50mm 1.4 (and wider) will collide with the mirror when in infinity. The 50mm/1.4 works very well on a crop sensor. The 135/3.5 and 200/2.8 can be altered to fit the 5D mk2 without glass. (You just need to have access to a lathe, and the knowledge to use it)
@@sidekickbob7227 Ruining lenses for a dead EF mount is a waste of time and money. Throw the 5DII in the bin. Doubt you will be able to save the lenses that have been molested. There is now a FD to R mount adapter for the new Canon mirrorless.
I haven't tried that lens, but it ought to work well enough. As I understand it there's a glass element in the FD to eos adaptor, which would likely degrade the image a little, but not so as you'd notice. Is the lens itself clean and clear?
Hello, which adapters should I get, to mount the following lenses to Canon 60D? Thanks Super Takumar 50mm 1.4-50 (Fotodiox M42-EOS V.2)?? Sigma Zoom Master 35~70MM F3.5~4.5 Canon 35-70mm 3.5-4.5
@@zenography7923 I haven't taken them off the old cameras, but I guess i understand what you mean. Ill take them to the shop and they can check which mounts they have and can get the adapters accordingly, thank you so much!
There's a lever on the adaptor that makes the aperture work as intended - can be a bit of a faff to get the lens on the adaptor but easy with practice.
@@zenography7923 im in ❤️ with the vintage nikkors- ive collected about 30 of them all mint from Japan in the past few months- i own a sony a7riii thats been converted to full spectrum but for most of the time i use a singh ray 830nm for my images- the beauty of the old nikkors is they have no sensor hotspots and the images are spectacular! all my modern lenses sony and Voightlander have hotspots problems- 😢 I have the 28 & 35 PC shift Nikkors and just a few days ago i found this on dbay - Carl Zeiss Jena MC F2.8 80mm Biometar Lens with shift adapter F.Nikon- been searching on google and ebay to learn about this lens and found your channel, excellent! Would you know anything about this lens? Im not having much luck- best regards from Missouri
As far as I'm aware it's just a short metal ring, with an FD mount at one end, and an eos mount at the other - there's no extra lens involved and best of all, they're very cheap, and plentiful on ebay and amazon.
@@zenography7923 I did buy one of those but the focus is out to lunch. Did some research and discovered i needed a lensed adapter for fd lenses to work on full frame Canon dslr, and was wondering which one to get. But after reading the comments on your video i'm realizing the crop factor involved and have now decided not to go this route. The m42 Takumars are very nice lenses and they adapt very well to Canon full frame dslr. I have a couple of them and love em. Your video almost makes me want to buy mirrorless just so I can take advantage of the old Canon glass...but I guess I can't have everything hahaha. Thanks very much for your response. Take care.
Unfortunately, adaptors with their own optics will always degrade the image to some extent. I used them on a sony a7 but they'll easily adapt to any mirrorless camera - and they can be used on Canon film bodies of course!
I've been looking for a 28 F2.8 for quite some time, but they aren't easy to find. Tokina and Vivitar equals are often available at the same price range, but I guess quality-wise they're not the same...are they?
I haven't tried either the Tokina or the Vivitar 28mm f2.8 so can't comment, but both those companies have made some very good lenses. You probably won't go too far wrong with either...
It's just as Wade said. I'm fascinated by both photography and zen, and I think photography is a good way to get into the moment, so to speak, without constantly concerning ourselves with either the past, which has gone, or the future, which is imaginary.
I put together a collection of nFD lenses when I went canon FF mirrorless. I have the 28 f2.8, 50 f1.4, 100 f2.8. They are all fantastic and thanks to the R6, now are stabilized. My favorite manual primes for video and artsy photography.
Based on my own, personal experience, this review is accurate. The 28 and both 50s are excellent, but the 70-210 mm is a bit mediocre, with vignetting being a problem. If you are looking for low-cost alternative short to medium telephoto primes, then I recommend the 135 mm f/3.5, or f/2.8 and the 200 mm f/4 lenses. Slightly rarer, and slightly more expensive is the 100 mm f/2.8, which is a superb lens. If you want a cheap telephoto longer then 200 mm, then look for the 300 mm f/5.6 lens. For a super convenient zoom, you can't go wrong with the 35-70 mm f/3.5-4.5 macro zoom, which, being the kit lens on many Canon cameras, usually comes with a free camera included in the price (or the other way around). All of these lenses accept 52 mm filters. In addition to modern on-line reviews and information, a good guide to Canon new-FD lenses is the book "Lens Work" published by Canon, Amsterdam (1981).
The 50 1.8 is mono-coated which leaves it with softer focus (different wavelengths focusing at different distances rather than the actual film plane).
"Nice flare"? what? Flare is a sign of a poor quality lens design.
As I recall, the 70-210 is a 58mm, not 52, but that's just my memory from 40 years ago. I may be wrong. Exepting the 28mm and 50mm what do all these have in common? They're fucking slow! At least a stop or two slower than every other major manufacturer of the day so its no wonder they're cheap. No one wants them.
@@lenzielenski3276 The coating on a lens has no effect on chromatic aberration. Chromatic aberration is corrected by combining lens elements with different refractive indices. The simplest solution is a doublet, but a triplet will do better.
The purpose of lens coatings is to reduce the fraction of reflected light at each lens surface. Internal surface are the source of flare. Since all practical lenses have internal surfaces, they inevitably exhibit flare. A more complex lens with more elements has more surfaces, so will likely have more flare than a cheaper, simpler one.
All of the prime lenses that I recommend accept 52 mm filters. I do not recommend the 70-210 mm zoom, but you are correct that filter size for this lens is 58 mm, which could be another reason not to get it.
Swearing is out of keeping with the Zenography channel. Please mind your language.
The Canon FD lenses are relatively cheap because they cannot easily be adapted to fit any modern SLR cameras because the flange focal distance of FD lenses is too small.
cdl0 what’s your opinion on the canon FD 80-200 f4 ssc?
@@bartlebyjargon I do not possess the 80-200 mm f/4 zoom, and have never tried one; however, I looked it up in my copy of "Lens Work", and find the following. It has 15 elements in 11 groups, includes high-refraction glass elements, closest focus is 1 m, takes a 58 mm filter, has a built-in hood, and weighs 765 g. The zoom ratio is 2.5, which is quite modest, so this combined with the other details suggests to me that there is some hope this lens may be good, and better than the 70-210 mm zoom.
Canon abandoned and made FD cameras and lenses obsolete in 1987 when they went to EOS but not for mirrorless camera users. Canon FD lenses are underrated because they are relatively inexpensive and had good image quality.
The adapters FD for mirrorless cameras are nightmare, it is the reason, why those lenses still are not expensive.
Just got myself the Canon FD 50mm S.S.C. I am already in love with it, most satisfying vintage portrait lens for me. Still love the swirl from helios and jenas but this one is straight up perfect for creamy bokeh and VERY sharp shots. Even wide open it's quite sharp.
Thanks for this very good overview of these lenses! I have an X-T3 and currently have two FD lenses I use with it; the 50mm f1.8 and the 135mm f.5. The 135mm really surprised me. I've been looking at the 28, but the prices have gone up. I have a 70-210, but it's a Promaster with a PK mount that I bought in the 80s with my Ricoh XR-P. Lastly, I have a 35-70mm Rikenon from the XR-P as well. I have played quite a bit with the FD lenses, the two PK mounts not so much yet.
My favourite and best buy FD lens in the Canon 200mm f/2.8 FD and at £100 it's an absolute steal. Nice video as always.
Many thanks Howie, glad you enjoyed it!
And the f2.8 is MUCH better corrected than the (awful) f4 version. I have both and the f4 sits on a shelf.
The Canon 50mm F1.8 always punches above its weight - it's the lens that normally came as the default with a new camera, or was the first lens you bought after the original kit zoom - so it had to make the camera feel worthwhile. It was the one that made sure you weren't dissapointed with your new AE-1 or T70
A very nice little optic!
I use Panasonic g9s and recently purchased Canon fd 50mm f1.8. At f2 images are crazy sharp for video. I've done three test videos and I can't believe how sharp images come out with such an old lens. Bought one at $33 shipped and another $40 shipped. Best bang for my money.
It's an excellent lens, and if you try the 1.4, I think you'd find it even nicer!
Luckily they made loads of these FD lenses, so they're not that expensive on the second hand market.
Great stuff, very well made too. I have that 28mm and it's definitely a stunner!
Nice review. I just picked up a Canon slr film camera and 50mm f1.8 for £26.
Looking forward to using the lens adapted to my micro 4/3 panasonic avccam ag-af101e
As an aside here is a compelling reason why the fd lenses are good for digital!
Short Protrusion Distance from Camera Body: Canon FD lenses have the shortest flange mount to focal plane focus distance of all SLR lenses. It's 42mm. Nikon is 46.5mm. This means that the adapters are shorter and therefore the lens doesn't stick out so far from the camera body as other glass from Nikon or Minolta.
You are so right about the increase i the prices of Legacy lenses... As an example, I purchased both a Meyer Gorlitz Oreston and a Meyer-Gorlitz Orestor a few years ago. Both these lenses were really inexpensive but, I have noticed that these lenses have drastically increased in price.
IMO: the culprit (if you are buying) or hero (if you are selling) is the mirrorless camera, especially the Sony variety which enables the photographer to easily adapt these old lenses to the modern camera.
The Orestor and Oreston are two of my favorite vintage lenses. Another oldie but, goodie that I like is the Carl Zeiss Jena Triotar 135mm f/4. All three of these lenses render wonderful images with various types of interesting aberrations to spice up my photography...
I've got the 50mm f/1.8, complete with an "Official 35mm Camera of the 1984 Olympic Games" lens cap. It's a relatively recent acquisition and came at the same time as some other things, so it hasn't seen that much use yet, but I've been very happy with the pictures I've taken with it so far.
I got that lens plus a cheapo FD/EF adapter so it goes on my DSLR Canon bodies. Feels well made and good value. Don't like it as much as my Pentax SMC lenses which seem to give a more 3D look but the FD lenses are a real bargain if you don't mind using manual settings.
@@jameswburke Many low quality Canon FD/EOS adapters has cheap optical glass inside to allow focus-to-infinity but they *severely* reduce image quality. Not a real, accurate representation of Canon FD lens potential and no wonder why it wasn't comparable to your Pentax SMC lenses.
I've never used any adapter with glass in it for that reason but thanks you for the great advice.
Zenography, could you kindly do a series of videos on cleaning these lenses.. What tools are needed, which cleaning fluids and cloths and the process. Or are their downloadable maintenenance documents for these lenses that describe for each of them how to service them? I would consider that if one could clean these lenses by oneself, which is probably neccessary for almost all vintage lenses, then we can take advantage of buying cheaper lenses and improving them ourselves. Also it would make the whole process more fun and immersive by getting involved directly with an action that will improve the quality of our photos.
I have done a couple of videos on cleaning lenses - the Helios 44 and the MInolta Rokkor 58mm 1.4, which you may not have seen?
These fd lenses are great! I have 28 F2.8, 50 F1.4, 85 F1.2, 35-105 F3.5, 200 F2.8 and 300 F4 and i really like them
I'm quite new to them, but they are great lenses! My favourite so far is the 50mm 1.4 - just lovely!
Thank you, i purchased fd 50mm 1.8 excited to use it on my 5d mk2
Nothing like waking up to another Zenography video! Lovely stuff as always. I should get an adapter so I can make use of my FDs, hmm...
Many thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
I’we used the 28 and tha 50 f1.4 on my Canon A1 for decades and now with an adapter I find that they cover the sensor in my recently bought Hasselblad X1D - with a slight but correctable vignette. That is amazing performance for these old lenses.
Quite amazing!
@@zenography7923 Yeah that's right, and recently I acquired the completely fantastic FD 85mm 1.2. A lens that I never found the money for in my younger days. But that lens produces stunning images on the Hasselblad X1D - by the way also on my Fujifilm X-T2/T1 - I haven't upgraded the Fujis, still quite satisfied with them.
I actually have 2 of these lenses myself. I have one of the 70-210 mm f/4, which I had to go look at just to make sure it was the fixed f/4! I got this lenses with an AE-1, along with a copy of the other lens from the video I have. The camera, 2 lenses, and a small bag I didn't keep cost me $40 US. The other lens I actually have 3 copies of! That would be the 50mm f/1.8. I have the one that was purchased by my parents with our T-70 in the mid 80's. I also had one that came with the AE-1 mentioned above, and one that came with another AE-1 I got for free!
That AE-1 was given to me by my Grandmother. She took is as collateral for a small loan she gave to a guy that worked for the business she & my Grandfather owned. He had a Canon AE-1, the 50mm, a 35-70mm, and a bag. I kept the bag for a long time, but don't have it anymore. This AE-1's mirror also locked up, and I never got it fixed.
I've got a couple other FD mount lenses, and I use them on my Canon FD mount bodies. I still have 1 of the AE-1's, my parent's T-70, a T-90, and a New F-1 with motor drive, and the regular eye level finder. I'd love to get the AE Finder to allow Amateur Priority AE. I'd also like to get an F-1 body that's in a little nicer shape, and a different focusing screen.
I love my FD gear, and will likely never sale them!!
These fd lenses really are nice pieces of glass, to which I'm a relative newcomer. I was most impressed by the 50mm 1.4, and the 28mm 2.8, but that 1.8 certainly takes some beating!
Hi Nigel, thanks a lot for this review! Canon FD lenses indeed have an impressive image quality. One more lens I highly recommend for you is the breech lock Canon FD 3.5/35mm Mk. III. Mine is from 1977. It has an exceptional image quality, even wide open! You won’t be disappointed. It’s one of my favorite lenses. Check it out if you can get a copy. It is bitingly sharp and it’s focal length is very useful. You don’t need to break you bank. Another nice lens is the 4/200mm, both FD and nFD. A better zoom choice is the 4.0/80-200mm L, better than the 70-210mm, but at a higher price. It is as sharp and contrasty as it gets, really nice image quality without color fringing, even better than the 200mm primes I mentioned before. The Macro nFD 4/100mm also is an excellent choice for close-up photography for little money. Cheers, Ralf
The fd lenses often go more cheaply then others - I'm not sure why, but it certainly isn't on grounds of image quality! Thanks for the tips!
Zenography You‘re welcome
Another wonderful video, thank you. I'll add a few items to it, if I might:
I picked up a Lumix and was hyped to start with vintage glass, but not so hyped to pay for a metabones. So I gave a Pixco booster a try. Under $90 off Amazon and it is significantly better than "good". I assume this is due to two things. The lens config for a booster isn't all that demanding. And a booster takes the image and narrows the beam, thus making the image sharper.
That said, I went out and got QUITE A FEW FD lenses: 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 50/1.4, 35-70/3.5, 200mm, and another zoom which I forget now as it was not in good shape and I never touch it. Same with the 35-70, which I will rebuy again and hope for better.
I tend to prefer the N(new) FDs as the mounting is a bit less klunky, the plastic looks a lot nicer than the older FDs, especially as most have scratches (which aren't as bad on the newer plastic), they are lighter, and I do not see any significant difference in optical quality, better or worse.
The 50/1.4 is an absolute gem. GET IT. The fact that it is so plentifully available and cheap...is no reflection on the quality. On the speed booster on my M43 sensor, it ends up being a 35m, f/1.0!!! And this lens is so well made that using it wide open is a pleasure. The edges are a bit soft, yes, but the brightness and the bokeh blow me away. By f/2.0 (on the dial), everything is totally sharp across. Think, almost modern lens sharpness (maybe even Art series), but with a distinct something else (maybe that 70s look?).
All the other lenses are very good as well, but not in the same league, aside from more or less all having that classic Canon color pallet. The others are sharp, but not nearly as crisp, if that makes sense. And they do not compare wide open. Not at all. The 24 and 28 wide open are passable, and don't really shine until you get closer to f4.0. My booster give me back that stop, so it's fine. But ironically would not be great on a full frame, which they were of course designed for. I would say if you wish to spend, go for the (much) higher priced f2.0 versions. I'd love to hear from someone who has those-are they worth it?
Overall, the FDs are a wonderful and affordable and generally available way to assemble a line of lenses with character, with a few real gems (they had an FD L line!). Plus the hunting is sort of fun (except when you get a dud), and Canon made so many, that this silliness can go on for years and piss off many a wife!
Thanks for the info - those FD lenses are great aren't they? And it's funny you should mention speed boosters - I hope to explore them in future videos!
Thank you for the detailed information! There are not many reviewers with a M4/3 camera, I really appreciate your comment.
I always wondered why these lenses have been so underrated. I paid plenty for mine years ago, now they can be had for buttons. The 35/2 concave is my favorite, never used any of the zooms. Very beautiful pictures you made here.
Many thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
The FD 35mm f2 is a very sharp lens and earlier versions are radioactive.
His voice, so smooth and convincing, like the shame wizard from Big Mouth
:)
I have I have the 28 mm and 50mm mm 1.4 and 135 f2.8 and they're all really lovely lenses and agree with your assessment thanks for another great video.
Many thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
I have a 'Chrome' Canon FD 50mm f1.4. It has a chrome front ring. Is there a quality difference between the models?
Good points! FD lenses are good quality lenses; I have several. There is one small problem: FD lenses when attached to an modern Canon DSLR ( with EF mount ) needs an FD/EOS adapter with a small lens. I for one , do not want a non Canon lens ( with dubious quality ) between my Canon FD lens and my Canon EOS camera sensor! Some claim this is not a problem, I believe otherwise.
I didn't realise they were tricky to mount on Canon DSLRs, I thought they went straight on with a adaptor. I guess the extra element would cause the image to degrade, but not, I wouldn't think by very much?
@@zenography7923 Like I said, I have several FD lenses with adapters - and yes, there is a small glass element within the adapter. ( The element can be removed; but, focus to infinity will be lost.) Will the image degrade with the FD/EOS adapter? Simple Optical Physics says it will; but will it be noticeable? That's the debate. I think we have discovered why vintage FD lenses are inexpensive. If you want to know the truth, and I am hesitant to let the entire world know this, a vintage NIKON lens work better on a modern EOS camera than a vintage FD lens. The main reason? The Nikon to EOS adapter has no glass element to degrade the image - and we know Nikon makes quality lenses!
Focal flange distance is the key. Canon's FD flange distance from the lens mount to the film surface is shorter than Canon EF flange distance which in turn, FD lenses can't focus-to-infinity properly and only can be used for Macro, like an extension tube. The additional of an optical element in cheap FD-EF adapters pretty much corrects this by altering the distance between the FD flange distance closer to EF so it can now focus to infinity but the cheap optics hurt image quality and it also loses 1/3 stop of light.
@@zenography7923 In the early days of EF bodies, Canon offered an FD adapter but it was ONLY intended/compatible for a few long FD lenses. That adapter, considered "the best," has long been out of production.
@@thenexthobby Do you know which adaptor that was, and is in commonly avilable on the used market. If so, I bet it has a hefty price tag.
Thank you for the great review on the nFDs. Would be great to see a review on the nFD 85mm, 100mm and 135mm
If they come my way, I'll review them!
Excellent as always Nigel. Just ordered a FD 50mm f2 minty fresh for $50!
Many thanks Brent, enjoy that 50 mil!
❤Nice review! You should try the FD 28-50 f3.5 and 24-35 f3.5 two of the best FD zooms, sharp wide open and parfocal. You can also get the early chrome nose 35mm f2 concave at a good price and is optically identical to the SSC version.
thanks for pointing out its pros and cons you did that exceptionally and yes I will be subscribing to you in the future to see what other great stuff...you may have... Im a newly minted rookie and I want to take my pic taking to a whole new level but ive already got that tunnel vision of an eye for taking pics ...just starting out...
Thanks for the sub!
The nFD line had Canon's earlier "S.S.C." coatings _standard_ . If more people realized that I doubt many would be wanting the older breech-lock FD lenses unless they have a metal fetish and enjoy carrying more weight.
When I re-bought into the FD lineup last year I picked up that same 28 and the 50 1.4, which incidentally someone else online says is better overall than the Contax/Zeiss Planar 1.4.
There were something like 5 iterations of Vivitar's Series 1 70-210, made by 2-3 manufacturers and I can never remember which is which, but that one's worth researching for a zoom in that range at potentially low cost, even though the filter sizes are gonna be larger. But if money was no object I'd be looking for Canon's 80-200 ƒ/2.8 (along with everyone else of course.)
Are you serious?!
How do you know this :) ???
I've been wanting to compare and contrast their coatings/flare characteristics
There is no Canon 80-200 f2.8 in FD mount.
YOUR VOICE calls to be recorded ..........you need to do a podcast or a live stream for the world needs to feel good again .....and it can be your voice and love of photography that can help us in these uncertain times ...
I am sure people would listen to your voice even if you read the phone book ......
Darko, thank you. These are difficult times for all the world, but they will end, and the light will come again. Thank you for your very kind comments.
:)
Wonderful. As always. You can do a half dozen episodes on FDs, there is so much there! I'd love to hear your thoughts on the differences between Canon 70-210, 80-200 (regular and "L"), all the similar variations (75-150, etc.), compared with the Kino 70-210/3.5.
If they come my way, I'll review them! Glad you enjoyed the video.
I've noticed a pattern in my internet behavior; watch a zenography video then go immediately to ebay.
Hm.....
:)
Haha....Don't we all???
And he's inadvertently driving the prices of these gems UP !. Latecomers to the game like me are finding it more expensive than the suggested prices, although I must admit I do not have the patience for auctions. Buy it now or offer, may be why I end up paying more.
@@okay1904 I do the same thing. Five or ten or fifteen dollars I save is not worth the auction headaches. Most of the lenses are still very affordable. Except when you get into the under 28 mm category. Those are getting very pricey.
I'm using the 70-210 f4 on a Fuji X-E1 with a Zhongyi FR. I'm not complaining :-) ( Also have the 28mm f2.8 lovely little lens indeed. )
Nive review. Nice lenses. I've got a canon FD 100mm macro lens adapted to canon EOS. Works perfect.
That Canon sounds nice! What's the maximum aperture?
@@zenography7923 f4-f32
The fd 28mm is probably on my Sony a7ii 90% of the time
well some does have a very tempting price, but not all of it, especialy the K35-related lenses like the 55mm f1.2 aspherical or 24mm f1.4 aspherical, had went skyrocketed lately, and kinda hard to find a good one
Have you ever used the PANAGOR 55-225mm f3.5 CANON FD MOUNT ZOOM LENS, I use it with my Sony nex 5, a5000 and a6000
Very well produced. How do you differentiate between the original fd lenses from the new fd lenses.
Love your videos! I am particularly partial to the Canon FD fast 135mm lenses (f/2.5 or f/2.8. While not a substitute for the 70-210mm f/4 zoom in this case, it's a lovely long lens for portraits and easy to carry all day.
how to use FD lens on an ef mount?
@@rap222 I wouldn't even try to do that. Just buy a camera with FD lens mount.
@@ldstirling I have seen people use it as a cine lens. Hence wanted to know how to adapt them for that. Thanks.
nice video about these lenses . have you ever reviewed the canon FD lenses 100mm and the 135mm .
I don't have either the 100 or the 135, but who knows what the future may bring...
You have many many really good sample photos, and the video editing is rather pro. I, and probably some of the other subscribers, would welcome an episode about the digital cameras you adapt these lenses to. If a note to self I made is correct, you use a Sony A7 Mark 1 and a Lumix GH2? Do you miss sensor stabilization, and if so, what camera body would you buy to get it?
Many thanks, glad you're enjoying the shots! You're quite right, I use a Sony A7 mark 1 and a Lumix GH2. I use the Sony almost exclusively for stills and the GH2 mostly for video - to be honest I don't much like the colours from the Lumix and find it needs careful white balancing to get right. It has no focus peaking either, which is a shame, as my eyesight isn't as good as it was when I was 18! And of course, being m43, vintage lenses don't quite perform as designed on it.
If I were to buy a body with sensor stabilisation, it would be an A7 2, which I think has it?
I have the 50/1.4 which I've adapted to ef and then use on my viltrox speedbooster m43 camera. The lens is very soft wide open for me. I think it's because of the glass in the ef adapter? Other vintage lens are great on my viltrox
The adaptor glass could be affecting the image, I've found the 1.4 to be pretty sharp wide open (the black nose version more so) although the very thin dof can make nailing focus a little tricky...
Nigel thank you again for the nice video. One small question Is the 70-210 a combined Macro lens ?
Hi Flora, it's not a macro lens, in fact as I recall the minimum focus distance is quite long on this one. Are you looking for a macro lens? If so, the most recent video looks at two very nice ones, both affordable too!
@@zenography7923 Dear Sir thank you for reply, but why is the word macro, is written on the lens. I actually have the same lens and the word macro is written on my lens too, and somewhere I heared that it is macro after the 70mm focal length
is there a video recommending canon cameras that have the FD mount? that would be a very nice video to go together with this one recommending lens . thank you for all the videos you have produced
There's a recent video featuring the Canon T70 and T90 - I think it's called 'The Next Level'...
@@zenography7923 thank you very much
Look also into the professional, mechanical engineered beast that is called the Canon F-1. A bulletproof camera that probably is the best FD SLR camera ever made.
I'd recommend the T70, T90, AE-1, and New(1980's) F-1 from personal experience with these cameras. They are all amazing bodies! I love the T70 because it was my childhood, but shot mostly with the T90 after I purchased it along with my New F-1. I like to use the F-1 either with the motor drive I got with it, or completely manual with B&W film.
Other notable FD mount cameras would be the other earlier F series bodies, including the original F-1/F-1n. The other A series camera like the AE-1 Program, AV-1, AT-1. The last two I believe are either Shutter, or Aperture Priority only respectively. In my opinion from reputation, one of the best ever FD mount bodies was the A-1. If I am not mistaken, it was the first Canon camera to have a Program mode, as well as Shutter Priority, Aperture Priority, and Manual modes all in one. It's reputation is it's almost as solid as either F-1.
My personal advice would be if you don't mind shooting fully manual/semi manual, to get an AE-1, or either F-1 without any accessories. You will get shutter priority with the F-1 if you have a motor drive attached, and Aperture Priorety if you have a specific finder attached, but you will not get Program mode I don't think. If you want a Program mode I'd stick with the AE-1 Program, T70, T90, or A-1.
I got few "new FD" lenses... great but little booring stuff. I got 50, 28 and 100-300 new FD lensens :)
boring how?
Great video! You sound like you’re from Liverpool. Correct me if I’m wrong
This is a great review. Thank you.
I managed to find a mint condition 50mm 1.8. Very happy.
I am thinking of looking for the 55mm f1.2.
When adapted to my Fuji X-T2 it should make for a lovely portrait lens.
Have you any experience with that it?
I'm afraid not, although I believe it has a very good reputation. Would love to try one someday myself!
I purchased a 55mm f/1.2 over eBay from a Japanese source. The lens is remarkably sharp and has a lot of character. However, it was not in usable condition when I purchased it, despite assurances from the seller, but was fixed by a local camera repair shop. Just saying, buyer beware.
David Larson - Did you have to pay extra import tax on the item?
This has been my main reason for holding off from buying internationally
Shai Yammanee according to the order history in EBay, I paid $30.75 tax on a purchase of $299.99. That is 10.3%. I don’t know whether that is California sales tax or some import duties or a combination, but it wasn’t enough to raise any concerns. However, in hindsight, the $299.99 was way too much, especially since the lens was not in working condition and had to be overhauled.
@@davidlarson3419 - That's good to know. Thank you.
I was more concerned about having to go to the post office to pay extra amounts in import taxes. I've come across this in other countries.
Thanks again.
I am thinking about getting an FD 35-105mm f3.5 for versatility. I need a good zoom. have you tried that one?
Great your video! To much to learn! Grettings
Many thanks Gustavo, greetings to you also!
@@zenography7923 when I was a child I loved images and as an adult images and.... Photography!!! Grettings
what is the lens in the intro of the video ?
Love Fd lenses and own many (nFD, FL, etc). Better resolution off center than other lenses of its era and less aberrations than most My nFD 20mm f2.8 blows away the MD 20mm f2.8, for example. That said, their bokeh is ok, but lacks the character of comparable lenses from the same era. An example would be the nFD 50mm v1.4 versus the Pentax SMC 50mm f1.4. The nFD is as sharp as any lens, but the Tak wins on rendition and character.
It's strange but I prefer the blur from the Canon - the Tak 1.4, at least my copy, has a couple of rough spots and didn't seem quite as nice. I actually prefer the Tak 1.8 to the 1.4.
thanks for this..Konica or Canon FD? if you had to choose one !
I think generally speaking the Canon FDs are just that little bit nicer...
Zenography thank you! I figured as I plan to use for video mostly any way. I really enjoy my Konica’s I have the 135mm 3.2, 50mm 1.7, 40mm 1.8, and 28mm 3.5 with A7 iii 👍🏾
Help me, I'm a bit confused: I want to buy FD lenses for Canon EOS crop sensor DSLR. I read that this doesn't work (even with adapter) but some of you say it works great. I don't mind manual control of focus or exposure.
@zenography I wonder if you've had any experience with the 80-200mm f2.8 or the 135mm f2.5... I have the 135mm and it rendered really well but 2.5 seems to be problematic with haze/loss of sharpness. So I usually opt for 2.8 most of the time
I'm afraid I've used neither of these lenses so can't comment, although it does sound as though there may be a fault with your 135. Is this a lens you've bought secondhand, or have you had it from new?
There is no 80-200 f2.8 lens in FD mount. Only in EF autofocus mount.
I plan on getting a wide angle Canon FD for my 5D ... thanks !!!!!
Some advice use FD on Mirrorless not for 5D.
@@PissTakeProduction is there a reason why?!
@@SamuelObafemi flange distance not the best. Only cheap adapters to EF have the worst optical corrections. Digital evf is recommended over optical viewfinder when using the older lenses. Mirror slap possible. Go to my website I have info on Canon FD.
If you use an adapter with a element, it will work, but you will get loss of speed and quality. Tried it and cried... An adapter without glass will not focus to infinity. I have the 5Dmk2, and have been rebuilding some fd/nFD lenses to fit ef. Not by using adapter with glass, but by shortening the back end of the housing, and then screw a M42-ef adapterplate to the end. The rear lens in the 50mm 1.4 (and wider) will collide with the mirror when in infinity. The 50mm/1.4 works very well on a crop sensor. The 135/3.5 and 200/2.8 can be altered to fit the 5D mk2 without glass. (You just need to have access to a lathe, and the knowledge to use it)
@@sidekickbob7227 Ruining lenses for a dead EF mount is a waste of time and money. Throw the 5DII in the bin. Doubt you will be able to save the lenses that have been molested. There is now a FD to R mount adapter for the new Canon mirrorless.
Where do you find these lenses at that price in the UK?
Not where but when, it was 4 years ago. Now everything skyrocketed. A decent 50 1.4 will not be less than a 100 USD if it's indeed in good condition.
Hello, have you tried the 70-150mm FD? I used it with the T3i with Fotodiox converter and the pics were opaque...
I haven't tried that lens, but it ought to work well enough. As I understand it there's a glass element in the FD to eos adaptor, which would likely degrade the image a little, but not so as you'd notice. Is the lens itself clean and clear?
I love fd lenses I don’t know why but I am always gravitated to them.
Maybe it’s because I don’t want to buy another adapter 🤷
:)
What's that spotty schmutz on the front element of your 50mm??
I didn't notice, but it's probably just dust - always an enemy when I'm shooting very close on lenses for these videos!
Hello, which adapters should I get, to mount the following lenses to Canon 60D? Thanks
Super Takumar 50mm 1.4-50 (Fotodiox M42-EOS V.2)??
Sigma Zoom Master 35~70MM F3.5~4.5
Canon 35-70mm 3.5-4.5
For the Takumar, assuming it's an M42 mount, you'll need an M42 to eos adaptor. What mounts are your Sigma and Canon lenses?
@@zenography7923 I haven't taken them off the old cameras, but I guess i understand what you mean. Ill take them to the shop and they can check which mounts they have and can get the adapters accordingly, thank you so much!
Thank you very much
No worries, glad you enjoyed it!
Got the FD 70 - 210 and have nothing to mug about!
A very nice lens, for sure!
Dunno about England but FD lenses in the States are skyrocketing... specially the ssc
They seem to be reasonably stable here just at the moment - they'll inevitably go up with time though, as they're not being made anymore!
Canon fd apertures dont open and close like the nikkors - how do you make it work with a adapter?
There's a lever on the adaptor that makes the aperture work as intended - can be a bit of a faff to get the lens on the adaptor but easy with practice.
@@zenography7923 im in ❤️ with the vintage nikkors- ive collected about 30 of them all mint from Japan in the past few months- i own a sony a7riii thats been converted to full spectrum but for most of the time i use a singh ray 830nm for my images- the beauty of the old nikkors is they have no sensor hotspots and the images are spectacular!
all my modern lenses sony and Voightlander have hotspots problems- 😢
I have the 28 & 35 PC shift Nikkors and just a few days ago i found this on dbay - Carl Zeiss Jena MC F2.8 80mm Biometar Lens with shift adapter F.Nikon- been searching on google and ebay to learn about this lens and found your channel, excellent! Would you know anything about this lens? Im not having much luck- best regards from Missouri
Hello Sir do you know where to get an adapter to used this lenses in a EOS camera
Just type 'FD mount to EOS mount' into ebay or amazon! There are any number available.
Thanks!
No problem!
Which adapter would you recommend for the Canon 6D?
Thanks!
As far as I'm aware it's just a short metal ring, with an FD mount at one end, and an eos mount at the other - there's no extra lens involved and best of all, they're very cheap, and plentiful on ebay and amazon.
@@zenography7923 I did buy one of those but the focus is out to lunch. Did some research and discovered i needed a lensed adapter for fd lenses to work on full frame Canon dslr, and was wondering which one to get. But after reading the comments on your video i'm realizing the crop factor involved and have now decided not to go this route. The m42 Takumars are very nice lenses and they adapt very well to Canon full frame dslr. I have a couple of them and love em. Your video almost makes me want to buy mirrorless just so I can take advantage of the old Canon glass...but I guess I can't have everything hahaha.
Thanks very much for your response.
Take care.
But this is on which camera?? ´cause fd on ef sucks! due to adapter with opical lens for infinite focus the image comes soften....
Unfortunately, adaptors with their own optics will always degrade the image to some extent. I used them on a sony a7 but they'll easily adapt to any mirrorless camera - and they can be used on Canon film bodies of course!
The Canon FD 50mm f 1.8 is awesome! The light is so much more natural than from the 18-55mm EF-S kit lens.
The 1.8 is lovely, no doubt about it!
I've been looking for a 28 F2.8 for quite some time, but they aren't easy to find. Tokina and Vivitar equals are often available at the same price range, but I guess quality-wise they're not the same...are they?
I have both and the Vivitar is built like a tank. I have yet to put them head to head so I'm unable to say definitively but the Vivitar feels amazing.
I haven't tried either the Tokina or the Vivitar 28mm f2.8 so can't comment, but both those companies have made some very good lenses. You probably won't go too far wrong with either...
Can someone please explain to me what is Xenoography photography
See his earliest videos. "Zenography" is a word play that combines "Zen" and "photography."
It's just as Wade said. I'm fascinated by both photography and zen, and I think photography is a good way to get into the moment, so to speak, without constantly concerning ourselves with either the past, which has gone, or the future, which is imaginary.
It's ok if you want telephoto, but you're limited in wide angle.
i had a seizure from the intro... please make a flash warning!
Really sorry - there's a new intro coming soon!
They are cheap because no one wants them.