Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,290   Posts: 1,535,385   Online: 773
      
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, WA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    302

    Canon FD 50/1.2 and FD 50/1.2 L -- Differences?

    Hey all...

    I'm feeling a G.A.S. attack coming on, and I've been eyeing one of the Canon FD 50/1.2 lenses. I see that there is an "L" version, and a non-L version. As a practical matter, is there much of a difference, in terms of sharpness, flare, vignetting? How would they both compare to, say, a good-old FD 50/1.4, especially in the 1.4-2.2 range? How about compared to my EF 50/1.4?

    And more importantly, what's a fair price for these two 1.2 versions? KEH doesn't have any listed. There are a couple on the 'bay, but without a reference, how do I know how much is too much? (I'm in the US, by the way...)

    Thanks for any help--

    Greg

  2. #2
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,763
    The best "bang for your buck" in Canon FD standard lenses is the 50mm f1.4 (which is optically the same as the 1.4 EF), as an all round optic aperture for aperture, so unless you spend most of your time shooting black cats in coal cellars IMHO that's the best buy.
    Ben

  3. #3
    tony lockerbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Bega N.S.W. Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,305
    Images
    373
    I actually have both. The FD 1.2L that I have is very compact, not any bigger than the 1.4, and takes the same 52mm filters. Build quality is great as is the image quality, you can shoot it wide open and expect nice results. The 1.2L is obviously much better at 1.4 than the 1.4, if you get my drift! However the 1.4 is certainly a good all round performer, and unless you shoot wide open a lot, then this is the best buy, far, far cheaper than the 1.2.
    Incidentally, I have three versions of the 1.4, and apart from the size, the image performance seems the same.

  4. #4
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,963
    Images
    6
    With Canon FD lenses, I think the "L" indicates it has florite glass and it's apochromatic which means it gets all 3 colors in focus on a plane. I've seen chromes taken with a Canon L lens on a light box and the colors pop. Just gorgeous.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, WA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    302
    Thanks everyone for the responses. I have an EF 50/1.4, and I've never been quite happy with it, especially wide-open. I've been trying to do a little wide-field astrophotography (i.e. no telescope), and I've gotten far better results with my EF 24-70 L @ 50 than I did with the EF 50. I also know that going up to the EF 50/1.2 L doesn't buy me a whole lot wide open, either, from what I've read.

    So the question is, ruling out the FD 50/1.4, are either of the FD 50/1.2's appreciably better? If so, which one? And what should I pay for one?

    --Greg

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,802
    The 50 1.2L is 'better' of the three. But for the money you can't beat the 1.4.

    Jeff

  7. #7
    tony lockerbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Bega N.S.W. Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,305
    Images
    373
    The L series lens will be a little better than the earlier 1.2, which I believe is quite soft wide open. The 50mm 1.2L is not an apo lens but is built (like other) L series lenses, to more stringent tolerances.
    This should gaurantee that the lens will be as good as it can be. The problem is the price, as a good 1.2L can sell from $500.00 or thereabouts.
    You have to decide whether the extra $400.00 or so is worth it to you. However, like Leica lenses, the L series Canon glass will hold it's value well.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    311
    The 50mm F1.2 L contains an aspherical lens element, it doesn't contain Fluorite glass. All high-speed lenses are afflicted with spheric aberration, making pictures look a bit blurry when shot wide-open (low in contrast too). An aspherical element greatly reduces spherical aberration giving you a much sharper and more contrasty pic when taken at F1.2.

    If you're into taking pics in low light, or like very shallow depth of field, the 50/1.2L is the lens for you. If most of your shots are at F 4.0 or so, save yourself the money and buy a 50/1.4 or even an 50/1.8.

    Jim B.

    Jim B.

  9. #9
    darinwc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,046
    Images
    157
    The Canon FD 50mm f1.2 (non-L) version is soft wide-open and not as sharp as the f1.4 closed down.
    The 50mm f1.4 in EF mount is the same lens optically as the FD mount. However the build quality may be better with the FD lens.

    i dont have any L lenses, but they have an excellent reputation.
    Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.

  10. #10
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,231
    Images
    20
    I used to have the FD 50/1.2L, but not the earlier one, so I can't compare, but it was an outstanding lens, and the build quality was particularly nice, in addition to having that extra half stop, which made for very accurate focusing as well as being useful in low light.

    I did make some tests to compare it to the 50/1.4 and 1.8, and unsurprisingly, it was sharper (I've probably posted this somewhere around here or maybe over on photo.net some years ago), but interestingly, if you use reversed lenses for macro, the 50/1.8 was the clear winner of the three when reversed.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin