Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,871   Posts: 1,583,359   Online: 1148
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southeastern U.S.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    550
    I highly recommend the pre-S.C. 50/1.4. This 50/1.4 tested better than any of its 50mm siblings (with the exception of L-series lenses, I gather), with near-perfect performance almost throughout the aperture spectrum. From f/4 and beyond, it is superb in all three critical catergoies (vingetting, resolution, distortion). I have two pre-S.C. 50/1.4s. The build quality is spectacular. Many Japanese photographers actually prefer non-multi-coated lenses, particularly for black and white photography.

    P.S.: When cleaning a pre-S.C. lens, you will also note the buttery-smooth character of the glass.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by tcboucher View Post
    well i have one of the newer ones and its sharper than my 24-70 and my 17-40 L series... and from what i was reading earlier today they old ones were stupidly heavy so most people preferred the newer 1.4 or the 55mm f1.2
    Anyone who thinks the 55mm f/1.2 is lighter than the 50mm f/1.4 S.S.C. has another think coming! I have both of these lenses. The 55 is significantly more heavy, just by feel. I have never measured their weights, but I could if anyone is interested (and the New FD 50mm f/1.4, and the New FD 50mm f/1.8).

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmOnly View Post
    I highly recommend the pre-S.C. 50/1.4. This 50/1.4 tested better than any of its 50mm siblings (with the exception of L-series lenses, I gather), with near-perfect performance almost throughout the aperture spectrum. From f/4 and beyond, it is superb in all three critical catergoies (vingetting, resolution, distortion). I have two pre-S.C. 50/1.4s. The build quality is spectacular. Many Japanese photographers actually prefer non-multi-coated lenses, particularly for black and white photography.

    P.S.: When cleaning a pre-S.C. lens, you will also note the buttery-smooth character of the glass.
    Yes, I like FL lenses as well, and Nikon F lenses from before they multicoated them. (Nikon held off for quite some time before multicoating them; early-mid '70s, I believe.)
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  3. #13
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,185

    FD plastic barrels

    Quote Originally Posted by Mackinaw View Post
    Early FD lenses were built during a time when Canon said spared no expense to build a top quality lens, both optically and mechanically. They are heavier than the later sometimes plastic FDn lenses, but are substantially more robust. I've long since traded my FDn lenses for the earlier FDs'.

    Jim B.
    The breech lock lenses were indeed well made lenses,and I respect the fact that some people prefer them.In the days the B/L lenses were made them zoom lenses were much less prevalent, the reason they started manufacturing barrels of the new type lenses in a plastic material was to save weight that can be considerable if you are lugging several around.
    If you consider that all these lenses new type lenses are more than twenty years old, I have never heard of anyone having any problems because of the plastic barrels, and I used to handle all the camera repairs for a group of ten photographic stores for about twenty years.
    Last edited by benjiboy; 04-12-2009 at 05:26 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Ben

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southeastern U.S.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    550
    My pre-S.C. 50/1.4 lenses are actually FD lenses, not FL lenses.

    The FLs do interest me, though. I am rather careful about thoriated lenses, though, and I am not sure which FLs had the radioactive coating. Yes, I know that the radiation levels are very low, but, since there are so many fine older lenses out there, I have decided to avoid those that use thorium.

  5. #15
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,185
    Quote Originally Posted by FilmOnly View Post
    My pre-S.C. 50/1.4 lenses are actually FD lenses, not FL lenses.

    The FLs do interest me, though. I am rather careful about thoriated lenses, though, and I am not sure which FLs had the radioactive coating. Yes, I know that the radiation levels are very low, but, since there are so many fine older lenses out there, I have decided to avoid those that use thorium.
    The only Canon lenses as far as I know that used Thorium Salts added to the glass in the manufacturing process this was not a coating but added to make the glass low dispersion, were the 35mm f2 the one with the concave front element, the 55mm 1.2 AL, 55mm 1.2 SSC AL, 55mm1.2 SSC Aspheric , and the FL 58mm 1.2
    I have the FD chrome nosed 35mm f2 Thorium lens, and am saving up for some Lead lined boxer shorts
    Last edited by benjiboy; 04-13-2009 at 07:32 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Ben

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by FilmOnly View Post
    My pre-S.C. 50/1.4 lenses are actually FD lenses, not FL lenses.

    The FLs do interest me, though. I am rather careful about thoriated lenses, though, and I am not sure which FLs had the radioactive coating. Yes, I know that the radiation levels are very low, but, since there are so many fine older lenses out there, I have decided to avoid those that use thorium.
    If you are going to worry about that; you couldn't use Super-Multi-Coated Takumars either and they are great lenses.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    The thorium in lenses will not hurt you. You are worse off being out in the sun.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  8. #18
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,185
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    The thorium in lenses will not hurt you. You are worse off being out in the sun.
    Yes, I agree, I had one of my sons who is a physicist look into this for me,and he said it was safe, and that many domestic products emit more radiation, in fact there was once a Thorium tooth paste made in Germany in WW11. http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/q...toothpaste.htm :o
    Ben

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southeastern U.S.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    550
    I am aware of the thorium in certain Pentax Takumars, and have already sold all that contain thorium. I have purchased A-series Pentax lenses, and have found their performance to be comparable (if not superior in certian cases). The Takumars are a great deal, often selling for pennies on the dollar, but I would rather err on the side of safety.

  10. #20
    nicefor88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Bruxelles, Belgique
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    250
    I use the FD and it gives splendid results.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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