Author Topic: Top 3 Canon FD Lenses for my E-PL1? (Read 2189 times)

Brolz · « **on:** January 13, 2012, 10:31:36 AM »

After reading around the forum the last couple day a post caught my eye that recommended the Canon FD 50mm 1.8 for a good bang for the buck lens. So after a few ebay searches I bought myself one for $20 with a Sky 1-A filter, whatever that is (Remember I'm nOOb status right now

). And I also bought the adapter for a few bucks.

So my question for you more experienced folks. What other lenses would you recommend in the FD line to take advantage of the adapter I purchased.

rogerml · « **Reply #1 on:** January 13, 2012, 11:27:24 AM »

Depend what you like/plan to shoot. Portrait: See if you can find a 'reasonably' priced 50/1.4. Scapes: Ditto, as wide as 'your money goes', - min. 24, preferably wider, f-number 2.8/4.0. After some time you'll know better about your preferences, - and you'll make your own decisions. Good Luck!

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #2 on:** January 13, 2012, 11:46:06 AM »

Depends what you want..

FD 85mm f/1.8

FD 100mm f/2.8

the 135mm f/2.5 is great also, (170mm f/2.8 FOV)

On the longer end. The 200 f/2.8 (400mm f/2.8 FOV) is under $250.00, and makes a great wildlife & Bird lens (Birds in tress, and parks, and maybe bird that close in flight, with practice.

FD 200mm f/2.8

I suggested faster lenses because they so cheap now...
although, for example, the 135mm f/3.5 may have better overall IQ than the f/2.5, but 3/4 stop slower

With FD mount.. Try to get the FD, not FDn (more plastic)
Also the FL mount will work also..it is a Preset mount, but the same Breech Lock.

Brolz · « **Reply #3 on:** January 13, 2012, 12:43:59 PM »

Great information guys, just what I was looking for. The 200mm sounds like a good one. Roger, is there a big difference between the 50mm 1.8 I already purchased and the 50mm 1.4 you recommended?

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #4 on:** January 13, 2012, 01:12:35 PM »

Quote from: Brolz on January 13, 2012, 12:43:59 PM

Great information guys, just what I was looking for. The 200mm sounds like a good one. Roger, is there a big difference between the 50mm 1.8 I already purchased and the 50mm 1.4 you recommended?

It is 1 stop faster, BUT, at f/1.4 it may be a tad soft, where the f/1.8 may be a tad sharper wide open. BUT, the SSC/SC lenses are quite good in sharpness and contrast.
It is all relative.. it will still have nice sharpness wide open, but will peak in sharpness around f/8, as will the f/1.8 FD lens.

Brolz · « **Reply #5 on:** January 13, 2012, 01:54:28 PM »

Ok great! I am comfortable with my purchase.

Jman · « **Reply #6 on:** January 13, 2012, 02:08:58 PM »

The 135mm f/2 is also really a good lens. It's not tack sharp wide open, but it's pretty darn good. Only downside is longitudinal chromatic aberration in high contrast situations. I have one that I'm actually selling if you're interested (I am using a Minolta MD 135/2.8 and I bought an FD 200/2.8 IF for longer stuff, so I'm selling the 135 to pay for the 200). It's in near mint condition and I have all original packaging and stuff.

As to other FD lenses, the 50/1.4 is very good. I own both that and the 50/1.8, and the 50/1.4 is, IMO, one of the best 50s ever made. It's better than the EF 50/1.4. I got mine for an absolute steal ($40) since the focus ring was jammed, but I fixed it and it's smooth as heck now. Great lens.

The 80-200/4 L and 300/4 L are also really good FD lenses.

cosinaphile · « **Reply #7 on:** January 13, 2012, 02:38:12 PM »

ilove the 200 2.8

i posted samples a while back

http://e-p1.net/lens-sample-photo-archive/canon-200-2-8-fd-on-the-ep1/

tamoio · « **Reply #8 on:** January 13, 2012, 03:21:52 PM »

The 50 f1.8 is a bargain but the 50mm f1.4 FD s.s.c. is great and can be found in reasonable condition for under $80. I've also always liked the Canon 50mm f3.5 macro.

The 135 f2.5 is another great bargain if you can find one in clean condition, I owned and used the 135 f2 for quite awhile and it is a little better than the f2.5 version but a lot more expensive. Lots of people rave about the 35mm f2 FD s.s.c. (the version that only goes to f16 and has a concave front element) but I just don't like the 35mm focal length on m43.

I have to disagree on the 200 f2.8, I've tried several and found them prone to flare and CA, I'm currently using the late 200mm f4 FDn (another bargain) and find it superior. I've also used the Canon 300mm F4 L FDn and currently own a 300mm f2.8 L FDn, both have excellent in CA correction.

. . .I almost forgot the 100mm F2 FDn, if you can find one under $300 buy it.

Jman · « **Reply #9 on:** January 13, 2012, 03:51:03 PM »

Tamoio...did you use the Internal Focus version of the 200/2.8? It has a different optical design than all the preceding versions. The 200/2.8 IF has a fair amount of longitudinal CA as well, but it's no worse than the 135/2, and is actually a little sharper than the 135/2.

Brolz · « **Reply #10 on:** January 13, 2012, 03:52:47 PM »

I just searched for the 200mm F4 lens. Great deals around for it. I think I'll be purchasing one of those next.

cosinaphile · « **Reply #11 on:** January 13, 2012, 04:29:22 PM »

Quote from: tamoio on January 13, 2012, 03:21:52 PM

The 50 f1.8 is a bargain but the 50mm f1.4 FD s.s.c. is great and can be found in reasonable condition for under $80. I've also always liked the Canon 50mm f3.5 macro.

The 135 f2.5 is another great bargain if you can find one in clean condition, I owned and used the 135 f2 for quite awhile and it is a little better than the f2.5 version but a lot more expensive. Lots of people rave about the 35mm f2 FD s.s.c. (the version that only goes to f16 and has a concave front element) but I just don't like the 35mm focal length on m43.

I have to disagree on the 200 f2.8, I've tried several and found them prone to flare and CA, I'm currently using the late 200mm f4 FDn (another bargain) and find it superior. I've also used the Canon 300mm F4 L FDn and currently own a 300mm f2.8 L FDn, both use flourite elements which I think make a big difference in CA correction.

. . .I almost forgot the 100mm F2 FDn, if you can find one under $300 buy it.

my samples speak for themselves , you must have had the poor luck to get one with poor coatings , the ca isnt too bad either stopped down its lessened considerably , and is easily removedin post anyway
i find it incredably sharp contrasty and good , even the bokeh is quality, very few are ever for sale on the bay

whats amazing is the speed for a 400 fov lens , at 2.8 its very sharp by f 4 its amazing
but that extra stop is worth it imho especially given the magnification on a m43 sensor

voyager · « **Reply #12 on:** January 14, 2012, 02:23:06 PM »

I really wish Micro Four Thirds had a 100mm prime lens. I'd actually probably buy it.

tamoio · « **Reply #13 on:** January 15, 2012, 12:26:07 PM »

Quote from: Jman on January 13, 2012, 03:51:03 PM

Tamoio...did you use the Internal Focus version of the 200/2.8? It has a different optical design than all the preceding versions. The 200/2.8 IF has a fair amount of longitudinal CA as well, but it's no worse than the 135/2, and is actually a little sharper than the 135/2.

Yes, I think I've tried every version of the 200 f2.8. I wanted to love it, I'm a Canon FD fan. I think part of my problem is that once I had the 300 F4 FDn L, I really saw what CA correction meant. If you stop it (the 200) down to at least f4 and learn the lighting/subject situations that aggravate the design you can get acceptable results but in my case its actually really difficult to apply software/post defringing to video. I feel pretty confident saying that the Nikkor 180 f2.8 EDIF is a way better lens (the two versions that I've used). I'm also really enthusiastic about the little Canon 200 F4 Fdn which I am beginning to think is a hidden jewel.

Sixty4 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 15, 2012, 02:38:01 PM »

I really love the FDn 50mm f/3.5 Macro. It's very sharp and light.
You should be able to get one for around $40.-

Dirty Ernie · « **Reply #15 on:** March 13, 2012, 08:30:14 PM »

I have to concur with the others about the 50mm F1.4 FDn and s.s.c. I have the s.s.c. and it's made me a stark-raving believer! I also own a 200mm F2.8 s.s.c and a FDn 200mm f4, and I must say, when it comes down to image quality my 200mm F2.8 is better at f4 than the FDn at f4. It is however very large and dangles precariously off the dainty m4/3rds body. I worry about its short term stress effect on the camera body. The 200mm f4 is tiny by comparison, and is just as good from f5.6 on. That said, it is very tough using a 200mm class lens like this, as the tinniest error in focusing absolutely shoots your resolution to h-e-double-hockey-sticks! Not to mention the jitters! Tough lens to use effectively. I find that I use a 35mm focal length lens often on my m4/3rds camera, either a FDn 35mm f2, a FD 35mm f2 s.s.c concave, or a nikkor Ai 35mm f1.4. For what ever reason, I've always had good luck with 35's on m4/3rds. There may be something with the physics of it all, or just plain luck, but I have yet to find a "bad" 35mm lens (and I own and have used many besides these mentioned) on m4/3rds. Gives a great, natural perspective with the 2x format crop. Just My 1/50th$.

Harmonica · « **Reply #16 on:** April 08, 2012, 02:32:45 AM »

What comes to those old Canon FD 200mm f4 lenses mentioned above...just wondering....has anybody tried Canon FD 200mm f4 macro lens on micro 4/3 body?

cosinaphile · « **Reply #17 on:** April 08, 2012, 10:54:49 AM »

i use the 200mm2.8 is great alittle ca but sharp and good

Eureka · « **Reply #18 on:** April 08, 2012, 12:39:44 PM »

Does the FDn lenses work with the same adapter? I've seen a pretty good price for a Canon FD 85 F1.8

In the lens archive I can just find samples for the Canon FDn 85 F.18 lens so I'm wondering if there's two different models or just a typing error.

Happy easter to you all

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #19 on:** April 08, 2012, 12:46:58 PM »

It is an "FD/FL" mount, it should work fine.

The "n" is a cheaper made mount to make... IE: More plastic over the "FD" mount. Canon used the [Up-Date] to keep cost down with rising prices on other materials.
It is a sturdy mount though.

Eureka · « **Reply #20 on:** April 08, 2012, 01:05:31 PM »

Thanks for the information, Peter!

I'm wondering what's best, to have Canon lenses adapted or to have Konica/Minolta dito.

If I start to get any of those lens system, I'm maybe also thinking about shooting film with the system I chose.

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #21 on:** April 08, 2012, 05:12:29 PM »

Good point,

I have

3 Nikon MF lenses
1 Canon FL (1st Version, 6 element Sonnar design)
4 M42

I did buy a Nikon FE as my Main Film camera.. So my 24/55/135 Nikkor lenses have native home

I have also have a few Adapters INF adjusted for use on one lens, so, I have multiple like adapters,... No swamping out in the field.

I buy the Brand & Focal Length that is best for the use I have in mind, OR, just the brand with the best IQ in the Focal Length I want.
Example:
The Canon FL 50mm f/1.4 because it has less coatings, and is the same Zeiss Sonnar design in th last Canon RF equivalent. This was bought for B&W conversions, or I would of gotten a more current Zeiss Planar SSC design. (7 element)

Harmonica · « **Reply #22 on:** April 08, 2012, 10:46:34 PM »

Quote from: cosinaphile on April 08, 2012, 10:54:49 AM

i use the 200mm2.8 is great alittle ca but sharp and good

Okey...thanx for the info. I just already have one of the best 200mm f2.8 lenses ever made, and pretty good one 180mm f2.5...so I do not need the third one. But as I have been a Pentax shooter quite some time, I have really missed a longer macro lens (not available as a new to K-bajonet...and what comes to old ones...they costs veryyy much). But I have seen very nice photos taken with older 200mm f4 macros by Canon/Nikon users...and also if they have used some 1.6x or 1.5x crop sensor cameras. So I'm just wondering how the same could be with OM-D M5....
With macro lens I mainly shoot drangonflyes, butterflyes etc. stuff (not so much flowers). I have done it mainly with K-5 and Vivitar 105mm macro...but sometimes it's bit too short. Time to time I have also used my 300mm telelens with extension tube set. That Vivitar weights 656g, and Canon would weight 880g (incl. tripod collar)...so it's not very much heavier. Who knows...I might pick up one of those if I do't find any negative infos concerning that lens....and if my OM-D just will be good enough for manul focusing (macro shoots).

Charliezeta · « **Reply #23 on:** April 22, 2012, 01:14:55 PM »

I have just 2 FD lenses-the 50mm f1.8 and the 1.4. Both indispensable and so very different....

Author Topic: Top 3 Canon FD Lenses for my E-PL1? (Read 2189 times)

Related Topics

Recent Topics

Recent Gallery