50mm: Canon FD vs older FL Lens

E

exttreem

Active member
Hello Everyone...

Have a confusing question here...
I was looking for 50mm FD lens on ebay, and got two options now...

.........one is 50mm f/1.4 FL in mint condition - $130 and...
other one is 50mm f/1.8 FD in good condition - $60

Now this is very confusing for me. Which one will work good for me?
And being older than FD, does FL lens work as good as FD lens?

Thanks!
 
FL is the older type of Canon mount, which was changed to FD breechlock mount and then to new FD mount. Both FL and FD lenses will be useable with an FD to micro 4/3 adapter. Apart from being older, an FL lens has also single coated lens elements (by contrast to multicoated SSC elements of the more recent FD lenses) which means it will be more prone to flare. That said, I used to have an FL lens and it was clean and worked like a charm.
The major difference between the two lenses you mention is the maximum aperture value. One is f1.8 the other f1.4 that means almost 1 stop faster (allows almost twice as much light on widest aperture).
Both lenses would be great, although maybe the f1.4 could be slightly sharper than the f1.8 at the same aperture setting, while still giving the possibility to shoot with less available light at f 1.4 (at the expense of a thinner depth of field).
Hope this helps.
 
That f/1.8 lens sounds expensive, as they usually go for very little money. Mine cost me about £8 (or around $13 US). My 50mm f/1.4 FD cost under £50 (i.e. about $80 US) from a shop, and that's worth a lot more than the FL. Maybe this is a very rare situation where you can buy lenses cheaper in the UK? Or maybe those are just overpriced :)
 
Haven't exactly cleared my confusion... so I choose to buy both of them.

Anyways, another similer question here, this too confuses me...
One lens I found is 35mm f/3.5 FD in Mint, - $120
and another is a zoom lens Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 for Nikon - $274

Now the Zoom lens seems to have more advantages than the FD lens which is good but not so Fast.
The zoom lens is even faster at 35mm than the FD lens... and since I have 20mm Pancake instead of Panny Stock lens, I need a zoom lens anyway.

My current set contains :
20mm Pancake
28mm f/2.8 FD
50mm f/1.4 FL
50mm f/1.8 FD
135mm f/2.8 FD
70-210mm f/4.5 Nikon

Now again, for Film look, am I correct about Zoom Lens? or do I need FD 35mm?
 
exttreem said:
Haven't exactly cleared my confusion... so I choose to buy both of them.?
Click to expand...
Well you bought two nearly identical lenses apart from the fact that one is 2/3 of a stop faster. Let me guess that you will end up using the f 1.4 more, unless the optical condition of the lens is crap

exttreem said:
Anyways, another similer question here, this too confuses me...
One lens I found is 35mm f/3.5 FD in Mint, - $120
and another is a zoom lens Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 for Nikon - $274
Click to expand...
The Sigma lens has a variable aperture. Not spectacular for the price, considering that you have the range mostly covered with primes.
On the other hand f3.5 for the 35mm is quite slow for low light.
This is not to promote my own sale, but If you want to look into a 35mm lens for the gh1, don't look further than the Canon FD 35mm f2.0 concave front element (radioactive one). It is fast for lowlight, and it is probably the sharpest FD lens ever made, even wide open. If I had a gh1 and could afford only one lens, it would most probably be this one.
 
exttreem said:
Haven't exactly cleared my confusion... so I choose to buy both of them.

Anyways, another similer question here, this too confuses me...
One lens I found is 35mm f/3.5 FD in Mint, - $120
and another is a zoom lens Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 for Nikon - $274

Now the Zoom lens seems to have more advantages than the FD lens which is good but not so Fast.
The zoom lens is even faster at 35mm than the FD lens... and since I have 20mm Pancake instead of Panny Stock lens, I need a zoom lens anyway.

My current set contains :
20mm Pancake
28mm f/2.8 FD
50mm f/1.4 FL
50mm f/1.8 FD
135mm f/2.8 FD
70-210mm f/4.5 Nikon

Now again, for Film look, am I correct about Zoom Lens? or do I need FD 35mm?
Click to expand...

That Sigma is designed for modern auto focus cameras. While you will be able to manually focus on it, you won't be able to adjust the aperture since it doesn't have manual aperture control. The lens will be stuck wide open and, besides the limitations of fixed aperture, it's pretty soft wide open. Not a good choice for a GH1, I'm afraid.
 
It's a Nikon Lens and the Nikon Adapter has a special ring that can adjust aparture manually, so that's not a problem.
 
exttreem said:
It's a Nikon Lens and the Nikon Adapter has a special ring that can adjust aparture manually, so that's not a problem.
Click to expand...

Really? Sorry, my mistake :)

I'm not too familiar with Nikon gear, so I didn't know this was even possible! (I know it isn't with Canon adapters).
 
just bought the fd 28mm 2.8
(for future GH2)
is it nice and practical?
what's the equivalent crop on 4/3?
 
roei z said:
just bought the fd 28mm 2.8
(for future GH2)
is it nice and practical?
what's the equivalent crop on 4/3?
Click to expand...

On micro 4/3 the equivalent field of view will be slightly longer than a normal lens (~56mm). The lens is nice for the price. However, an 28 f2.0 is a whole stop faster which may turn out to be essential for shooting in available light.
 
Last edited:
Sure :)
You always get what you pay for. No free stops of light :q
That said the 28mm is a nice lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top