Canon FD lenses or Sony Alpha lenses

Erwin Vanderhoydonks

Erwin Vanderhoydonks

Active member
Can somebody post a comparison review about the image quality between Canon FD lenses and Sony Alpha lenses on the NEX FS100.
It's just about the image quality. I have some very good (old ;-) ) Canon Fd lenses and they just work great on my new NEX-FS100. But before I start buying some new glass I want to know the difference between these two kind of lenses. I don't need autofocus, aperture control via the body. Just good glass on the camera.
Thanks for reading my post and for your feedback.
 
Last edited:
I would like to see this test if anyone has the time too but it could be any modern lens. If anyone can do a modern Nikon, or Canon to FD comparison it would be greatly appreciated and popular for alot of people.

Also I would think that since canon Fd lenses were used for full frame film cameras in their time, on the Fs100's smaller chip, you're using more of the center sharper part of the Fd lenses.
 
There are many things that affect the quality of a lens, but the lens mount isn't one of them. FD lenses can be good or bad; so can Alpha lenses. So really there's no way to answer this, except to look at reviews of specific lenses.
 
In my experience so far, FD Lenses produce an incredibly organic image with the FS100. If that's what you're going for, they're worth a look. I snagged an entire set of fast FD Primes as well as some other interesting pieces (all Canon name brand) for less than 70 bucks with some smart ebay action.
 
Thanks for your feedback, but just one little question... You have the kid lens and the Canon FD 50mm f1.4. If you set the kid lans to 50mm and compare it to the CanonFD 50mm f1.4, which of them is sharper, has more contrast ?
For me it's just a question of should I spend my money on Sony Alpha lenses or can I just use my Canon FD lenses (all high quality) ?

AtticusLake said:
There are many things that affect the quality of a lens, but the lens mount isn't one of them. FD lenses can be good or bad; so can Alpha lenses. So really there's no way to answer this, except to look at reviews of specific lenses.
Click to expand...
 
Canon FD lenses are an absolute treat! they give off such a good image for what they are, I can not recommend them enough.
 
Last edited:
Erwin Vanderhoydonks said:
You have the kid lens and the Canon FD 50mm f1.4. If you set the kid lans to 50mm and compare it to the CanonFD 50mm f1.4, which of them is sharper, has more contrast ?
Click to expand...

I haven't really done that kind of analysis.... actually I did a little sharpness test, and though I don't have it in front of me, as I recall it gave the edge to the FD. Also the FD lens had lower distortion.

But this is what you would expect from a prime lens versus a zoom in any case. The original question was about FD versus Alpha lenses, so what we would need to do is compare the 50mm FD lens against a 50mm Alpha prime lens. Comparing a prime to a zoom (specially a superzoom) just isn't fair. The 50mm may be sharper, but the kit lens has IS and AF, and a huge range of focal lengths!

For me, when it comes to choosing, it's more about the right tool for the job. I will use the kit lens when I'm run-and-gunning; I'll use the 50mm when I want the best image of a non-moving (or predictably-moving) subject with the option of shallow DOF.

But certainly, I would agree that with FD lenses, you can get some very nice glass for your cash.
 
After discussions here and with colleagues, I splashed out on the Canon FD 35mm-105mm f3.5 because I wanted 'the ultimate talking head interview' lens, intending to purchase the Canon L-Series 24-105 f4 with IS. Add the cost of an active EOS to E-mount adaptor, it's quite an investment. So, the FD35-105 seemed a good 'sanity check'.

I got lucky and found a very clean example. It's sharp, neat and compact (it doesn't even 'expand' when zooming, which is nice behind a prompter), and its modest speed isn't an issue for the FS100.

Today, I got the chance to put it on an F3, then swap it out for more modern EOS L-Series glass in approximately the same focal length (sadly NOT the 24-105 L). The results really aren't surprising, leaving aside one is ten times the price of the other:

Canon-FD.jpgCanon-EOS.jpg


Sorry about the exposure - we were just mucking about.

But I found the one thing I'd rate, that forgives the FD lens its poorer contrast, is that it's parfocal (or at least appears to be to a usable extent for talking heads):

 
Last edited:
Hopefully the video works now? Update: let's use Vimeo, didn't know it worked as easily as YouTube over here.

Actually, managed to spot a typo. Got the 24-105 on the brain...

And should we mention that it's constant aperture?

With examples floating around at approximately £100, I fear there will be a sudden spike in the asking price...
 
Last edited:
I don't have that one but I've got a 28-90 F2.8 that I Iike as well as a 50 F 1.4. To me FD lenses are a little addicting because they don't cost what more modern glass does so it is easier for me to 'try out' differentlenses.
 
MattDavis said:
Hopefully the video works now? Update: let's use Vimeo, didn't know it worked as easily as YouTube over here.

Actually, managed to spot a typo. Got the 24-105 on the brain...

And should we mention that it's constant aperture?

With examples floating around at approximately £100, I fear there will be a sudden spike in the asking price...
Click to expand...

Matt,

You got me intrigued, and I spent several hours checking this... But unfortunately, I cannot confirm your "sensational" info - the Canon FD 35-105 is neither fully par-focal, nor is it perfectly constant aperture...

It's better in both these aspects (of course, mainly the non-constant aperture) than the kit lens (well, it should be - after all the zoom range is smaller), but please do not mis-inform people :) No offense, I hope?

PS. One of its main advantages over the kit lens is that it is constant length...
 
Last edited:
One big difference between FD and Sony Alpha is that the FDs are designed to be manual focus, so easier to focus in most cases. But modern lenses tend to be faster but have AF which isn't always that useful. Once the LAE2 adapter and new firmware hit the streets perhaps that will change everything.

I'd love to find a good fast 24-70 for the FS, the Sony Alpha has pretty meh reviews and also quite difficult for manual focus (according to some reviews... anyone here confirm or deny that?)

I have a Leica R 28-70 and a Zeiss Contax 28-70 which, once i get some time, i'll take a good look at. But both are a little too long at 28 and also not as fast as i'd like. That Tokina f2.6 is on my radar if i can find a good one to try.

Matt, do you have one of those EOS adapters? I do have some nice canon lenses that i'd like to try - but they're a pig to focus manually...

cheers
paul
 
2 more FD lenses arrived this morning, 28-85mm f4 and 35-70mm f4, I bought two similar lenses so I can run them on 2 different cameras at the same time, the 35-70mm was like 50 bucks, so I thought why not, whilst the 28-85 was a bit more expensive...


*slow lenses don't bother me, as I have fast primes, these are for my outdoor shooting, where I am always at like f8-11.

I think I might start my ZF collection now. Starting with the nice 50mm.
 
moldcad said:
unfortunately, I cannot confirm your "sensational" info - the Canon FD 35-105 is neither fully par-focal, nor is it perfectly constant aperture...
Click to expand...

Oh but it's close! :)

This community... we're not DIN or ISO, we're not journalists, not even bloggers most of the time. Not wishing to 'mis-inform' but I reserve the right to report my enthusiasm and discoveries for peer review, with a nod of respect to the scientific community. My footage does appear to get a little dimmer as you zoom in because the area of green behind me is darker (we were actually lighting the camera so I cast a shadow onto the background). So when I measured skin tone during the zoom, it didn't vary. It might do by a fraction of a stop, but not enough for a £100 lens to be slapped for.

As for the parfocal nature, hmm. It may not be EXACTLY parfocal. However, good enough for many uses when your interviewee is bobbing around and you're going to have to chase a bit.

So, to the wider community, I'll say... I'll zoom this lens during an interview! How's that?
 
I've also been searching for the perfect zoom lens for interviews. I've got two of the 35-105 zooms and neither is parfocal. Not sure if they're all varifocal or if I've just got two bad apples? The best option I've found so far is the Canon FD 28-85 f4. Good focal range for interviews, it's parfocal and it turns the "right way". Could be faster but 3 outta 4 ain't bad.
 
MattDavis said:
So, to the wider community, I'll say... I'll zoom this lens during an interview! How's that?
Click to expand...

Perfect:)

Matt, I hope you didn't take my remark personally - it's just that so many forum readers tend to take everything on the Internet as actual facts, and base their buying decisions on them; we always should double-check before posting information....
 
moldcad said:
it's just that so many forum readers tend to take everything on the Internet as actual facts, and base their buying decisions on them
Click to expand...

Whaaaaat? Wait, I read the other day that Sony has now included 4k in the FS100!? I just ordered 10 of them, should I cancel my order? Haha (for moldcad's disclosure purposes, I am making that up) :)

But they ARE all facts because everyone is always right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top