FD primes

tired

tired

Well-known member
I'm happy with the GH1's but skipping the GH2 and getting a real camera:happy: - the AF102

My favorite lens is the Canon FD 85m 1.2 L series and I'm looking the pick up a few more .. but is that the right way to go? should I be waiting for the Berger mount and picking up some newer canon glass or ?? I haven't go the funds to buy cinema lenses and while renting is always a possibility, I want to play and get used to the gear.

I'm looking for a 24mm f/1.4L, 35f/2, 50f1.2L, and maybe the 135 f/2 and I should be able to pick that lot up for a couple of grand.

I'm still shooting mostly weddings and the fast primes will do great in low light receptions on the GH1's and suit the af102 for those commercial jobs I'm starting to pick up.

Does that make sense?
 
I use Canon FD lenses. I prefer FD to all other lenses for their locking mount mechanism. You must consider that when you use an adapter you can have "two points of play". The first is between the body and the adapter, the second between the adapter and the lens. FD is the most solid photo mount, the only that really locks the lens. So no risk of play between the adapter and the mount. I use FD lenses only from 50mm onwards. I've sold my 20, 24, 28 and 35mm. The reason is that a wide angle lens has a totally different project and design from a standard or tele lens. If I use a 24mm wide angle lens as a standard lens on a 4/3 camera I'm cropping a wide angle, but this is not the same thing to use a 25mm 4/3 lens designed to be a standard lens.
So now my lens set is:
-Panasonic 7-14mm f4
-Zuiko 14-35mm f2
-Lumix 20mm f1.7
-Canon FD 50mm f1.4
-Canon FD 85mm f1.2 L
-Canon FD 100mm f2.8 (I want to change with f2)
-Canon FD 135mm f2.5 (I want to change with f2)
-Canon 200mm f2.8
-Canon 300mm f5.6
-Vivitar 100mm macro f2.8 (Kiron design) for macro shots
After months of experiments with my GH1 and AF101 this could be my definitive setting

Regards

Gary
 
Gary Senda said:
If I use a 24mm wide angle lens as a standard lens on a 4/3 camera I'm cropping a wide angle, but this is not the same thing to use a 25mm 4/3 lens designed to be a standard lens.
Click to expand...


NOT TRUE!!!! Sorry, but this myth is really confusing people and need to stop. 25mm is 25mm, REGARDLESS OF THE CAMERA USED. THE SENSOR SIZE ONLY IMPACTS FIELD OF VIEW. Now, whether the field of view of that 25mm is wide, normal, or tele, is due to the sensor size. The design of the lens for the sensor size, that you are refering to, is making it so the circle of illumination covers the whole sensor. A m4/3 lens has to cover less area than a FF35mm lens, which makes it cheaper and easier to make fast glass, but at the end of the day, it is still a 25mm lens, and a 25mm lens is going to have the same field of view, DOF, and whatnot when used on the same sensor, regardless of whether it was designed for m4/3 or FF.
 
I've collected a set of 8 Canon FD primes, bought from e-bay for £800 / $1300
they are:
17/4
20/2.8
24/2.8
28/2.8
35/2.8
50/1.4
85/1.8
100/2.8

There are still a fair few around on e-bay and those I have bought have been in very good condition considering their age. The wider and faster lenses are getting harder to find though.
I've sent them away for service, and to be de-clicked, the shut down levers and springs are removed which makes them easier to fit to an adaptor.
I'm using a cheap adaptor at the moment, which is a bit lightweight, but i'm looking for something a bit more solid - any ideas appreciated.
 
I don't think he's referring to FOV.

There is a difference between a 20mm designed for m4/3 vs. a wide angle 20mm designed for FF stills. A lens designed to be provide "normal" coverage has far fewer elements, and far fewer possibilites of artifacts like Chrom A. You're better off not using a lens designed for a wide angle on FF as a normal on m4/3, but if the wide angle is well designed, the artifacts and any pin-cushion or barrel distortion should be minimal - IF which is why many people use them anyways.

Oliver Rush said:
NOT TRUE!!!! Sorry, but this myth is really confusing people and need to stop. 25mm is 25mm, REGARDLESS OF THE CAMERA USED. THE SENSOR SIZE ONLY IMPACTS FIELD OF VIEW. Now, whether the field of view of that 25mm is wide, normal, or tele, is due to the sensor size. The design of the lens for the sensor size, that you are refering to, is making it so the circle of illumination covers the whole sensor. A m4/3 lens has to cover less area than a FF35mm lens, which makes it cheaper and easier to make fast glass, but at the end of the day, it is still a 25mm lens, and a 25mm lens is going to have the same field of view, DOF, and whatnot when used on the same sensor, regardless of whether it was designed for m4/3 or FF.
Click to expand...
 
Oliver Rush said:
NOT TRUE!!!! Sorry, but this myth is really confusing people and need to stop. 25mm is 25mm, REGARDLESS OF THE CAMERA USED. THE SENSOR SIZE ONLY IMPACTS FIELD OF VIEW. Now, whether the field of view of that 25mm is wide, normal, or tele, is due to the sensor size. The design of the lens for the sensor size, that you are refering to, is making it so the circle of illumination covers the whole sensor. A m4/3 lens has to cover less area than a FF35mm lens, which makes it cheaper and easier to make fast glass, but at the end of the day, it is still a 25mm lens, and a 25mm lens is going to have the same field of view, DOF, and whatnot when used on the same sensor, regardless of whether it was designed for m4/3 or FF.
Click to expand...


+1Billion… I'm so tired of reading posts by people who just don't understand lenses, FOV, Coc, etc. A lens is dumb, and doesn't care what mount it has or what camera it's mounted on. If the image circle covers the sensor (digi or analog) is what matters.
 
Good Post man +10. im so tired of hearing crop this and crop that,. Like you say 25mm is 25mm is 25 mm is 25mm. lol ,Did I say 25mm is 25mm? Ok I did.

haha, Sorry HeavyG. I was writing mine right as you posted yours. lmao. Brilliant minds think alike. haha.( I only wish I had A brilliant mind). hehe
 
Last edited:
I love Canon FD glass and I am thinking of purchasing the same lenses as you peterrance. Do you have any sample footage you can share? Does anyone else have canon FD Sample footage they are willing to share? Duclose said they would de-click FD lenses for $60/per lens. Is this who you are using?
 
FDs are a lot closer to cinema lenses than the new efs. Proper focus stops, direction, fully manual. If you like the 85mm L you should try the 85mm 1.2 aspherical breechlock. It's the pre-curser to the L but has more aperture blades for better bokeh. But that's a lens that's even harder to find.

Another thing to consider. If you like FD but want to take them to the next level, try Contax Zeiss. Same functionality but build quality 10xs better.
 
Oliver Rush said:
NOT TRUE!!!! Sorry, but this myth is really confusing people and need to stop. 25mm is 25mm, REGARDLESS OF THE CAMERA USED. THE SENSOR SIZE ONLY IMPACTS FIELD OF VIEW. Now, whether the field of view of that 25mm is wide, normal, or tele, is due to the sensor size. The design of the lens for the sensor size, that you are refering to, is making it so the circle of illumination covers the whole sensor. A m4/3 lens has to cover less area than a FF35mm lens, which makes it cheaper and easier to make fast glass, but at the end of the day, it is still a 25mm lens, and a 25mm lens is going to have the same field of view, DOF, and whatnot when used on the same sensor, regardless of whether it was designed for m4/3 or FF.
Click to expand...

It is not true that the focal changes, OK... but try to look at the design of a 24mm for a full frame and a 25mm for m4/3. They are 2 completely different lenses, 2 completely different design. Yes, it remains a 24mm, who says the opposite? But is the same thing that obtaining a portrait from a group photo shooted with a wide angle lens.

No problem to crop a normal or telephoto

Regards

Gary
 
aaabassett said:
I. Do you have any sample footage you can share? Does anyone else have canon FD Sample footage they are willing to share?
Click to expand...

Someone posted some samples in the footage section. Random test clip of her daughter climbing a tree. Looked pretty darn filmic to me.
 
heavyG said:
+1Billion… I'm so tired of reading posts by people who just don't understand lenses, FOV, Coc, etc.
Click to expand...

sorry, bu this is not the sense of my post. I've not said that the focal chenges and I have a precise idea of what focal lenght and POV is. I have a bad english but I have said a compoletely different things: a wide angle lens has a completely different design from a telephoto lens. Completely different project. It is a lens studied to be a wide angle.

Regards

Gary
 
aaabassett said:
Duclose said they would de-click FD lenses for $60/per lens. Is this who you are using?
Click to expand...

Well i'm sending them to a guy over here in the UK, who also fits his own 'fluid variable aperture". I think if you just take out the clicks the aperture ring becomes a bit sloppy. What are Duclose doing for that $60 ?
 
peterrance said:
Well i'm sending them to a guy over here in the UK, who also fits his own 'fluid variable aperture". I think if you just take out the clicks the aperture ring becomes a bit sloppy. What are Duclose doing for that $60 ?
Click to expand...

who is that you're using?
 
I posted this in the GH1 section earlier today..

I shot some test footage about a month ago on the AF100 with the Canon 35mm F2 and the 85 F1.2 FD's.
  • 35mm scc FD is my favorite, (the breech lock is a bit of a pain,, prefer nFD)
  • 85mm F1.2 FD shots are great
  • 24mm are just flat, and not much contrast.
    I like the 24mm focal length a lot, but can't get the "punch" I get from the other two Canon FD's.
BTW I just purchased a Canon FD 35-105mm, for run and gun - awaiting delivery.
Also, the Novaflex is expensive but is a perfect fitting adapter. I had 2 economy flavors that were sloppy, or wouldn't release the lens (scary).


 
I am not exactly sure what Duclose does when the declick the lenses. I am sure it is a simple process but their site doesn't give much detail about this particular process.
 
Gary Senda said:
It is not true that the focal changes, OK... but try to look at the design of a 24mm for a full frame and a 25mm for m4/3. They are 2 completely different lenses, 2 completely different design.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrofocus

Gary is correct.

"Retrofocus" lenses are not as sharp, or free of distortions, as "short-focus" wide-angles. Ask any rangefinder, or large format, photographer.

When retrofocus lenses are used on formats smaller then they were designed for then only the center, & sharpest, part of the lens is being used so some of these issues are negated, but not completely.

Regards,
Bern
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top