Why do people call the Canon FD lenses "filmic" ? are there others?

S

sebek

Active member
I am wondering why Canon FD lenses are called "filmic"? Are there other lenses that have a similar look? I currently have an SMC Tak 50mm 1.4 and Konica Hexanon 40mm 1.8, should I sell these and get Canon's? I definitely want more of a film like look to my footage instead of home video.
 
Every lens brand has different characteristics. Some people like the Canon FD lenses ( there is a big difference between S.S.C lenses and non-S.S.C. lenses ), some people like Nikon, some people like Olympus, etc...

Forget about what other people think and try and figure out what YOU like...

P.S. Lighting has far more impact on an image than any lens ever will.
 
That's mostly a reference to their being a bit softer than modern lenses. I rather enjoy the look for most things, but it's pretty minor. If you want a filmic look work on art design, developing strong color palettes in your frames, lighting the subject in a complimentary way, framing effectively and directing actors.
 
Ah yes, that f-word. It's so subjective yet so misleading. For the most part, at least I would consider and as Cassius mentions, 'filmic' lenses are those that exhibit softer renderings than say modern Canon L glass which are created purely for digital cameras and are coated to death to ensure super sharpness and resolution. Canon FD's and Taks and other vintage lenses were built for film cameras. So it makes sense they're 'filmic'. hah.
Get your lenses in order and then worry about creating nice filmic images...
 
I'm hoping this 'softer' look is not indicative of too much detail loss. I'm trying to shoot theatrical productions with a lighting designer who's the prince of darkness. The 20mm pancake would be ok but is a bit pricey at msrp, currently it is out of range at the $500 plus that it seems to be selling for. So I'm looking at wide and fast glass and the canon fd seems to be the only solution. The closer to 20mm and less than or equal to f2 is much wanted. Any other ideas aside from the fd lenses?
 
TheDingo said:
Every lens brand has different characteristics. Some people like the Canon FD lenses ( there is a big difference between S.S.C lenses and non-S.S.C. lenses ), some people like Nikon, some people like Olympus, etc...

Forget about what other people think and try and figure out what YOU like...
Click to expand...
Exactly.


TheDingo said:
P.S. Lighting has far more impact on an image than any lens ever will.
Click to expand...
This cannot be stessed enough. Good post.
 
One 'filmic' thing about those lenses is that they are designed to be focussed manually. Which gives you a much longer focus throw which is good for precise pulls.
 
My favorite lens right now on my GH2 is a 35mm 2.8 miida branded FD mount. It was given to me free by a friend of my wife. I don't know about filmic but I really like the look of the shots that come from it. And +1 on lighting trumping everything else as said before.

5808900213_9e6a52fb28_z.jpg

GH2 + miida 35mm 2.8 + sb600 umbrella and reflector.
 
Last edited:
In my experience, the FD lenses that have the most filmic look are the ultra-fast primes:

24mm f1.4L
24mm f2.0
28mm f2.0
35mm f2.0
50mm f1.2L
50mm f1.4
85mm f1.2L
85mm f1.8
100mm f2.0
135mm f2.0

(IMO, the non-L f1.2 primes have too much lens flare.)

The reason I like the fast FD's is not because they're soft, i.e. lacking in sharpness. At wide-open apertures, these lenses remain sharp but have relatively low contrast along with deep color rendition. In addition, the bokeh blooms in a rounded manner and the corners vignette slightly. While you can mimic all these effects in post-production, it looks a touch more natural coming from the lens itself.
 
lpowell said:
The reason I like the fast FD's is not because they're soft, i.e. lacking in sharpness. At wide-open apertures, these lenses remain sharp but have relatively low contrast along with deep color rendition. In addition, the bokeh blooms in a rounded manner and the corners vignette slightly. While you can mimic all these effects in post-production, it looks a touch more natural coming from the lens itself.
Click to expand...

I noticed the same thing. The FD's are not soft but lower in contrast then most moderen lens that I have tried. I love the look for narrative work.
 
lpowell said:
In my experience, the FD lenses that have the most filmic look are the ultra-fast primes:

24mm f1.4L
24mm f2.0
28mm f2.0
35mm f2.0
50mm f1.2L
50mm f1.4
85mm f1.2L
85mm f1.8
100mm f2.0
135mm f2.0

(IMO, the non-L f1.2 primes have too much lens flare.)

The reason I like the fast FD's is not because they're soft, i.e. lacking in sharpness. At wide-open apertures, these lenses remain sharp but have relatively low contrast along with deep color rendition. In addition, the bokeh blooms in a rounded manner and the corners vignette slightly. While you can mimic all these effects in post-production, it looks a touch more natural coming from the lens itself.
Click to expand...

THanks for the info. So a FDn Canon 24mm 2.8 would not give that same look since it's the "n" which is newer lens?
 
"Filmic Look" I had someone tell me they wanted me to give them a filmic look on a shoot one time, and I asked him if he wanted it to look like Gilligan's Island or the Brady Bunch. What do you mean? Those are old TV shows not films he said. They were both shot on film I replied. He was dumbfounded and didn't really know what to say. Err, just make it look like film.

Different brand lenses offer different subtle looks which can be used to contribute to an overall appearance. But there is no such thing as a lens that has a built in film look. Its the filmmaker not the lens.

All the Best!

Dave
 
As has been said many times before... And even a bit in this thread... A look is achieved not just with lenses but with every aspect of the production... What kind of camera moves are you planning? What kind of grain do you want or not want your image to have? What style of lighting are you going for? Costuming, set design, art department, blocking, rehearsals... These are all things which contribute to the look as they will influence the types of shots you will take. Getting something to look the way you want it will take pre visualization, and adaptability on the fly, this will require that you know your story and are shooting with it's aesthetic in mind... Most people think that having a good rig will give them a "Look", which is like saying "I have a really nice set of paint brushes and a well stretched canvas, man I am going to paint a beautiful picture..."

Lenses are only as useful to achieving a filmic look as they are appropriate to the shooting situation. I find my FD 50mm f1.4 s.s.c is CONSTANTLY on my camera... Not only because I like it's color rendition and overall sharpness but because it's a lens which I find suits my style of shooting... Find out what you like by trying out different lenses (I know I've said it a million times but: go to lensrentals.com or meet up with someone who owns the lens your thinking of buying and try it out), I know an AMAZING photographer who only uses an ancient Nikon 50mm non ai lens for almost all of his work... And every time I look at his images I am blown away.
 
sebek said:
THanks for the info. So a FDn Canon 24mm 2.8 would not give that same look since it's the "n" which is newer lens?
Click to expand...
No, it's not only the vintage Canon lenses - all of mine are FDn versions. The older lenses that pre-date Canon's S.S.C. lens coatings and lack aspherical lens elements tend to be more susceptible to flare, which is a drawback for me. I also favor wide apertures, which is why I sought out a 28mm f2.0 rather than an f2.8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top