The three FD 55mm versions. Image source: Olypedia.de. The asperical and latest FD 55mm1.2 lens is on the left.
–
Sony stated many times that they will not go after crazy speed on FE lenses. What matters is having top quality in a “not to big” sized lens. That’s ok for me, but what if some A7-A7r owners absolutely needs the extra speed? There are plenty of options out. Today I am going to tell you a bit about one of the lenses I just purchased to make it work on my A7r. It’s the [shoplink 22839 ebay]Canon FD 55mm f/1.2 Asperical lens (to find here on eBay only)[/shoplink]. I will receive the lens soon. Meantime here is a bit of history:
The lens has been announced in 1971 and was Canon’s answer to the Leica Noctilux. There are three versions of it. The first two non-aspherical (and very cheap on [shoplink 22851 ebay]eBay[/shoplink]) and the last aspherical version. That one is the lens I am interested in:
Erwin Puts writes about the aspherical FD 55mm 1.2 lens:
“Some commentators called the Canon FD 1.2 aspherical the best standard lens in the world. It is hard to disagree.”
“In 1971, when the Noctilux was still being produced and sold, Canon introduces their own version of an 1.2 design with aspherics. Presumably they could not stand the humiliation of being defeated by the Leitz construction, at least wide open.
With this lens Canon pulled all stops. See my report on the Canon design here. The Canon aspherical is wide open clearly better than the Noct 1.2. Especially in the outer zones the Canon is much improved and in the center of the image the Canon has an impressive performance, that surpasses the one you get from the Noct. Stopped down the Canon wins easily. Wide open at 1.2 you will note a difference in approach of correcting aberrations. The Canon has a very good image quality ove the whole picture frame, where the Noct concentrates on the center part of the image. Whatever the approach, the Canon design gives the better imagery, aperture for aperture.”
Mir writes:
Despite its large aperture, it is highly reputed for its high contrast and stabilized image definition at full aperture opening. Because of its fast f/1.2 speed, it provides high image quality in low light level photography.
Additionally, this lens incorporates the Floating System which enables aberration-free shooting at close subject distance. Thus, a sharp image is obtained through the entire focusing range. Therefore, the focused image through the viewfinder can be reproduced just as it is.
The crazy news on that lens is that the lens is actually lightly…ehmmm….radioactive! But there is nothing to worry about: Olypedia writes:
“If this lens worries you, DO NOT EXPOSE YOURSELF TO THE SUN! It’s much more dangerous to you and your film…”
Few more images and test can be read here: Comparison with other f/1.2 lenses at Nifty50.nl. Presentation page at Mir.com.my. Image samples on Flickr.
Conclusion:
After reading all these articles and watching many image samples I got mine [shoplink 22839 ebay]Canon FD 55mm f/1.2 Asperical lens on eBay (all cutions are here)[/shoplink]. I can’t wait to test it on the A7r and compare the results with the Zeiss FE 5mm f/1.8 lens which I will get within the next days (yes Sony Europe is shipping mine!). Get yours here at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT.
P.S.: Feel free to contact me at sonyalpharumors@gmail.com if you have tests to share (or if you want to write a full article).
58 Responses
There are more lenses available, than that page shows.
Minolta 50/1.2 and 58/1.2 Rokkors, which can be had for about $300 on ebay
Just bought a Rokkor 58mm 1.2 PG. Hope
I fall in love with it. It’s shipping now.
Don’t forget other focal lengths as well – the Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 125mm f/2.5 is another radioactive legend as well!
This version of the Canon is, from many sources, the best performing of the bunch, and also the most expensive apart from limited editions(Contax 55/1.2,a Konica for the M-mount, but some say the Konica actually sucks), Leicas and the Noct-Nikkor.
But there hasn’t been direct comparisons among these either.
It’s better to exclude the most expensive ones since the Canon is more in the price range of the other f/1.2s.
Best performing of which bunch?
I meant that the SSC Asph. is the best performing among all the legacy normal f/1.2s excluding those that I mentioned, and excluding the Tomioka because there aren’t any reviews. Although according to the review I have the clearest memory about, the differeces are subtle compared with the SSC with no Asph. labeling.
Opinions about the Canon are largely consistent around the globe, but if you look in Chinese forums alone, the OM (50mm version)also gets a lot of praise, while out here many say that the only thing notable about it is its small size. Sharp or not at least you could get interesting bokeh from it.
It is so strange that photographers are paying $2500 plus for the M-Hexanon….. given that it sucks. Mine seems to work great.
Does it work…just “great”? Or “better”, compared to similar lenses?
Yep, I am not ready to believe that the FD is the best choice, even if we consider its price range.
I am finding it relatively difficult these days to see what lenses are good or average on the new cams.
There are so many flickr galleries and most of them are done poorly (that guy in Beijing, for example, with plenty of shake) so I am really at odds on what is best for that system from the myriad of lenses out there. I know its very difficult for one single individual to come up with a proper method and many lenses to test with. I was hoping LL would have something more definite on the M lenses but his last article was pretty…lazy I think.
I am not interested in buying the A7/r soon, but I would want to have some well made, consistent samples from whomever can do them right, consistently.
Yes, it is difficult to judge, but I imagine such proper cross-brand tests on cameras like the A7 will slowly start to appear.
There’s only one test of fast 50s I know of, but it is in German:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3338/3561983301_6005527a79_o.jpg
Any Germans here willing to help?
That test was done a while ago, you can see. I can’t figure the scores there…
Nice find.
Admin knows German, I believe.
I just noticed too…Deutsche Mark for prices…
It was, truly, a while ago…
Admin, how’s your German?
Thank you for the link! 🙂
Lower punctuation numbers (Gesamtpunktzahl) are better.
There are 4 different suppositions/uses (A, B, C and D):
A = General Photography, Aperture variable
B = Holidays, People, Landscape, mostly Aperture 4 or more
C = Reportage, Action, occasionally wide open Aperture
D = Reportage, Theater, night photography, mostly wide open aperture
And for each factor (Sharpness, CA and so on, there a mathematical-weight)
Navier, thanks! Could you translate a bit of the text at the bottom, I imagine these are more general observations? Unfortunately, we have no idea what these numbers actually mean, so we don’t know how a difference of say 200 points actually translates into the real world.
Yes, they are very general observations. Differences are in the numbers in the Table (like Vignetting in the Leitz with 147 point, which is in the range from “111 to 150 Points: not satisfactory, hard limited”)
I’ll try later to write the Point Ranges
GENERAL CRITERIA
0 to 15 Points: Excellent, very good also under critical conditions
16 to 30 Points: Very good, generally fulfills the highest requirements
31 to 55 Points: Good, but limited for some special uses
56 to 80 Points: Satisfactory, generally aceptable shortcomings
81 to 110 Points: Less satisfactory, already some shortcomings
111 to 150 Points: Not satisfactory, strong limited
151 to 200 Points: Very questionable, also inadecuate for low requirements
TOTAL RATING
lower than 5000: Very good
5000 to 6000: Good
…
If you google it, you’ll find translation on other forums. Basically, Pentax best, followed very closely by Nikon AIs, Canon, etc. I have the Nikon 50/1.2 AiS. Don’t really care about the Canon.
I had the later model FD 55/1.2 SSC Aspherical (non chrome nose). I love it.
My reference to compare is the nFD 50/1.4. The new FD 50 is, IMO, a fantastic value – light, relatively small, and does a pretty nice job; but, wide open, the difference between the two lenses is clear – the 50 gets a bit of dreamy softness to it, while the Aspherical, even being 1/2 a stop faster, still stays quite sharp. The bokeh for the 55 is really nice too.
Here are a couple of examples with the 55 (wide open) on a NEX-7:
http://g1.img-dpreview.com/0F554E08064B4506B12FAA4D5ABABFCF.jpg
http://g1.img-dpreview.com/A5D17AC9575F4B2FADA395C99C9AF185.jpg
With adapter, is it able to auto focus?
I believe it is a manual lens.
It’s a manual lens. Not just and adapter, but you’ll also Need a delicate skill and time to focus on any aperture bigger than f1.4
True I loved my Rokinon 85mm f1.4 but for the life of me I had terrible difficulty in getting critical focus at f1.4.
I sold it and got the Minolta 85mm f1.4 G which isn’t as sharp or has as nice bokeh as the Rokinon. Even the Rokinon colour was better but I at least have a much higher percentage of sharp photos at f1.4 than before and so I have sold off the Rokinon even though its a better lens in practically all aspects.
The 50mm however should be a little easier to focus with than a 85mm as wider lenses are a bit easier to focus maually with than tele lenses.
I assume that manually focusing on such a large aperture lens using an EVF is more difficult than using an OVF ?
Wrong because EVF uses all data from the sensor, more than your eye and brain can process. This allows for useful assistance like zebra pattern, image zoom, image stabilization.
There are quite a few Super Takumar lenses, and others, that emply radioactive thorium in the elements. One telltale sign of a radioactive lens is yellowing (which can be de- yellowed if left exposed in the sub for a few days or with UV light). Another way to text is bynleavingbthe lens standing up atop unprocessed film printer paper. If after a day the lens has exposed the paper abs marked it where the lens was then it was due to the radiation.
Supposedly they are safe although if is be wary of holding the lens up to your eye (no camera).
I understand the yellowing as a result of the radioactive thorium content in the lens was an issue only for film in the days of film cameras. Nowadays it is not an issue.
I myself recently just purchased a Canon FD 35/2.0 as well as an FL 50/1.4 to use with my Sony A7. One of those are also the thorium-based (35mm I think) lenses which is suppose to give superior photos. I purchased a couple FD=>E-mount adapters through Ebay to dock these lenses to the A7 body.
I checked and it is the FD 35mm f2 which contains the thorium.
” The Canon FD 35mm f/2.0 lens was manufactured by Canon for the FD lens mount. It was sold in a number of variations over the years, and was the fastest Canon lens in the 35mm focal length before the debut of the EF 35mm f1.4. ”
“The f/16 versions of the lens had some optics which contained the radioactive element Thorium. The Thorium lenses were considered sharper side-to-side and at all apertures than any subsequent version.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_FD_35mm_f/2
I have one of these 35mm f2.0 Thorium lenses.
If tracking is believed my A7R is arriving tomorrow so it’ll be interesting to see how it holds up!
Ironically, I may just carry my SLRmagic 35mm f1.2 to a Dog Show shoot today. Even though the lens will be used in APS-C mode, it is compact, light, and provides a relatively bright f1.7 at equivalent of 52mm. The older lenses can get heavy very quickly and carrying two of them around in addition to the camera and standard kit lens can get overbearing.
Well, you can certainly correct it in post but a yellow lens will give a yellow cast to digital images. If you are already correcting for mixed lighting, the yellowing could complicate things further.
The actual yellowing of the lens itself can be removed.
It fades and eventually disappears when exposed to UV light, so most people just leave it on a sunny windowsill when not in use. If it’s used regularly it shouldn’t come back, unfortunately most of them have been sat in attics for the last 30 years!
The early version Rokkor 58/1.2 was also radioactive. Perhaps they all were from the PG to the PGX too. As was the Olympus Zuiko 55/1.2. The 50mm 1.2’s that came later were not radioactive. I believe they were not harmful to the user. But they could be very harmful to the lens crafters who manufactured them. Lot’s of glass dust in an era where OSHA didn’t monitor foreign companies. I’m unsure if Nikon or Pentax had any radioactive standards. Wouldn’t bet against it.
The radioactive lenses get yellow very fast when stored in case. Set the old lenses out in the sunlight for a few hours and watch the yellow tint disappear.
They’re nice. But my little Maxxum AF 50/1.4 takes care of me just fine.
You ain’t seen anything till you’ve seen Cosina/Tomioka 55/1.2.
why is it always about the sharpness? i converted a 58 1.2 rokkor for the A mount and i love that lens. but not because it it very sharp, which it isnt, but because of the quality of the bokeh and especially the transition areas. and with bokeh i dont mean the shallow depth of field at f1.2 but the quality, which is best at f2.
i have no comaprison, but im almost certain that the canon mentioned in this articel is not nearly as smooth in the bokeh area, especially if its an aspherical lens (aspherical elements tend to influence the bokeh negatively)-
and i mean you can sharpen an image, you can enhance contrast or color, but you cant influence the bokeh. ill take a less sharp lens with awesome bokeh any day.
Sharpness is both contrast and resolution. The latter is pretty much the only thing you can’t really fix in software, so it is a problem. Bokeh, admittedly, is also not easy to fix in software, but in the end it is simply the stuff that is out of focus.
Flare significantly reduces overall contrast but if you look at 100% crops you lose close to none of the detail.
I’ve also had times where my lens(I got the Cinelux Premiere to work, it’s fascinating…) gave very high micro-contrast but in crops yield little detail because it wasn’t critically focused.
Actually, bokeh is one of the qualities that CAN be dealt with permanently with some DIY tricks:
http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/Apodization-Filter.html
However, there is to my knowledge no practical DIY method of increasing sharpness of a given lens.
Another interesting discontinued lens is the Minolta AF 200 F2.8, which has excellent sharpness and works with LA-EA4. I ordered that one and hope it will be as good as the one tested here: http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/660-minolta200f28
There is a cheaper option for this kind of speed – Not having the cash to splash on these lenses I’ve got the Olympus Zuiko 55mm f1.2 lens, it’s fun
This article caught my eye with interest as I recenty purchased two (2) lenses with the same exact intent in mind. Only difference is, I have the A7 rather then the A7r. What I acquired on auction:
Canon FD 35mm/f2 (Thorium) (=> f16 model)
Canon FL 50mm/f1.4
I already had Minolta’s 58mm/f1.4 MC Rokkor from way back, when I purchased it as a kit lens with the Minolta SRT-101 body. But, I heard from a friend of mine that 50mm would be the more ideal lens to have in coming the closest to true normal 1:1 viewing as to what the human perceives, so, I got the Canon FL 50mm/f1.4.
Need for speed ?
Sony NEX-VG900 + Canon 50mm f0.95 / first test :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVBbop5Onws
Interesting.
I got myself the Canon FD 50mm F/1.2 L in anticipation of the Sony A7 (which I still don’t have; just a little bit longer…)
In Japan, they already went on sale from Dec 3rd, so, I had mine on release date. 🙂
Shoudl be some interesting times with full frame coming of age. And the focus peaking function really makes it a lot easier to use these ancient lenses, which are going through a rebirth or resurrection of a sort. Besides, sometimes I prefer to have MF control.
“What matters is having top quality in a “not to big” size…”
That’s what them ladies said.
There’s two of me!
Add an avatar. Perhaps a vampire?
Haha! Good idea, actually.
Re: 55 1.2 asph
When you read the forums on net, you can read info that Asph is SHARPER than 50/1.2L , but has worse bokeh. The website on SAR shows that 50/1.2L is actually sharper.
But 55 Asph is larger, heavier, pricier
Am I missing something?
Waiting for my a7r, meanwhile i’m using a Canon 55mm f/1.2 with a nex f3…
Nex f3 + Canon FD 55mm f/1.2
[URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/842/opt1.jpg/][IMG]http://imageshack.us/a/img842/8761/opt1.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
Samples tests:
[URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/577/0xej.jpg/][IMG]http://imageshack.us/a/img577/7901/0xej.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/30/a2a4.jpg/][IMG]http://imageshack.us/a/img30/2180/a2a4.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
Here is the a link to the most useful comparison test I have found
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/996387
I’m not sure why so many are so curious about the legacy 50s. I worked professionally for many decades used many 50s; summicron 50 f2, the contax/ zeiss 50 and more recently the Canon 50 f2L, all were great lenses on their native camera. I’ve tried in vain to have consistent results with the summicron, first on the NEX 5, then NEX 7 and now on the a7r. The mix-match just does not cut it, when it’s on it’s great but most of the time there is a focus shift. The Canon 50 f1.2, other than looking absurd on the a7r, has a nasty purple fringe issue. The warts of these lenses are magnified when place on the Sony. I can’t wait until the Zeiss/Sony 50 f1.8, a lens designed to take advantage of the a7r sensor and processor, knowing Zeiss has tried to address the camera it is married to.
1000$ for old stuff….
1.2 is not fast, is just light with no sharp…. fast have to do autofocus….
It seems like you don’t have much idea what you’re talking about, f1.2 is plenty fast and I can manual focus very well.
Way to make a fool of yourself by talking nonsense about something you have NO IDEA about. Pathetic
The later FDn 50mm f1.2L is also an aspherical design, and until I had it did not believe it could better the old f1.2 ASPH SSC I had, but it is quite a few steps ahead, especially full open. The ASPH has more of a collector’s value in terms of $$ than optical superiority.
Check out here for a quick test I made between some 35/50 lenses on my Fuji XE1 (blasphemer!)
http://www.nifty50.nl/cms/index.php?page=test-1
it is maybe worth mentioning that Puts is referring to the OLD, indeed the very old noctilux with f/1.2 as fastest aperture. the latter noctilux with f/1 is an entirely different optical design.