nixland wrote:
Hi, I need to ask about FD 85 and FD 55 asph/50L :
1. I was told by FM member that the FD 85/1.2 SSC Aspherical bokeh is a bit smoother than the FD 85/1.2L. Anybody has the same experience?
As far as I am aware the FD 85mm f1.2 L is optically identical to the FD 85mm f1.2 SSC Aspherical so their sharpness, contrast and bokeh quality should be identical too...However I cant be 100% sure about this as I still have'nt been able to find an optical diagram for the SSC Aspherical to compare with the one I have for the FD-L.
They certainly differ mechanically though...The SSC Aspherical has more metal used in its construction than the FD-L, so the FD-L is'nt so heavy (FD-L= 680g vs 756g for the SSC Asp)...The EF-L mk1 and MkII are identical optically but they are completely different optically to the FD versions, and much heavier (1025g!)
It would be a great help if someone here could supply an optical diagram for the SSC Aspherical so we can compare it to the FD-L.
nixland wrote:
2. How the 55/1.2 SSC Asph compared to the FD 50/1.2L in sharpness, color-contras, and bokeh?
My FD 55/1.2 SSC non Asph bokeh is a bit harsh (as I have posted the example on the previous page), so I think the 55 Asph will be the same. How about the FD 50/1.2L ?
They are not the same...The incorporating of the Aspherical element into the 55mm f1.2 Asph' design is enough to change the entire performance characteristics of the said lens in comparison to the older non Aspherical version. BTW, the FD 55mm f1.2 SSC is optically indentical to the older FL 55mm f1.2, except perhaps for an additional coating ot two on the former.
Alf Beharie wrote:
As far as I am aware the FD 85mm f1.2 L is optically identical to the FD 85mm f1.2 SSC Aspherical so their sharpness, contrast and bokeh quality should be identical too...However I cant be 100% sure about this as I still have'nt been able to find an optical diagram for the SSC Aspherical to compare with the one I have for the FD-L.
They certainly differ mechanically though...The SSC Aspherical has more metal used in its construction than the FD-L, so the FD-L is'nt so heavy (FD-L= 680g vs 756g for the SSC Asp)...The EF-L mk1 and MkII are identical optically but they are completely different optically to the FD versions, and much heavier (1025g!)
It would be a great help if someone here could supply an optical diagram for the SSC Aspherical so we can compare it to the FD-L.
They are not the same...The incorporating of the Aspherical element into the 55mm f1.2 Asph' design is enough to change the entire performance characteristics of the said lens in comparison to the older non Aspherical version. BTW, the FD 55mm f1.2 SSC is optically indentical to the older FL 55mm f1.2, except perhaps for an additional coating ot two on the former. ...Show more →
Thanks a lot for the reply, Alf.
While I am still curious about the 85 SSC vs FD L differences, I decided to get the FD L considering the weight, cause I want to make it as one of my traveling lens. (My EF 85/1.2 II is too bulky and heavy). But I am still waiting for SSC vs FD L comparison
Days ago an FD 55/1.2 Aspherical auction also showed up on eBay, so that's why I want to know more about this lens. But the current bid price is already over my limit.
Thatspeck wrote:
...The FL 35/2.5 was mentioned above and I've been using that one frequently. It is remarkably good at least at F8 here;
I'm very pleased to hear this info Thatspeck and to see this lovely image, because I picked up my copy for A$30 and it's now with Pengland for conversion to EF.
Thatspeck wrote:
Alf the only differences I'm aware of are the 9 bladed aperture on the 85/1.2 SSC vs 8 on the FDL, and the aspherical element is hand ground (no Monday lenses please). .
Blimey!, they could'nt have made that many of them compared to the FD-L then?
Thatspeck wrote:
Don't know much about the 55 Asph. other than it's expensive.
The FL 35/2.5 was mentioned above and I've been using that one frequently. It is remarkably good at least at F8 here..
Looks good, very nice colours too, but how is it at wider apertures?
Thatspeck wrote:
The downside is significant flare though I tweaked this to exaggerate it. Left hand makes a pretty good hood in most situations.
I use a hood at all times on all my lenses, so that would'nt be an issue for me
Alf I'm generally more of a landscape shooter and the lens is new to me but that shot just above is probably wide open, it's a pretty modest max aperture and fairly small lens, well worth the sub $100 price tag they generally sell for. I think there is also an FL 35/3.5.
Sebboh if that is the non aspherical 55, I'd say there is no need to get one, very nice
I don't know what possessed me to look into this thread, since I am not a Canon fan in the least (except for the TS-E 17), but that first shot is awesome.
carstenw wrote:
I don't know what possessed me to look into this thread, since I am not a Canon fan in the least (except for the TS-E 17), but that first shot is awesome.
thanks! sepia cypresses, what's not to like. i'm not much of a canon man myself (mostly due to a dislike of the color i get from the lenses), but the FL 55/1.2 is an incredibly strong performer across the board (except for color of course).
i'm not much of a canon man myself (mostly due to a dislike of the color i get from the lenses), but the FL 55/1.2 is an incredibly strong performer across the board (except for color of course).