p.1 #1 · Any thoughts on Canon 50mm F/1.8 FD & Filter Size?
Hey,
My brother inlaw gave me his old AE-1 film camera which came with a version III of the 50mm F/1.8 FD. I was doing some reading on the lens and it looks like it's a pretty good 50mm manual focus lens. I thought about using it for my Sony A7RIV camera because I only have manual focus lenses for it, mostly Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses. I don't have a 50mm for it yet.
I'm wondering if anyone has this lens and if you have any thoughts on this lens? Also, it didn't have a lens filter and I want to get a basic lens filter to protect it from getting scratches, What lens filter does it take? I know it doesn't take a 49mm or a 52mm so it takes something between those sizes.When I try to look up the size on B&H, I get all kinds of sizes from 77mn to 49mm.
Thanks.
p.1 #5 · Any thoughts on Canon 50mm F/1.8 FD & Filter Size?
molson wrote:
It takes a 52mm filter. Optically it's a pretty good lens; the biggest weakness is the lack of multicoating.
I think you're right about the lack of multi-coatings. That's the reason I wanted to put some kind of UV filter on it. what do you think would be a good UV filter that would make up for the lack of factory coatings? I think you're right also on the 52mm filter size. I never heard of a 52mm filter, but clearly a 49mm is too small and a 54mm is too big.
The lens says 50mm and I found some info on the 50mm F/1.8, versions 1, 2, and 3. Mine is a vs. 3. I think you're referring to the lens filter size, 52mm.
p.1 #7 · Any thoughts on Canon 50mm F/1.8 FD & Filter Size?
A UV filter is not worth it on this lens. (And personally I don’t use them on any lens unless there’s blowing sand or salt spray.) First, a decent UV filter that won’t harm image quality costs roughly the same as this lens is worth.
Second, a filter doesn’t improve flare or lack of coatings…it adds more glass surfaces for there to be reflections off of. UV filters don’t improve image quality, but a cheap one can definitely harm it. Modern digital cameras don’t need the UV cut from such a filter either, as the sensor filter stack already cuts UV light.
The FD50/1.8 is a decent lens, so enjoy it, but don’t over think things here. Ultimately it’s a $40 manual focus lens that was the defacto standard kit lens for its day.
billsamuels wrote:
I think you're right about the lack of multi-coatings. That's the reason I wanted to put some kind of UV filter on it. what do you think would be a good UV filter that would make up for the lack of factory coatings? I think you're right also on the 52mm filter size. I never heard of a 52mm filter, but clearly a 49mm is too small and a 54mm is too big.
p.1 #9 · Any thoughts on Canon 50mm F/1.8 FD & Filter Size?
Jman13 wrote:
The FD50/1.8 is a decent lens, so enjoy it, but don’t over think things here. Ultimately it’s a $40 manual focus lens that was the defacto standard kit lens for its day.
+1 A good filter is similar to the cost of the lens. Those Canon 50/1.8 lenses were cheap and I did not like the pentagram diaphram even back then. I also did not think that AE-1 camera was so good compared to the EL/ELW/EL2 of the same era.
p.1 #10 · Any thoughts on Canon 50mm F/1.8 FD & Filter Size?
billsamuels wrote:
I never heard of a 52mm filter, but clearly a 49mm is too small and a 54mm is too big.
Seriously? Back when that lens was manufactured, 52mm was about the most common filter size there was.
And as others have already commented, putting a filter on that lens won't help with the lesser quality coating, and is mostly a waste of money.
Oct 29, 2024 at 12:17 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #11 · Any thoughts on Canon 50mm F/1.8 FD & Filter Size?
Pretty much all the 50/1.8's are excellent, if you stop them down, at least any of the many I've used or seen lens tests on. I think I had a fairly recent one on an AE-1 Program briefly, those have a better finder I'd probably just use AE-1 though if you already have one. Shouldn't make a difference really to a large degree
I used to like the Hoya 1B which had a little bit of magenta cast. I’ve found the main problem using protective filters is flare so keep an eye out for that. It is nice to be able to just use your shirt etc and not worry too much
I'd think a late model FD would have good quality MC. Even single coated lenses like my 24/2.8 zuoko are excellent and not high flare
p.1 #12 · Any thoughts on Canon 50mm F/1.8 FD & Filter Size?
Besides Canon practically all of the Nikkors that could take smaller filters used the 52mm.
I had 24, 28, 35, 50, 55, and 105mm Nikkor lenses with 52mm filters and that was only my small sample. Even the 80-200/4.5 Nikkor took a 52mm.
p.1 #13 · Any thoughts on Canon 50mm F/1.8 FD & Filter Size?
AmbientMike wrote:
I'd think a late model FD would have good quality MC.
The budget-friendly FD 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, and 50mm f2 lenses only had single-layer Spectra Coating; All the rest had SSC (Super Spectra Coating) multicoating.
Oct 29, 2024 at 01:11 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #14 · Any thoughts on Canon 50mm F/1.8 FD & Filter Size?
molson wrote:
The budget-friendly FD 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, and 50mm f2 lenses only had single-layer Spectra Coating; All the rest had SSC (Super Spectra Coating) multicoating.
Yeah I read Philip Reeves article a bit, which said that but I don't remember having any issues (granted didn'thave it long) seemed good. Idk that 50/1.8's are particularly flare prone, really, anyway. IIRC mine didn't have the breech lock so apparently v3, according to the article
Hate to bring this up but may be in the radioactive generation of thorium oxide glass.
