Thanks for the comments...I have owned this lens since 1974, and used it only with film until the conversion, which I posted in another thread on this forum (https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/985819/0#9360419). It does take some time to find the right subject, just like not running around with a fisheye .
Right, my FD 50mm f/1.4 S.S.C. (now sold) had more CA. This one has much less. In the 100% you can see some. Ya have'ta kinda look for it tho. The nFD version still has that halo thing going on in high contrast images when wide open - it's not too bad here for some reason. I got it just before the earth quake and haven't really had the will to take any photos till today. So this is my first day with it - I think I took about 10 shots. Still kinda worried and depressed if ya know what I mean - which aren't really good motivators for creative photography. :-/
Neither lens does the hard fringing kind of CA that ACR is able to remove tho.
Wow. That is some really distracting bokeh. I thought the LTM 50/1.2 was bad in tough background situations, but that may have it beat. From the "okay to laugh" shot, it looks like it's pretty well-mannered otherwise. Certainly sharp enough.
I think most of it is just the BG - although I haven't really had a chance to evaluate the bokeh from the nFD 50/1.4. I have the S.S.C. version tho and it's pretty smooth for a 50.
Here's the Nikkor 85/1.4D for comparison doing essentially the same shot a few months earlier:
Bifurcator wrote:
I think most of it is just the BG - although I haven't really had a chance to evaluate the bokeh from the nFD 50/1.4. I have the S.S.C. version tho and it's pretty smooth for a 50.
Here's the Nikkor 85/1.4D for comparison doing essentially the same shot a few months earlier:
Nikkor 85/1.4D at f/1.4 on the GH1
i think it's just an extremely tough background combined with the focal length. the nikon shot doesn't include the really bad portion of the background. i think there are a lot of fast 50s that would produce even worse bokeh with that shot judging by the blur discs (most would add more loCA and harder edges to to the shot).
I've grown quite fond of my FDn 35 f/2 on my gf1 but I would love to use it someday with my 5DmkII. I'm hesitant to permanently convert it as I still shoot film, is there any other option?
Although any of the FD glass can be converted to EOS, there may be a permanent cost, using losing infinity and mirror interference issues. I have an FD 85mm f1.2 L that I will never put a tool on...too many issues posted here and on other sites, so it sits on a T90 and G2 with adapters. My Rokinon 85mm is the "work-around" for that lens.
Your 35mm f2 (concave front element?) is very sweet glass; sometimes they are better left alone...
Although any of the FD glass can be converted to EOS, there may be a permanent cost, using losing infinity and mirror interference issues. I have an FD 85mm f1.2 L that I will never put a tool on...too many issues posted here and on other sites, so it sits on a T90 and G2 with adapters. My Rokinon 85mm is the "work-around" for that lens.
True its not exactly an easy lens to convert but I've had lenses that were a lot harder to convert than that. I converted mine to SA mount and although I dont have infinity, the 15 feet or so I do get is plenty for portrait work, which is of course where the FD85/1.2L excels..With a bit of work I could probably extend the focus range a bit, but I'm in no rush.
.
.