papo
Established
Which one would you prefer for portraits and why?
Mackinaw
Think Different
Same optics all three versions, but coatings do vary. I have an early-production chrome nose FD 50/1.4, and am very happy with its performance.
Jim B.
Jim B.
raid
Dad Photographer
These are all excellent lenses. I happen to have the FD version.
santino
FSU gear head
The FD has the better mount but more plastics. Optically all of them are hop notch.
What camera will you be using it on?
I prefer the Canon 50mm F1.4 FL mount, 2nd version. Same optical formula as the FD mount lenses. I also have the 1st version FD and SSC versions.
This one- $35, built in Manual Aperture switch, and easier to convert.
Converted to RF-coupled M-Mount.
I prefer the Canon 50mm F1.4 FL mount, 2nd version. Same optical formula as the FD mount lenses. I also have the 1st version FD and SSC versions.
This one- $35, built in Manual Aperture switch, and easier to convert.
Converted to RF-coupled M-Mount.
raid
Dad Photographer
How is a converted FD lens better than a 50/1.4 ltm lens?
The 50/1.4 LTM is about a 10 year older design, 6 element in 4 groups. The 50/1.4 FL has a much longer optical path, very low focus shift due to spherical aberration.
raid
Dad Photographer
Isn’t the FL lens larger than a RF version?
papo
Established
I’ll be using it on an AE-1 Program and noticed on digital tests that the nFD rendered images a bit too harsh so I wondered what it would look like on analog
My favorite on the Canon F1 is the 50/1.4 SSC. I also have the chrome-nose SC. I prefer the breech-lock mount of the older lenses. The later one- more plastic, and was multi-coated. Might account for the more harsh rendering.
papo
Established
The coating is there to help reduce flares and other unwanred effects so is this the trade off? LIke i said, i saw these example images at the bottom (he calls them 1st-3rd generation lenses) and the 3rd generation (nFD) just looked a bit harsh while the 2nd gen (SSC - no chrome nose) looked better. Again, i will be shooting analog portraits with it so i need things to be a bit smoother
I should to a test between the three. I've read differing information on "SC" and "SSC" lenses with regard to coatings.
Some claim "SC" lenses are multi-coated, others state that "SSC" are single coated.
Looking at the Transmission - it appears the SSC lens is multi-coated. 93.3% for the Canon, 95% for the Nikkor. The Nikkor rates 95%, it is a 7 element in 5 group, the Canon is 7 elements in 6 groups. SO- the SSC 50/1.4 is multi-coated on all surfaces.
The 50/1.8 is an "SC" lens, was never made as an SSC series. Note transmission is lower, is a 6 element in 4 group design. SO- not all surfaces are multi-coated.
Some claim "SC" lenses are multi-coated, others state that "SSC" are single coated.
Looking at the Transmission - it appears the SSC lens is multi-coated. 93.3% for the Canon, 95% for the Nikkor. The Nikkor rates 95%, it is a 7 element in 5 group, the Canon is 7 elements in 6 groups. SO- the SSC 50/1.4 is multi-coated on all surfaces.
The 50/1.8 is an "SC" lens, was never made as an SSC series. Note transmission is lower, is a 6 element in 4 group design. SO- not all surfaces are multi-coated.
Last edited:
Nikon chart.
raid
Dad Photographer
I read somewhere that FD lenses are SSC super spectra coated too. Canon did not write SSC on the FD lenses.
Am I correct?
kbb
Newbie
SSC was Canon's symbol for the new more efficient multiple layer coating, which was all the rage in the early 1970's. SC was old-style single layer coating. The budget/kit lenses, like the 50/1.8 FD were single (SC) coated to make them more economical to buy.
santino
FSU gear head
That’s what I‘ve heard too.
"SSC" is on the name-ring of the FD breech-lock lenses, but not on the "n-FD" lenses .
There are lenses have multi-coated optics on some surfaces, not others.
There are lenses have multi-coated optics on some surfaces, not others.
raid
Dad Photographer
I sold my Canon 55mm 1.2 SSC to get a Canon FD 50mm 1.2 L. Both lenses were excellent overall.