You've made some pretty glaring errors in your video: - The FD mount came out in 1971, the FL mount came out in 1964. FL lenses may be compatible with the FD mount, but they still are technically different mounts. - FL does not mean fluorite, it just means... FL mount. I think you're getting it mixed up because the first fluorite lens, the FL-F 300mm f5.6, was on the FL mount. Fluorite lenses were also seen in the FD mount and later were officially designated as part of the L series. - FDn was not a bayonet mount.

@VideoNOLA

2 жыл бұрын

Even better, there's a wiki on the subject en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_FL_lens_mount

A couple of corrections are in order. FL lenses are not FD lenses. The difference between the two is that FD lenses meter wide open. FL lenses need to be stopped down to meter. FL does NOT refer to fluorite elements. There were two FL lenses that did use Fluorite. They were the 300mm 5.6 FL-F and the 500mm f5.6 FL-F. For those wondering, R lenses were pre-set lenses. That is, the diaphrams were completely manual.

@AshBashVids

4 жыл бұрын

@yumpladukfoo FL doesn't mean anything.

Very well done! Good look at the lineup as I'm looking to invest in some FD glass for my new mirrorless.

Thank you! I like the FD and nFD lenses very much!

Excellent video. Very informative.Thank you

Short and sweet, and straight to the point. Nice!

Currently using a FDn 50mm f1.2 and a FD Vivitar Series 1 28-105mm f2.8-3.8 on my Sony a6300, with the Lens Turbo II and oh boy, what great lenses they are

All of your Vintage Lens Videos are good , Keep it up :)

That was so useful thanks man! No need to get very old and heavy lenses. Clever!

Thanks for clearing up some misconceptions mate! Off to eBay now 👍🏼

I learnt so much with this 3 minutes, so informative, thanks!

Nice! I've been shooting with mirrorless m4/3 for two years now (first proper cameras since point and shoot quality), and i've been enjoying it alot. Along the way, i've also got into the habit of buying, testing, selling many lenses from various brands, seeing what sticks for my liking. Well, just lately i got lucky with the mint set of nFD 50mm f1.4, 35mm f2.8 and 70-210mm f4.0, mainly buying it for the f1.4, but so far, i've been quite impressed with all of the lenses. Yes, it's the usual film era quality but definitely on the better end of scale. It has that pleasant color output, great coating, quite sharp but more importantly how consistent in quality all these lenses are through-out. Especially wide open they are quite exceptional compared to the lot of them, with nice sharpness and very little negative traits. Quite impressive for vintage lenses now adapted to digital! Now i'm starting to see the Canon appeal, where as before they weren't my priority at all. With this experience, i'd really recommend nFD for mirrorless camera. Smallish, light-weight, and the nFD bayonet mount is vastly better than the breech-lock system. But they're plasticy (thus light in weight), and changing apertures is noticeably stiff. For this reason, these would be the first lenses i would consider turning apertures to clickless. nFD bayonet is good, but at the end of the list when it comes to mounting ease. Breech-lock especially is in my experience one of the worst mount type, i really don't like it at all. Give me PK any day all day :) Anyways, FD's are great lenses with great value!

Enjoying ever of your videos! Keep up your great work 👍

@mattpaulrice

6 жыл бұрын

Milonso, thanks a million! Hopefully they've been helpful so far.

From my collection I tested my three vintage 24mm lenses to see which was the sharpest and clearest, using my Sony A7Rii. This is how they came out. The Olympus was way clearer shaper than the rest. I didn't know what to expect when I did this test, but earlier in the day I noticed the poor focus on the Canon nFD 24mm. I could focus and go past the best focus without ever being sharp at all. So the tests tonight. Two and three were about equal, but different. 1) Olympus OM-System H.Zuiko Auto-W 24mm f2.8 (BEST) 2) Canon FD-N 24mm, f2.8 3) Asahi Super Multi Coated Takumar 24mm f3.5

Great video!

greetings excellent videos, I am from Chile dear and just now I can buy my first lens canon 28-85mm f4, which in my opinion is a good lens, I subcribe and goodbye

Can we use these lenses in fuji film cameras directly without an adapter ?

Love your videos keep it up!

@mattpaulrice

6 жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching!

Are they all compatible with each other?

I will be receiving in the near future from Japan, a Canon FL 55/f1.2 lens. I intend to use it on my Canon F1N and Canon A1. I will be using ISO 100 color negative. My camera setting will be at ISO 120. I am looking for literature that would show me how best to use this lens. Any thoughts will will be greatly appreciated. Best wishes

Recall when Canon dumped FD - such a shock but it was a smart move and lead to all of the benefits of EOS. Nikon tried it in small steps and failed resulting in multiple differences since the late 1980's. Of course now we have RF and with great backwards compatibility. I look forward to my first RF glass.

@Analogbrain

Жыл бұрын

And now, finally, an AE-1 Program costs 10 times more than an EOS 650...

You try to give the video more brightness it will be great if you do

You are forgetting the R mount lenses that came in 1959. They are compatible with most FL and FD cameras too.

Thanks for sharing!!!!

I've using them for over 40 years... now on a GH5.

I've got the 50mm 1.4 NFD, I've ever wonder what means the little red dot on the side of the number 4 signed in the part of the lens used to calculate the depth of field (or iperfocal if i'm not wrong). I am not talking of the big red dot used to align the lens on the camera attachement but the little red dot on the right side of the 4 in the barrel itself. Someone can answer me?

@charlesrice517

6 жыл бұрын

It's for infra-red adjustment

Which years did they start and stop using fluorite in their lenses? particularly the ones with radioactive elements inside the glass?

@Sup90210

Жыл бұрын

This video is full of a lot misinformation. FL doesn’t stand for fluorite and only two FL lenses used fluorite. Canon did use thorium in some of their lenses. Some of the early R lenses had it, the very first FL 50mm f1.4 and f1.8, the FL 58mm, the FD 35mm f2 (breech lock, concave front element and only go to f16) and the 3 FD aspherical primes.

Does the fd 55mm 1.2 with a breech lock have the super spectra coating? Mine does not have it on the rim and it’s not the chrome rimmed one either. Any help would be great.

@Sup90210

Жыл бұрын

There’s a lot of misinformation about SC versus SSC; both are multi coatings, it was really just a marketing thing in the 70’s as it was a cheap way to up-sale people and there was a big “coating” war between lens makers. Some of the early FD’s like the 55mm 1.2 and 35mm f2 are believed to have SSC. TBH just use a lens hood and you’ll never be able to tell.

So where does the Canon "R" mount fit in to your scheme of Canon breech mounts? The R mount is also the same breech and physically mates with the FL and FD mount, although the pins are totally different, and was used on Canon's first SLR with interchangeable lenses from 1959 until it was superceded by the FL mount. And you are aware that Canon didn't start working on their "F program" to develop fluorite lenses until 1966 and it is a stretch to believe that Canon named a lens series after "Fluorite" two years before the inception of the FL series, especially since they had to start planning, designing and making the lenses some time before 1964 as it's not a simple affair to make a lens plus designing cameras. Especially since Canon themselves talk more about the L lenses as the start of their fluorite lenses.

@VideoNOLA

2 жыл бұрын

"L" = "fLuorite" optics "FL" = FL lens mount

i have canon Ftb ql body, can i attach the NFD lens on its body?

@kangag3

4 жыл бұрын

Yes. They’ll work just as well as the older FD Breech Mount lens.

I have two 50mm 1.4 Canon lenses. Ones is an NFD, the other is an FD (NOT SSC) idk which to keep. Is one superior? or do they essentially perform the same in terms of optics?

@Sup90210

Жыл бұрын

They’re the same optically. Personally I would keep the FD version as the build quality of them is superior. The nFD’s are almost all plastic. There’s a lot of misinformation about SC versus SSC; both are multi coatings, it was really just a marketing thing in the 70’s as it was a cheap way to up-sale people and there was a big “coating” war between lens makers.

Does anyone know if the FD 50mm f/1.8 SC contains thorium?

@Sup90210

Жыл бұрын

The only FDs with Thorium are the first 35mm f2’s and the 3 aspherical primes. The very first FL 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 have thorium

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but a 50mm FD lens on a mirrorless camera with a simple FD to M43 mount adapter line K&F's is like a 100mm lens?

@vinjemmy

4 жыл бұрын

you are correct

@Sup90210

Жыл бұрын

Your FOV is like a 100mm. A 50mm is still a 50mm no matter what size sensor you use it with. If you want the look/compression of a 100mm you want to use a 100mm.

The video sound is pretty good, beyond my imagination

Are the SSC lenses radioactive? Thanks -C

@Sup90210

Жыл бұрын

No, only the early FD 35mm f2 with a concave front element and the 3 aspherical primes they made.

Could anyone tell me which are the vintage Canon lenses that have a front Concave lens element? I know some gens of FD 35mm F2 are but anyone with knowing more or a complete list?

@Sup90210

Жыл бұрын

The only FD lens with a concave front element is the early versions of the 35mm f2. You can tell cause they have the original breech lock mount and only go to F16. The SSC versions are over priced, but you can still get the optically identical chrome nose version at good prices. The yellow tint from the thorium element can be removed with an IKEA LED lamp

@samsen3965

Жыл бұрын

@@Sup90210 🙏 Do you know of any other manufacturers producing front concave vintage lenses?

@Sup90210

Жыл бұрын

@@samsen3965 there are but you’d to need to spend some time researching. I’m not aware of a complete list.

@samsen3965

Жыл бұрын

@@Sup90210 Thanks anyways. I am aware of a bunch of them but was hoping to find a link to one good site that has this in a precise and comprehensive manner.

One thing you have ommited to say Matt is that no FL, FD or FDn 50mm f1.8 lenses were ever SSC multi-coated.

@Sup90210

Жыл бұрын

There’s a lot of misinformation about SC versus SSC; both are multi coatings, it was really just a marketing thing in the 70’s as it was a cheap way to up-sale people and there was a big “coating” war between lens makers.

Thinking of getting a Canon FD 50mm 1.4 - Should I get the nFD or the SSC? It the bokeh of the nFD better than the SSC???

@martyzielinski2469

5 жыл бұрын

Not sure about the bokeh of the newer lens, but the old SSC lens is excellent. A test done some years back revealed very high image quality in the FDn, but this lens also suffered from field curvature. I prefer and often shoot with the 50 SSC. A marvelous lens.

@livelongandprosper70

5 жыл бұрын

you didnt listen to this video at all did you ?? they are the SAME optical quality and they BOTH have SSC

@sugarkonny6119

3 жыл бұрын

@@livelongandprosper70 Canon FD 1.4/50 SSC and New FD 1.4/50mm Both are seven element Double Gauss designs. The fingerprint is similar to the 1.8 designs. No astigmatism, strong curvature of field, some slight pincushion distortion, low level of vignetting (causing the corners to be very weak in performance). Wide open at 1.4 the SSC version has excellent quality in the center area (6mm central disc), but again contrast is low and resolution high with more than 125 lp/mm. Going to the corners there is a rapid drop to about 30 lp/mm, where the lines have soft edges, giving the pattern a blurred appearance. At f/2 edge contrast improvs and at f/4 we have good overall contrast. Usable resolution in the outer ones has reached 40 lp/mm and at f/8 we have excellent performance with 125lp/mm in the central disc and 77 lp/mm over the rest of the image field, excepting the corners, where we see at best 30 lp/m. Flare is strong on axis at wider apertures. The new FD version of the 1.4/50 lens shows the same performance with a slight improvement in the outer zones and overall some higher micro contrast and a more even performance over the whole image area.The new FD is shorter, more compact and has less weight: to have the same performance as the larger predecessor is qute good and overall the performance is better than most films could deliver in those days. Both are not stellar performers, even if Canon indicates these to be their main lenses as referece for the rest. Mechanical quality is very high and they are better than the 1.8 versions. Here I would choose the new FD version. The Canon FD 1.2/55mm SSC Aspherical Here we entering a new game! "Erwin Puts"

@Sup90210

Жыл бұрын

There’s a lot of misinformation about SC versus SSC; both are multi coatings, it was really just a marketing thing in the 70’s as it was a cheap way to up-sale people and there was a big “coating” war between lens makers.

Dont know the NFD has SSC but no letters... nice info

@livelongandprosper70

5 жыл бұрын

1.4 and up .. not the 1.8 tho AFAIK

@Sup90210

Жыл бұрын

There’s a lot of misinformation about SC versus SSC; both are multi coatings, it was really just a marketing thing in the 70’s as it was a cheap way to up-sale people and there was a big “coating” war between lens makers.

What about the Canon R lenses?

@martyzielinski2469

5 жыл бұрын

These are something of a rarity. I would avoid them unless very reasonably priced. This is based on an assumption. Nearly all of my FD lenses outperform their older FL counterparts. And the R lenses are even older than the FL line, which aside from the superb 50 f1.4 and 55 f1.2, are weak performers. I have the 19mm, 28, 35, 55 and 135 FL lenses, but only like the 55. 24mm, 35, and 85mm FD are reasonably good. The 28 FD is Fair/good and the 200 is simply awful. The 50 f1.4, 55 f1.2 and 100mm f2.8 are all excellent.

Nice :)

Just picked up a 50mm FD 1.8, for $20.

good video, but it would have been better to clean the lenses before you filmed them..no?

any one ever used fd 55mm f1.2 , is it good ?

@mattpaulrice

6 жыл бұрын

I'd be interested to know this as well. Hopefully we can find someone who has some firsthand experience with using this lens. Maybe one day, I will get my hands on one and let you know.

@marioarias9942

6 жыл бұрын

I'm using the 55mm 1.2 aspherical on my omd mirrorless but haven't noticed any extra sharpness or color benefits then the standard fd 50mm 1.8 yet .

@mattpaulrice

6 жыл бұрын

Thanks for sharing Mario! I've also read that the nfd 50mm f1.8 is one of the few nfd lenses made without the Super Spectra coating (I believe it just came with the lower grade Spectra coating instead) That may make it a little more prone to flaring than the 55mm.

@PissTakeProduction

6 жыл бұрын

Ordered one so keep an eye out on my channel ;-)

@martyzielinski2469

6 жыл бұрын

The 55 mm f1.2 FL lens is SPECTACULARLY good if you stop it down past f2. At widest apertures, it has an unnatractive foggy look though the “core” of the image is sharp corner to corner. By f4, performance is world class for that aperture, and by f5.6, it approaches perfection. It outperforms my 50mm Summicron at ALL stops, and mops the floor with my f1.4 Zein’s Planar. This is the older FL Canon lens, not to be confused with the newer FD version. I had used one of these newer FD lenses back in the 80s, and found that one to be simply awful. It wasn’t even sharp at middle apertures. But my 55 FL is simply stunning.....

Until today, I hadn't realized FD lenses could be used on modern mirrorless camera bodies. That's neat! Too bad I sold all my Canon FD lenses recently.

Lol I barely noticed the 85mm cough *$12k cough*

It is called Canon FDn Lenses, NOT NFD !

Sheesh! The Canon FDn mount was NOT a bayonet mount. It was simply a modified version of the FD breechlock mount in which the entire outer barrel of the lens is rotated rather than the chrome ring at the base of the lens. The inner barrel of the FDn lenses NEVER rotates when mounting, nor does the lens mount rotate as in a bayonet mount lens,

"better build quality" of the older FDs... yet all of the older FD lenses you have there look like shit lmao

Almost all nfd lenses are made of metal.

あなたの最初の誕生日プレゼントは何ですか？

There are so many errors in your video this should really be a guide as to what the Canon FD system is not.

Please bear in mind that none of the Canon FD 50mm f1.8 lenses old or new has ever been S.S.C. multi-coated.

@livelongandprosper70

5 жыл бұрын

true.. but TBH SSC does nothing anyway..

@Sup90210

Жыл бұрын

There’s a lot of misinformation about SC versus SSC; both are multi coatings, it was really just a marketing thing in the 70’s as it was a cheap way to up-sale people and there was a big “coating” war between lens makers. Just use a good lens hood and you’ll be fine.

I must take issue with one assertion here. My limited experience with the FDn lenses has been disappointing. The 50mm f1.4 SSC has a flatter field of focus compared to the newer FDN version. The older 28mm f2.8 SC also easily outperforms the newer one. Though not quite a fair comparison, the 100mm f2.8 SSC is VASTLY better than the FDn 100mm f4 macro. In fact, the macro is just passible close up, and rather poor at infinity. The 100 SSC is world class sharp, arguably better than the modern 70-200 and 70-300 L series zooms. Those FDn 50mm f1.8 lenses that came standard on the AE 1 are weak performers as well.

Most of the Canon FD line of lenses are junk. The SSC coatings try but ultimately fail to repeal flare. Most of them are adequately sharp but doesn't compare like Nikkor lenses. My Nikkor lenses resolved better and have more microcontrast and metal build quality. No wonder why Canon ditched FD mount for EF because they where loosing to the far more superior Nikon lenses.

@AshBashVids

4 жыл бұрын

The first L lenses were on the FD mount.

@longde

4 жыл бұрын

bullshit. And I say this as someone who currently owns 21 classic manual focus Nikkor lenses.

I prefer the older FD lens mounting, I find the nFD to be overly complex, and more susceptible to jamming, use FD lenses daily and have tone for 35 years