It's great if one has a set of FD lenses. But it's getting harder to find good conditioned FD lenses from ebay.

Try to see if you can find good FD 24/2.0 in good condition at a reasonable price. Also 15/2.8, 28/2.0, 35/2.0. I feel... I missed a boat.

I kinda like fisheye distortion in photo. ACR can fix the distortion if I want to. In video I have no idea how to correct it. That's where Lumix 7-14 shines. It's rectilinear. Although it's slow at 4.0, it's the sharpest wide angle lens on m43 bodies.

As soon as one mixes FD w/ lumix m43 lenses, he faces challenge to match them. Thus all FDs or none... I think.

FD's sound like an inexpensive proposition unless you need a matching set. I like the FD image for narrative work.

The 14mm 2.8L will put you back 1K+ or you can get a 17mm f4 for $3-400. The wide side of the FD range can give you some headaches but when you use legacy glass this is always the case. It is harder to match modern lens to FD so this can be a turn off a lot of users.

If you have 4-5k you could get this set. Sounds expensive but it will probably double in value in another 10 years. This is the set that I am slowly building.

14mm F2.8L
24mm F1.4L
35mm F2 concave f16 version.
50mm F1.2L
85mm F1.2L
135mm F2

Maybe a 200mm f2.8 and 300mm F2.8L,

The contrast and color reproduction is deferent on L glass also the build quality is very nice. If you like the look then you are kind of stuck with the bill.

I think its cheap compared to what EF lenes go for, and the FDs are going hold there value a lot more. In 50 years most EF lens will not work anymore but the FDs will still be taking wonderful pictures.

Canon 50mm f1.4, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8, Kiron 28mm f2.0, Vivitar Series 1 90mm f2.5, Vivitar 100mm f2.8 (1:1 macro) are the ones i know and which i selected based on a lot of good comments. They are all very cheap (apart from the 85mm perhaps)

@stonebat
I don't understand the all or none comment. I mix Nikkor, OM, MD, FL, FD, nFD, CZ, Yashica, M42, and etc. with no trouble. Is there something useful about matching up?


@stoneinapond
The nFD 50/1.4 isn't great wide open but stop it down even 1/2 a stop and all the ghostly halos go away. Even at that the nFD version shown above, is better than the FD version with the S.S.C. printed on the ID ring which halos even worse WO - but again is cured in one full stop click (as opposed to 1/2 in the case of the nFD). :)


@bitcrusher
The nFD 24/2.0 actually has better IQ than the 24/1.4L so if you don't need the extra stop that'll save you some money.

Also the FL 58/1.2 is a good substitute for the 50/1.2L if you don't mind the extra 8mm of angle. :)


@anyone... :)
I have a buttload of FL/FD/nFD lenses and I like most of them. I don't think I would try to make some kind of matching set out of them for video and/or stills tho. Most are not exceptional IQ. Even the famous 85/1.2L for example is pretty terrible wide open. Way too much CA and almost all bright nFD lenses under 200mm (including L versions) halo and ghost in bright contrast. Like the Sun on shiny leaves or highlights on a pond surface. Stopped down they're better but most lenses are - better when stopped down I mean. I guess we could call it a soft-focus special effect or something. :D

Canon makes supremely awesome long lenses but I don't have enough love for the majority of the under 200mm group to become exclusively FD. Some newer EOS mount lenses are improved - especially the L versions but without special and very expensive adapters we can't control the aperture on EF (EOS) lenses. There are a few nice exceptional FL/FD/nFD lenses to be had for sure but finding out which ones to get or leaning how to avoid the trouble spots of each, can be kinda time consuming. I'm not saying to not buy/use them or anything. They're fun lenses and I think a great for experience and learning - if you're into alt glass don't skip the old Canons!

Here's the latest 9 Canons I sold or still for sale:




Canon_FDn_24mm_F2.0 - http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Auctions/Pages/Canon_FDn_24mm_F2.0/
Canon_FDn_24mm_F2.8 - http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Auctions/Pages/Canon_FDn_24mm_F2.8/
Canon_FDn_28mm_F2.8 - http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Auctions/Pages/Canon_FDn_28mm_F2.8/



Canon_FD_50mm_F1.4 - http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Auctions/Pages/Canon_FD_50mm_F1.4/
Canon_FD_135mm_F2.5 - http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Auctions/Pages/Canon_FD_135mm_F2.5/
Canon_FDn_135mm_F2.8 - http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Auctions/Pages/Canon_FDn_135mm_F2.8/



Canon_FL_200mm_F3.5 - http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Auctions/Pages/Canon_FL_200mm_F3.5/
Canon_FDn_200mm_F4.0 - http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Auctions/Pages/Canon_FDn_200mm_F4.0/
Canon_FL_200mm_F4.5 - http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Auctions/Pages/Canon_FL_200mm_F4.5/


I'm selling them over at FredMiranda.com here:

Sold: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/985376/
4Sale: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1003697/

Although usually I do the e-bay thing. :)

If anyone want to see some example photos taken with these just ask.

Want to add other useful info.

If you want tele zoom with very good image quality and extremely well build, look at Canon FD 80-200mm L F4 .
It is push-pull zoom, I think that it is on of the best, if not the best of them.
Not cheap (from manual F4 zooms only Contax Zeiss T* 80-200mm goes for similar prices).
But if you are ok with F4, you are covered.

http://www.fdreview.com/lens-review.php?itemid=122

My limited expirience with this lens proves that it is all true that you'll read in small user reviews.

>AT-X TOKINA 24-40/2.8 FD mount

I only read many threads about it, so info not from me directly, but as I understand this lens is not remarkable.
Build quality is good, as always in AT-X range, but sharpness is below average.
Better look at modern lenses like Tamron 17-50mm or Tamron 28-75mm (for Nikon or Pentax).
To compete with modern bad or average zooms you normally need best old zooms.
For primes it is not so clear.

Everyone is in need for speed thus f1.2 and f1.4 lenses are never cheap. Sometimes crazy over priced. The Canon FD macro 50 mm f3.5 is slow for a 50. Its a special purpose lens (macro). I got it very cheap and I always was putting the FD 50mm f1.2 or the Olympus 58mm f1.2 in my bag unless I took some time to play with the f3.5 macro. This lens produces so clean and sharp images that I now never use a f1.2 unless I really need the speed. However I can't tell if the macro beats a stopped down f1.2 lens.
Anyway I don't care about sharpness that much. The correction of chromatic abbreviation, coma and astigmatism is for me the key to good image quality and that seems to be where those high end lenses shine (not most of the expensive Canon L glass though!). The Canon FD 50mm f3.5 seams to be well corrected. As well as the Olympus OM 28mm f3.5. Also one of my favorites.

Another thing why the Canon macro excites me is macro film making. I'm new to this genre. The GH2 is so good for this task. Macro lens, GH2 in 720 60p plus 1:1 crop mode and you are in another world with very small gear! I will upload some footage I shot soon ...

thanks for the tip, Vitaliy! Sure enough my family will embrace another lens or two at home :-) "look, dad has a new nose!" "no, its just another lens" ... well, so be it.

I bought the Tokina 80-200 f2.8 because it's faster. But the quality is not as good as the Canon i suppose, although reasonable.

I've got an FD 55mm F/1.2 and an FD 24mm F/2.8

The 55mm is a wonderful lens (WAY HEAVY THOUGH!) and still looks pretty good wide open in low light, and has amazing depth of field and bokeh. The 24mm F/2.8 is sharp, but the image looks kinda "boring" to me. I'm glad I have it though, as the 55 is a very long lens on the GH2 and not great in many situations where a wide angle would be better.

Now if they made a 20mm f/1.2 I'd be one happy camper indeed. ;-)