1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Canon FD 55mm F1.2 S.S.C. price?

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by rxstuve, May 20, 2012.

  1. rxstuve

    rxstuve Mu-43 Regular

    46
    Mar 14, 2012
    USA
    I am very new to this forum and Micro 4/3. In fact so new I am not really part of it yet as i am still waiting for my pre order OMD. Last real camera I had was film!! Not counting my point and shoot 5 years old and iPhones.

    anyway, while waiting and reading this forum I am learning so much and appreciate all of your input and knowledge. Locally via Craigslist there is some FD mount lenses available and one in particular I have read is pretty good. 55mm F1.2 s.s.c. but non ashperical. What is a reasonable price to expect to pay for this? They are asking $260. and that seems like a lot for a lens that old but hey what do i know thats why I'm asking all of you. :)

    Here is the actual list. I appreciate any input on what is a good lens to grab and a reasonable price.

    Canon 28mm 1:2.8 - SOLD
    -
    Canon 100mm 1:2.8 - $100
    -
    Canon 55mm 1:1.2 - $260
    -
    Canon 200mm 1:4 - $120
    -
    Canon 35-70mm 1:2.8-3.5 - $60
    -
    Vivitar Auto Telephoto 135mm 1:2.8 - $80
    -
    Canon Extender FD 2X-A - $60
     
  2. lenshoarder

    lenshoarder Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 7, 2010
    I'll give you a three part answer. Is it worth that? Yes. Will he get that if he holds out? Yes. Would I pay that? No way. Why not just get a F1.4 for $50?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. rxstuve

    rxstuve Mu-43 Regular

    46
    Mar 14, 2012
    USA
    55 mm F 1.2

    So at 1.2 or 1.4 is this a good lens for adaptive shooting?
     
  4. chicks

    chicks Mu-43 Top Veteran

    876
    Feb 1, 2012
    The Big Valley, CA
    The Canon FD's are nice lenses, but tend to be heavy, especially the older breech-lock type.
     
  5. lenshoarder

    lenshoarder Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 7, 2010
    What do you mean "adaptive"?
     
  6. DeeJayK

    DeeJayK Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 8, 2011
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Keith
    I'm going to have to go along with Lenshoarder on this one. $260 is certainly not a screaming bargain, but it might be a decent price depending on the condition. KEH has a copy for sale for $299 that they judge as "Excellent+" and from what I know KEH is generally conservative in their grading, so their copy must be very close to mint. I'd be surprised if the condition of the Craigslist lens is as good as the KEH copy.

    I also agree that the 1.4 (or even the 1.8) would give you most of what the 1.2 would at a fraction of the cost. That said 1.2's will give you that ultra-creamy bokeh, if that's your thing. The tradeoff for the f/1.2 is weight, that lens weighs over 600 grams, versus around 230g for the f/1.4 and 170g for the f/1.8. That extra weight negates one of the biggest benefits of :43:.

    For me, though, the REAL competitor is the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 (which offers autofocus and weighs in at 116g). At $260-300 you're knocking on the door of the Oly, which retails for $400, but is occasionally (though not at the moment, unfortunately) available reconditioned direct from Olympus for $320.

    In short, I don't feel that any f/1.2 is the best choice for a first adapted lens.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. lenshoarder

    lenshoarder Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 7, 2010
    Hm... about average. Glass is glass. When the aperature gets that big then the glass is the overwhelming factor. I just pull one out and weighed it. 236 grams. I pulled out a Takumar F1.4. 240 grams.
     
  8. KVG

    KVG Banned User

    May 10, 2011
    yyc(Calgary, AB)
    Kelly Gibbons
    Legacy 1.2 lenses are soft as hell and you pay a ton for a lens you will probably use at 1.4 or smaller aperture. You should buy a legacy 1.4 and enjoy or spend more and get a native lens, IMO.
     
  9. The price sounds reasonable, but I think the lens is better for the sake of collectability rather than usability. As KVG says, I couldn't recommend the f/1.2 over an f/1.4 lens that weighs half as much and is just as sharp or sometimes sharper.
     
  10. KVG

    KVG Banned User

    May 10, 2011
    yyc(Calgary, AB)
    Kelly Gibbons
    ^Agreed. The price seems fair, but having owned a 1.2 it weighed more than my camera and it was unusable at f1.2. Worst case if you bought it and didn't like it you should be able to recoup most or all of your investment.
     
  11. rxstuve

    rxstuve Mu-43 Regular

    46
    Mar 14, 2012
    USA
    Thanks for all the great scoop!! By adaptive I meant adapting lenses to a body other than it was designed for.

    I think I'll stick with native lenses until I learn more about this subject, maybe a 14mm Panasonic deals are very good right now.

    You all have been very helpful

    Semper Fi
     
  12. KVG

    KVG Banned User

    May 10, 2011
    yyc(Calgary, AB)
    Kelly Gibbons
    The 14 is a fantastic lens, but you may want to look at the 20/25 as well if your after shallower dof.