Opinions? Which is better on m43: FD or Supertakumar

As with all things, it depends on the lens. Some are better than others. You'd have to go through a lens-by lens comparison. I love nearly all my FD/FL lenses (the 28/2.8 is a dog in terms of bokeh, but it was cheap), but I did my research before I bought them. I'm sure you'll find really good Super-Taks, and probably some dogs in that bunch as well.

Your best bet is to look through online galleries for lenses in the focal length you want, and compare them that way.

 

I've had some issues fitting both breech and bayonet lenses to FD adapters. To fit the breech lock lenses I had to sand the top of the adapter just a tad. This is with the cheaper adapters, but you can make them fit.

 

FD or FDn

 

Same difference. FD/FL are breech lock, FDn is bayonet. What I wrote applies to both.

 

I have not had any problem fitting either the FD or the FDn lens to the cheap chinese adaptors

are you saying that you had a problem fitting both the FD and FDn lenses to the Chinese adapters - i.e. you have problems with both breach lock and bayonet fittings

The breach lock can be a bit "sticky" and a fiddle to fit

They are a little more difficult to "line up" correctly than other MF lenses

 

I can say this about Canons: except for the FDn L series and earlier FD aspherics, it can be hit-or-miss. I have 7 Canon primes that I have tested and used on my m43 cameras and 4 are superb the other 3 I can't use at all. CA correction is the biggest issue. I think the performance of the FDn series is better in general but I have an FL series ( this has to be from the mid 1960s) 50mm macro that is actually fantastic.

 

I can see how what I wrote is unclear - I've had issues fitting both breech lock and bayonet lenses on the same adapter, yes. Meaning I've only been able to fit the bayonet lenses (i.e. FDn mount) without modifying the adapter. To fit the breech lock lenses (whether FD or FL mount) I've had to modify the adapter.

 

Hi Dragos

I found the FD lens, (say, 35mm f2) to be a lot more difficult to fit than the FDn, (say, 50mm f1.4 etc.,)
Both are a little tricky until you get the "knack" as in order for the aperture ring to function the lens will only fit on the adapter in one way and it is a tight fit - at first I thought that the adapter was defective - it took me about 4 or 5 attempts to get it "right"

Cheers

 

Depends how many adapters you buy - as once they are on you are "sorted" - they are cheap anyway

The Canon FD and FDn lenses are good - i still have an A1 plus quite a lot of FD(n) glass that I bought in the late 1970s - the FD 35mm f2 and the 50mm 1.4 plus the 55mm macro, (or is it 50mm not sure as I have the Nikkor 55mm f3.5) are worth having

I have recently bought a FDn 200mm F2.8 - but I have still to get "comfortable" with it - it's a bit disappointing probably because of the size and difficulty to focus - in fact I find any MF lens over 100mm slow to use because of accurate focusing

Good luck - both Canon and Pentax are good as is Nikkor, (which would be my choice of SLR lens)

Cheers

 

My FD adapter works perfectly with nFD bayonets, but with breech lock FD lenses I can't rotate the breech as far as it would normally on a Canon SLR body. This means that as well as not being as secure as it could be, the aperture pin is not rotated all the way which limits the minimum aperture to approx f11 depending on the lens. After that the aperture won't stop down any further. I prefer to use nFD bayonet lenses than the FD breech lenses anyway because they all use the super spectra coating (except for the 50mm/f1.8) and mostly because they tend to be significantly lighter than their earlier counterparts.

 

I have 3 FDs, 1 breech, 2 bayonet. 2 x cheap adapters and no trouble with any of it. Not impressed with the 28mm f/2.8 but the 50mm f/1.8 breech and 70-210 f/4 are both fine, particularly the 50mm which is excellent, even wide open.

 

I've done tests on various 50mm lenses on micro 4/3 Panasonics.

You be the judge:

CENTRE wide open
SMC Takumar 50mm F1.4 @ F1.4 (centre)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Super-Takumar 50mm F1.4 @ F1.4 (centre)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Canon FD 50mm SSC F1.4 @ F1.4 (centre)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

CORNER wide open
SMC Takumar 50mm F1.4 @ F1.4 (corner)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Super-Takumar 50mm F1.4 @ F1.4 (corner)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Canon FD 50mm SSC F1.4 @ F1.4 (corner)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

CORNER @ F4
SMC Takumar 50mm F1.4 @ F4 (corner)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Canon FD 50mm SSC F1.4 @ F4 (corner)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

All my manual focus lenses are Canon FD, as they seem great value for the money. The only direct comparisons I've done to Super Taks are the 50/1.4 and 135mm lenses (Canon f/2.8, Super Tak f/3.5). I've also compared the Canons to various other makes. In each case I preferred the Canon, mostly for the sharpness/contrast wide open, and the resistance to flare. Yes, the adapters are a little more fiddly than most, but it's really a non-issue once you realise how they work.

 

I'll probably end up going with some old FD glass myself but some others are tempting.

Some of the old OM glass is nice and small which would be nice.

...And some of the old Rokkor glass really tempts me - see this thread full of rokkor images...
ROKKOR Normal-ish Image Thread - FM Forums

 

The lenses I researched and selected/kept on purpose:

FL 55/1.2
FD 50/1.4
Tokina 90/2.5
Tamron SP 24-48
Vivitar 70-210/3.5
FD 135/2.5
FD 35/2 SSC

I like and use all these lenses both on my GH1 and on my F-1/FTb.