According to Canon Camera Musem it looks that:
- FD series came on the market around 1971.
- They started to use markings S.C. and S.S.C. arount 1973.
- FDn (new FD) came around 1979.
- Autofocus EF came about 1986 ?
So:
- I have also heard that the FL and the first FD-series
(perhaps 1971-1973 ?) didn't have very good coatings.
- Does(n't) S.C. mean single and S.S.C. mean multicoating?
- S.C. was used in the "consumer" lenses, e.g. 50/1.8, 35/2.8,
28/2.8, 135 etc. The rest were S.S.C. After 1973.
- I'm not sure if I believe this but I have heard "someone"
mention that the new-FD lenses were all multicoated.
Actually I *believe* the cheapest lenses might have still
been S.C. coated.
- I have seen Canon mentioning somewhere that the EF-lenses
use "S.S.C." coating (who knows if it is the same as in
the FD-series).
And:
I agree the opinion that overall the current optical design
(with lots of computer processing power) creates optically better
lenses than what previously was possible. I believe coatings
haven't changed a lot and mechanically the new lenses give
worse impression.
But it is (in my opinion) not fair to compare the first FD-lenses
to current EF-lenses (if anyone is doing so). FD lenses were
produced for about 15 years which actually is about the same time
the EF-lenses have been made so far.
The comparison gets difficult also because on the FD-lens era the
focus was mostly in the on fixed focal length lenses but nowadays
the zoom lenses are "in". Most of the FD-lens era a "consumer"
lens was a "slow" (2.8 or 4-5.6 in long teles) fixed focal length
lens while today they are *slow* (3.5 or even 4 to 5.6) zooms.
But I bet the wide and standard zoom lenses in EF-series overall
are better than in FD-series considering also the currently wider
zoom range.
Also I believe all EF-teles (non-zooms) starting from 135mm are
better or equal to the FD-lenses, mainly because Canon doesn't
really make consumer lenses in that range. If we want to compare
EF75-300 zoom to FD300/5.6 the latter might win (no experience in
either)?
Couple years ago I still had FD lenses 17/4, 24/2.8, 35/2,
35-105/3.5, 50/3.5macro, 85/1.8, 70-210/4, 80-200/4L, 300/4,
300/4L and 1.4x & 2x extenders. 35 and 300/4 non-L were old
breech-lock series and I bet all were S.S.C.
I liked especially the 24, 35, 85 and 300/4L lenses and
80-200 was also great but I had it only for a short while.
In my current EOS lineup I have e.g. 24/2.8, 35/2, 100/2,
28-135/3.5-5.6 which roughly had counterparts in my FD setup.
Between 35, 24 and 85/100mm lenses I haven't noticed any practical
difference.
FD17/4 didn't seem to have very good contrast and my feeling is
that the L-versions of tele-zoom and 300/4 were much better than
the non-L. I feel the FD Ls keep up very well with EF-serie Ls.
Vesa
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
