Visual Difference between Canon FD and EF lenses?

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G

11/10/2010 01:49:52 PM · #1

Hey all,

So I'm wondering what the visual difference is between FD and EF lenses (all the old-timer photographers will know what I'm talking about)? I know that FD lenses won't fit on EOS mounts and EF lenses won't fit on FD mounts.

The question I'm asking is just the visual difference. I am getting into B&W film photography myself, and bought a Canon FTb with a couple of FD lenses. I also bought a Canon EOS 300 so I can get Auto-Focus and use my current EF lenses on it.

So really, why did Canon change from FD to EF?? Is there an actual quality difference between the two? If so, could you tell me your experiences shooting with both on B&W film?

Many thanks!

-Drew

JamesA

Nikon D800

11/10/2010 02:02:21 PM · #2

Whats film?

CEJ

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

11/10/2010 02:04:29 PM · #3

never mind...useless factoid.

Message edited by author 2010-11-10 14:08:55.

Yo_Spiff

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

11/10/2010 02:16:57 PM · #4

The FD lens appears to be strictly mechanical, while the EF style has electrical contacts to communicate with the camera. You can see photos of the mounts in these Wikipedia entries:
FD lenses
EF lenses

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

11/10/2010 02:23:35 PM · #5

So that seems to be the only difference between the two? Canon switched to EF because of electronic components? Makes sense... but I wonder if if there is any visual difference between the FD and EF lenses!

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

11/10/2010 02:26:14 PM · #6

Originally posted by drew_makeanimpact:

I've heard many oldtimers swear their FD lenses are much better than the early EF lenses...

Clearly, with today's technology (IS, Fluorite lenses, coatings, etc) I'm pretty sure the modern lenses have significantly better IQ, but then again, I'm also certain there are those who will disagree.. :)

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

11/10/2010 04:38:18 PM · #7

It's interesting you say that Cory, but how do you define "better"? Maybe the FD lenses contribute to the "film look."

Yo_Spiff

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

11/10/2010 04:46:58 PM · #8

I guess I misunderstood the question. When you said visual difference, I thought you were asking how to tell them apart. Now I realize you meant image quality.

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

11/10/2010 04:50:15 PM · #9

Originally posted by drew_makeanimpact:

It's interesting you say that Cory, but how do you define "better"? Maybe the FD lenses contribute to the "film look."

My definition would include resolving power (lines per inch), resistance to flare, contrast, etc. The "technical" aspects if you will... Then there are those who own Lens-babies, I can't fathom why anyone would pay so much for such horrible images, but, again, everyone prefers something different...

ETA:
There is probably somewhat less variation between older FD lenses than there is in the EF mount lenses... Most of the FD mount lenses I've used seemed to be really solid, high quality lenses, while some of the EF mount lenses (particularly of the EF-S variety) are quite awful.. My 80-200 EF is one such example.. I think that may be due to the pressure for Canon to release very inexpensive kit lenses that will make DSLR entry less prohibitive to beginners, at the cost of quite a bit of IQ...

Message edited by author 2010-11-10 16:54:25.

11/10/2010 05:46:54 PM · #10

Cool. When I shoot film I want it to look like a classic film look, and I'm not sure if EF lens will make the image too "clean" and modern.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

11/10/2010 05:55:30 PM · #11

There were really two major technical drivers for the change. The first was to incorporate electronic communication between the body and lens, The second was mechanical/optical - a larger mount diameter was seen as necessary for the optical designs they wanted to execute.
Neither EF nor FD lenses are inherently optically "better" than the other, but the EF mount does enable designs that were not possible with FD. One small give-back of the EOS system is that the distance from the mount flange to the sensor (or film) plane, known as the register distance, is slightly larger for EOS, meaning FD lenses cannot be adapted and maintain infinity focus without incorporating optics in the adapter. This is why it's not considered possible to use FD lenses on an EOS body. In fact, it is technically possible with some lenses, particularly the super-telephotos, to replace the FD mount with an EOS mount, while shortening the flange. It's normally not economical, however, and I don't know anyone that is currently doing it. There was one gentleman who was planning on offering conversion as a service some years ago, but I believe he passed away before he could really launch the service.