[pinholecam]

As the thread title.
Pentax K50/1.2 compared with Canon FD55/1.2 SSC


Very informal comparison between the two, though I try to keep their FOV the same.







My own thoughts are that the Canon is a bit sharper, but its OOF rendering is not as smooth as the K50/1.2.
It also produced cooler colors while the Pentax was warmer and closer to the scene as I remembered it.

This is not the first time I have informally compared the two, but this is one of those where I still kept the shots, so might as well share them here.
To me, both can be good depending on the user's needs/wants, but for me, the Pentax is the better lens (bokeh and correct color)
Its pretty sad to me that when I am on other forums, the Pentax is clearly unmentioned (or seldom so) compared to other f1.2 50's.
Sometimes its just a matter of enough people singing loudly about a particular lens (easier if the user base is large) that makes it pass onto self sustaining legend that its the best 50mm f1.2.
So many such lenses get termed with fanciful names as "Bokeh King"; "Bokeh Monster", "Ultimate lens" while a lens that is easily on par if not better than some of them remains unknown.

---

Last edited by pinholecam; 10-25-2014 at 10:22 PM.

[luftfluss]

This is the kind of thing that people who evaluate lenses only by looking at MFT graphs miss. Its frustrating trying to explain to people.

Thanks for posting this comparison. Clearly both lenses are capable.

[Kerrowdown]

its OOF rendering is not as smooth as the K50/1.2

I would agree with you on this, I have its later cousin SMC Pentax-A 50mm F1.2, which is known as my "Special Lady” which kinda says it all.

[ivanvernon]

Thanks for this very interesting comparison. I am curious how/what camera you used for the FD 55 mm 1.2 Canon lens. Was the mount converted to K? If the FD was in K mount, were the two lens tested on the same camera?

I have the Canon FD 55 1.2 as well as the FL version of the same lens, both remounted to K mount and therefore usable on Pentax cameras. I particularly like the FL version as it is a preset lens, and you can use A/v mode and skip the green button metering step. I have not had the chance to use the Pentax 50 f 1.2, so found this comparison quite interesting.

---

Last edited by ivanvernon; 10-26-2014 at 07:11 AM. Reason: spelling correction

[Outis]

I definitely prefer the Pentax version-- the colors are richer and the bokeh is smoother.

[pinholecam]

This is the kind of thing that people who evaluate lenses only by looking at MFT graphs miss. Its frustrating trying to explain to people.

Thanks for posting this comparison. Clearly both lenses are capable.

Yes, very much so nowadays when the easiest access to 'knowledge' of a lens is its lens review and the numbers that make up the review.
Its a low lying fruit imo, gives the impression that one spends the money and that lens capability is his (but not the ability to make photos with it )
Very hard to convince most newbies on the merit of Pentax considering size, colors, rendering, build, etc.
Unfortunately most of them look at branding and lens 'reviews'

The Pentax K50/1.2 is also better built (sturdy) and smaller than the FD55/1.2 (and my Revuenon 55/1.2)
Another plus point that can't be shown on most paper lens reviews.

Thanks for this very interesting comparison. I am curious how/what camera you used for the FD 55 mm 1.2 Canon lens. Was the mount converted to K? If the FD was in K mount, were the two lens tested on the same camera?

I have the Canon FD 55 1.2 as well as the FL version of the same lens, both remounted to K mount and therefore usable on Pentax cameras. I particularly like the FL version as it is a preset lens, and you can use A/v mode and skip the green button metering step. I have not had the chance to use the Pentax 50 f 1.2, so found this comparison quite interesting.

I'm using my lenses on a Sony A7 now for the FF.
Interesting that you managed to convert it to K mount.
I had thought it impossible short of major surgery.
I even tried a FD55/1.2 that was converted to Canon EOS mount (5D) once, and that conversion left it unable to focus beyond 3m.

Is your conversion DIY, or does it involve a purchase of a conversion kit?
I thought the much shorter flange distance would be a problem for K-mount?

[ivanvernon]

Yes, very much so nowadays when the easiest access to 'knowledge' of a lens is its lens review and the numbers that make up the review.
Its a low lying fruit imo, gives the impression that one spends the money and that lens capability is his (but not the ability to make photos with it )
Very hard to convince most newbies on the merit of Pentax considering size, colors, rendering, build, etc.
Unfortunately most of them look at branding and lens 'reviews'

The Pentax K50/1.2 is also better built (sturdy) and smaller than the FD55/1.2 (and my Revuenon 55/1.2)
Another plus point that can't be shown on most paper lens reviews.




I'm using my lenses on a Sony A7 now for the FF.
Interesting that you managed to convert it to K mount.
I had thought it impossible short of major surgery.
I even tried a FD55/1.2 that was converted to Canon EOS mount (5D) once, and that conversion left it unable to focus beyond 3m.

Is your conversion DIY, or does it involve a purchase of a conversion kit?
I thought the much shorter flange distance would be a problem for K-mount?

dcshooter has answered below, and it was this fine forum member who did my mount conversion. He has all the answers. dcshooter converted my FL 55 to K mount, and then gave it a splendid silver anodizing job so it sort of matches up with my Pentax 77 limited in color and appearance, though of course the all heavy metal Canon 55 is a good deal larger and heavier.


I likea the FL 55 1.2 better than any other 50 mm lens for sharpness and color rendition, but the Pentax 50 mm f 2.8 macro is fully its equal in sharpness, but not for bokeh.


I am looking into also converting a Canon FL 55 f 1.2 aspherical to K mount. That lens, however, costs about $1,500 prior to the conversion, so I want to make sure it can be done before investing in a lens.


I cannot say anything about thje Canon FL/FD f 1.2 compared to Pentax 50 mm f 1.2 because I do not have that Pentax lens or access to it. I am a Pentax user almost 100%, so may be a little biased toward Pentax when the differences are intangible, but my Canon FL/FD 55 mm fd 1.2 are the two best I have seen at the 1.2 aperture level. Color rendering beats the Pentax 50 mm f 1.4, which I do have.


These are all great lens, however, so none of us need to be too concerned about the minor differences one way or the other.


Cheers to all,


ivan

[hoanpham]

I have several at f1.2, both pentax K and A, canon FL, FD and FD ssc Asph. I am using many bodies K5/7, canon 5d/5dm2 and sony 5n/A7r.

I found that pentax A50/1.2 has some what more purple fringing than the other. My A50/1.2 is a bit sharper than K50/1.2 but very close.
The Canons do surprisingly good at f1.2, but they wont fit the pentax without modification. I like the rending of FL. It is an old lens, and still do good at f1.2.
The FD ssc Aspherical is the best older f1.2 for SLR I have tested.

Also the nikon pre AI 55/1.2 also fit on pentax body, but no click lock.
This is the story of the lens if someone interested: http://www.nikkor.com/story/0049/

[ivanvernon]

I have several at f1.2, both pentax K and A, canon FL, FD and FD ssc Asph. I am using many bodies K5/7, canon 5d/5dm2 and sony 5n/A7r.

I found that pentax A50/1.2 has some what more purple fringing than the other. My A50/1.2 is a bit sharper than K50/1.2 but very close.
The Canons do surprisingly good at f1.2, but they wont fit the pentax without modification. I like the rending of FL. It is an old lens, and still do good at f1.2.
The FD ssc Aspherical is the best older f1.2 for SLR I have tested.

Also the nikon pre AI 55/1.2 also fit on pentax body, but no click lock.
This is the story of the lens if someone interested: NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights: Tale 49: - The challenge to develop a large-diameter f/1.2 lens - Nikkor-S Auto 55mm F1.2 By Haruo Sato

Thank you for sharing this information. I am wondering which camera body you use for the Canon FD and FL lenses? I have both the FD and FL 55 mm f 1.2 lenses, and both are converted to K mount. I use them on all my Pentax cameras--K-20, K-7, K-5II, and K-3. The FL 1.2 is turning out to be my favorite of all 50 mm lens so far. However, I am also interested in the 50 or the 55 FD or FL 1.2 aspherical. Some photography experts say this is the best 50 mm lens ever built. I would like to convert one of the 50/55 asphericals to K-mount, but I have not yet purchased one of the lenses to work on. I will be quite interested in any thoughts/comments you might offer on the aspherical K-Mount conversion project.

[hoanpham]

Thank you for sharing this information. I am wondering which camera body you use for the Canon FD and FL lenses? I have both the FD and FL 55 mm f 1.2 lenses, and both are converted to K mount. I use them on all my Pentax cameras--K-20, K-7, K-5II, and K-3. The FL 1.2 is turning out to be my favorite of all 50 mm lens so far. However, I am also interested in the 50 or the 55 FD or FL 1.2 aspherical. Some photography experts say this is the best 50 mm lens ever built. I would like to convert one of the 50/55 asphericals to K-mount, but I have not yet purchased one of the lenses to work on. I will be quite interested in any thoughts/comments you might offer on the aspherical K-Mount conversion project.

Dear ivanvernon,
I use the canon FL/FD lenses with sony a7r. I prefer to keep the lens' mount unchanged.
It is more economic for me to buy a sony as I have several FD/FL lenses.
The sony is far from perfect, but it is FF and can also be used with Konica AR, Minolta SR and range finder lenses as well.
It is also risky to convert a lens with floating element, like FD 85/1.2L, it might be difficult to change mount.

Mine is FD 55/1.2 ssc Aspherical. It is the best normal SLR I have tested so far.
I have not tried the nikon nokt, and can't say much about the nikon.
I also tested the canon range finder 50/1.2 (leica ltm mount), which is at least equal to SLR cousin, or may be better.
I don't have any favorite; they are just slightly different, and I like all of them...

[pinholecam]

+1 to using the A7 or a nex for the FD lenses.
No risk of damage to the lens, and as plus point, the Pentax lenses work on the A7 as FF.

When looking for info on FD 55/1.2, I found that a lot of times, its unclear if the user put up sample images from the ASPH or non-ASPH, I'd suspect that the real good samples I've sen were from the ASPH.

[ivanvernon]

+1 to using the A7 or a nex for the FD lenses.
No risk of damage to the lens, and as plus point, the Pentax lenses work on the A7 as FF.

When looking for info on FD 55/1.2, I found that a lot of times, its unclear if the user put up sample images from the ASPH or non-ASPH, I'd suspect that the real good samples I've sen were from the ASPH.

ASPH are fairly uncommon, so my first guess would be that most of the images are from non-ASPH. Also, I imagine that most ASPH users are pretty aware of the lens distinctions, and might be inclined to note the fact. I am also wondering how the quality of the ASPH is readily noticeable in an on-line photo without downloading and doing some serious pixil peeking . . . just a thought.

Now I must check on buying NEX or a7 because I still have a pocketful of FD/FL lenses that are not yet converted to K mount. FF is a definite attraction.

---------- Post added 10-30-14 at 08:22 AM ----------

Dear ivanvernon,
I use the canon FL/FD lenses with sony a7r. I prefer to keep the lens' mount unchanged.
It is more economic for me to buy a sony as I have several FD/FL lenses.
The sony is far from perfect, but it is FF and can also be used with Konica AR, Minolta SR and range finder lenses as well.
It is also risky to convert a lens with floating element, like FD 85/1.2L, it might be difficult to change mount.

Mine is FD 55/1.2 ssc Aspherical. It is the best normal SLR I have tested so far.
I have not tried the nikon nokt, and can't say much about the nikon.
I also tested the canon range finder 50/1.2 (leica ltm mount), which is at least equal to SLR cousin, or may be better.
I don't have any favorite; they are just slightly different, and I like all of them...

Thank you for this comment and information. I will have to check on acquiring Sony A7R or Nex. The full-frame aspect is certainly appealing.

There are apparently several different Canon Aspherical lenses: FL and FD 55 1.2 and then FD 50L 1.2 aspherical. Have you ever had the chance to examine any of these other than your FD 55? Would you have any comments on which of them is best or which one I might best consider acquiring for use on the Sony FF?

[hoanpham]

There are apparently several different Canon Aspherical lenses: FL and FD 55 1.2 and then FD 50L 1.2 aspherical. Have you ever had the chance to examine any of these other than your FD 55? Would you have any comments on which of them is best or which one I might best consider acquiring for use on the Sony FF?

I might have too many lenses in normal range, not only canon FL/FD, but also others. I have the 55mm's but none of the canon FL/FD 50mm at f1.2.
The reason to get an a7r, for me, was my old collection of lenses. The FD 85/1.2L and FD 300/2.8L alone are worth it.
You should test out the sony body to find out which model fits you best. The a7r is 'slow' due to its large sensor, I won't consider as main body for pro work.

Just an off topic warning if you are not comfortable with LBA. The sony E mount opens up unlimited possibility to adapt any lens. I have LBA for decades, but actually enjoyed very much. There is something about old lenses that attract me personally

[rashalhadaji]

In the gulf street

[bhairavp]

I have a Yashinon 55/1.2 M42 in addition to the Canon FD 55 1.2, Rokkor 58/1.2 and the Pentax 1.2 twins. For some reason, I really like the rendering of the Yashinon. All in the NEX 3 with adapters.