For anyone still interested, see below:
Michael Quack wrote:
> >
> > I don't think i have seen mentioned that the coatings on the old FD
> > series lenses (regular series, not SSC or L or whatever-I don't have
> > experience with these FD models) were very poor compared to coatings at
> > the same time by pentax, nikon, etc
>
> Certainly not, simply because this isn't true at all.
> Canon developed the Super Spectra Coating (SSC) very early,
> marked a lot of the early lenses SSC and later had
> that as a general feature on all lenses without explicit
> marking. Coated lenses from Canon are with very few
> exceptions all SSC or better.
If it were true that nearly all old canon lenses had SSC coatings, then
why would they specifically market a group of them marked that. I
imagine that the technology did make it into the mainstream of canon
lenses, but this is certainly not the case for early FD lenses or FL
lenses. I don't know when canon came up with SSC lense, but prior (I
think they had some marked SC as well?) but their prior coatings were
not good. I had an old FD50/1.8 (1981-83 vintage that was purchased
with an AE-1) that exhibited *terrible* flare performance, not up to the
level of the 1978 era pentax lenses that I had at the same time
(including typical consumer lenses like a 50/1.7. If a simple 50mm is
poor performing in terms of flare, then more complex designs most likely
will not do well at all with these early coatings. This was at the time
when SSC lenses were marketed specially, so I am sure it did not
incorporate that technology, and this lens had a lower end coating on
it.
Pentax invented multi-coating (although "invented" can have different
meanings depending on who, or who's marketing department, you are
talking to) and is very well known for having been highly successful
with them very early on (as in mid seventies, before the K-mount came
out in 1977). This is the "coating-gap" I was referring to. And it has
been referred to in other places as well. I don't claim expertise on FD
equipment at all, except in the case of this simple 50mm comparison.
And I certainly don't have much knowledge of later designs. That does
not make this a non-valid point of comparison between early and late
canon lenses (FD vs. EF as this thread is about).
I also saw a remark within the last week or so that canon's current
coatings are not up to the level of current pentax or nikon ones, but
are very close. I pass that along for what it is, merely a "they
said..." comment with no citation and may have been inaccurate. I would
prefer to think my coatings are just fine, and that is what I will do.
I am quite certain that the current coatings are much better than those
used on consumer lenses like that old 50/1.8, though.
>
> > (I have read that this is because canon refused, or perhaps
> > wasn't offerred, to license all or a portion of the SMC
> > technology from pentax as nikon and other manufacturers did).
>
> With their own coating process being very succesful,
> why should they?
I am sure that this is what canon would say.
>
> > Todays coatings are quite good on my L series lenses and on my 100/2.8
> > usm macro. I also imagine that they are much better on the more
> > consumer level lenses. Still, I recently read that they fall behind
> > pentax's current coatings, but they should be much better than canon's
> > lenses in the late 70's or 80s.
>
> They are not very much different. And since Pentax sells
> several lenses from Sigma relabeled "Pentax", I don't see how
> Pentax could achieve better coatings....
yes, many manufacturers buy crappy lenses and rebadge them as their own.
I beleive pentax has, at least in some cases, used the SMC process on
the elements that they purchased from (or manufactured for) the company
that they bought them from. Others, definitely not (this is currently
the distinction between a pentax smc-fa lens and a new pentax takumar
lens).
I am not entirely sure what you are saying is "not very much different".
My hope is that you are referring to the difference between
manufacturer's coatings these days. But if you are referring to the
difference between canons older coatings and the ones used to day as not
being much different, then you are mistaken. The current coatings beat
the very poor ones on that old 50/1.8 by a huge margin.
In any case, I still believe that in any question asking the difference
between old lens image quality and new lens image quality, it would be
poor to neglect two of the areas of largest change between new and old
lenses, specifically the coatings and aspherics. Plastics certainly are
more common these days than in the old FD series, but I doubt this has
as much impact on the image quality as coatings and aspherics.
Probably ED elements are another variable. Canon used flourite in many
of the old SSC lenses, but not in most others. These kinds of elements,
as well as more recently developed glasses, seem to be much more common
today (just look at any sigma, tokina or probably even pheonix lens ad,
and you will see ED and aspheric peppered through it). There was,
however, the loss of those leaded glasses that Michael talked about.
It is my feeling that todays lenses are, on the whole, much better.
However, I am sure there are stars of the old FD line that have been
lost. Canon should resurrect, and improve, these old designs. I, for
one, would like to se an new 35/2.8 TSE. What other jewels are there in
the FD lineage that have been lost?
Mike
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
