The lighting is just beautiful. I love the peacefulness of this too. I think I prefer without filter, otherwise FD or Leica R? Different, but mostly a matter of taste, I find. Great comparison!
❤ Nice! You should try the FD 28-50 f3.5 and 24-35 f3.5 two of the best FD zooms, sharp wide open and par focal. You can also get the early chrome nose 35mm f2 concave at a good price and is optically identical to the SSC version.
Wow, looks great. Got exactly the same set of FD lens you have even before I watched this video based on my own research. Glad I made that decision. And yes, I held on to 28mm F2 cos of the price tag hoping to get either more money down the track or better deal. Selling everything else I have and just sticking to these 3 lenses. Great video👌
man this is so good! cant afford the leicas but I have the same set of fd's and this lets me know I can get a wonderful image with my set! lighting and framing makes the image sing...thank you for being dope!!!
Great comparison Wander! I just love how the Leica R lenses are rendering the skin tones...that's the main reason why I keep all my other lenses in the shelf :(
I love the Leica set! We do a lot of work for clients with that set. The Canons have a bit more pronounced character with blooming highlights and slightly funky bokeh wide open. The Leica 19mm f2.8 v2 is in it's own league, super sharp wide glass! I did this test before a movie project and I chose to shoot it on the canon set, but sometimes I mixed in the leica 19mm when I needed a fast and sharp wide lens.
Great test and lighting my friend. I currently own a set of R's. I have been investing into Zeiss standards 2.1 PL and love them. I do want to keep a set of EF vintage though. I really like the FD 24mm f2. I have a question, have you tried clip on matte boxes with the FD (adaptive 80mm front)? Light like the Misfit Atom? I find it weighs on the R and tightens the focus too much even with one filter. Just curious, because the FD looks more robust. A clip on is essential for me. Thank you!
Thanks Zachary! I did try some clip on matteboxes and it kind off differs from lens to lens on how they react. I guess if you have a really light mattebox it would work out decent, but some lenses do focus a bit heavy with a clip on. And the 17mm f/4 ssc has a rotating front, so you should avoid that one all together.
@@WanderAndringa Thanks my man. I appreciate that info. Sounds about like the R set then. I float the misfit atom. It is just so nice to have these light lenses that produce such quality. A rehoused version is great too of course. Enjoy those lenses!
@@ubir9743 hope you are well my friend. A few thoughts. I believe standards to be a little overrated after comparing, and I have always loved vintage. They protrude close to the digital sensor and are not very sharp. The look they give is not that pleasing compared to alternatives. I think the R wins in every aspect. Full frame, skin tones, sharpness, bokeh, and more. The one place the R struggles is those darn still lenses build. It is not very good for pulling focus (play) and they just don’t hold up. Keep that in mind. But image alone, not even close. R wins.
@@ubir9743 sure thing my man! Super speeds for sure are better. Sharper. Ultra primes do run magentas into skin tones. That always bothers me. Now master primes, that is another story. Perfect skin rendering. But a colorist can handle that no problem. All be honest, Cooke lenses for sure are not just hype. Been my fav and I always go back to them. But everyone loves something different for sure. Those R skin tones are perfection though. Also great depth in the image like Cooke. Not as flat as some Zeiss glass.
Thanks Milan. It's a rather simple setup for this one actually. Camera right in the corner is a litepanels gemini 2x1 coming through a magic cloth. The practical is fitted with an aputure b7c bulb.
Hey man - love your testing approach with a nice set and story. Do you by any chance have experience with the FD 20 2.8? I want to build a set of FD and would like to get it as something similar to the Leica 19 2.8
I haven't had the chance to test that one out yet, there's a CanonFD user group on facebook (Canon FD in Video Production) that can help if you need any specific info on lenses. I did manage to pick up a mint copy of the canon fd 28mm f/2, I'll be sure to share some test results whenever Simmod sells conversion kits again :)
@@WanderAndringa Thanks for the hint - I‘ll have a look at that group. I‘ve just bought a FD 35/2 SSC (non-aspherical) and I‘m also waiting for the hopefully soon the be released new Ed Mika/simmod kit. I‘m thinking 20/35/50 for the beginning an 24/85 midterm. I‘ll pick up the 6K pro and get into shooting primes instead of the sigma art zooms. Keep up the good work
Either… Nikkors are more versatile in terms of clinical rendering. FDs are a very tiny smidge overrated but they are the best bang for buck cinema set. The fringing on the FDs wide open can be too much when trying to get a clean look. The FDs also lack a bit of dimension, they don’t wrap around your subject quite like the Nikkors. (I’m a local 600 1st AC, and I own a set of FDs).
Hi Laurence, we didn't use any adapters. But we modded the lenses and replaced the original mounts. For the Canon FD lenses we used the EF mounts provided by: SimmodLens The Leica-R lenses were modded witih EF mounts as well. I think those are Leitz mounts.
The lighting is just beautiful. I love the peacefulness of this too. I think I prefer without filter, otherwise FD or Leica R? Different, but mostly a matter of taste, I find. Great comparison!
Wander, you are very talented. Thank you for sharing your tests on those nice lenses. The Schneider filter gives a great film look!
Maybe it's just me but I gravitate more toward the softer, more saturated look of the FDs. Both look great though.
❤ Nice! You should try the FD 28-50 f3.5 and 24-35 f3.5 two of the best FD zooms, sharp wide open and par focal. You can also get the early chrome nose 35mm f2 concave at a good price and is optically identical to the SSC version.
Looks amazing. That 19mm is super cool, but the thing I like the most is the filter
Wow, looks great.
Got exactly the same set of FD lens you have even before I watched this video based on my own research.
Glad I made that decision.
And yes, I held on to 28mm F2 cos of the price tag hoping to get either more money down the track or better deal.
Selling everything else I have and just sticking to these 3 lenses.
Great video👌
man this is so good! cant afford the leicas but I have the same set of fd's and this lets me know I can get a wonderful image with my set! lighting and framing makes the image sing...thank you for being dope!!!
Great comparison Wander! I just love how the Leica R lenses are rendering the skin tones...that's the main reason why I keep all my other lenses in the shelf :(
What are your thoughts? I love the FD look, but it seems the Leicas have a slightly better highlight definition?
I love the Leica set! We do a lot of work for clients with that set. The Canons have a bit more pronounced character with blooming highlights and slightly funky bokeh wide open. The Leica 19mm f2.8 v2 is in it's own league, super sharp wide glass! I did this test before a movie project and I chose to shoot it on the canon set, but sometimes I mixed in the leica 19mm when I needed a fast and sharp wide lens.
Great test and lighting my friend. I currently own a set of R's. I have been investing into Zeiss standards 2.1 PL and love them. I do want to keep a set of EF vintage though. I really like the FD 24mm f2. I have a question, have you tried clip on matte boxes with the FD (adaptive 80mm front)? Light like the Misfit Atom? I find it weighs on the R and tightens the focus too much even with one filter. Just curious, because the FD looks more robust. A clip on is essential for me. Thank you!
Thanks Zachary! I did try some clip on matteboxes and it kind off differs from lens to lens on how they react. I guess if you have a really light mattebox it would work out decent, but some lenses do focus a bit heavy with a clip on. And the 17mm f/4 ssc has a rotating front, so you should avoid that one all together.
@@WanderAndringa Thanks my man. I appreciate that info. Sounds about like the R set then. I float the misfit atom. It is just so nice to have these light lenses that produce such quality. A rehoused version is great too of course. Enjoy those lenses!
@@ubir9743 hope you are well my friend. A few thoughts. I believe standards to be a little overrated after comparing, and I have always loved vintage. They protrude close to the digital sensor and are not very sharp. The look they give is not that pleasing compared to alternatives. I think the R wins in every aspect. Full frame, skin tones, sharpness, bokeh, and more. The one place the R struggles is those darn still lenses build. It is not very good for pulling focus (play) and they just don’t hold up. Keep that in mind. But image alone, not even close. R wins.
@@ubir9743 sure thing my man! Super speeds for sure are better. Sharper. Ultra primes do run magentas into skin tones. That always bothers me. Now master primes, that is another story. Perfect skin rendering. But a colorist can handle that no problem. All be honest, Cooke lenses for sure are not just hype. Been my fav and I always go back to them. But everyone loves something different for sure. Those R skin tones are perfection though. Also great depth in the image like Cooke. Not as flat as some Zeiss glass.
How did you light this scenery? I think it is a masterclass in motivated lighting
Thanks Milan. It's a rather simple setup for this one actually. Camera right in the corner is a litepanels gemini 2x1 coming through a magic cloth. The practical is fitted with an aputure b7c bulb.
Also the booklet is bouncing the light back into the subjects face.
very nice!
Hey man - love your testing approach with a nice set and story.
Do you by any chance have experience with the FD 20 2.8? I want to build a set of FD and would like to get it as something similar to the Leica 19 2.8
I haven't had the chance to test that one out yet, there's a CanonFD user group on facebook (Canon FD in Video Production) that can help if you need any specific info on lenses. I did manage to pick up a mint copy of the canon fd 28mm f/2, I'll be sure to share some test results whenever Simmod sells conversion kits again :)
@@WanderAndringa Thanks for the hint - I‘ll have a look at that group. I‘ve just bought a FD 35/2 SSC (non-aspherical) and I‘m also waiting for the hopefully soon the be released new Ed Mika/simmod kit.
I‘m thinking 20/35/50 for the beginning an 24/85 midterm. I‘ll pick up the 6K pro and get into shooting primes instead of the sigma art zooms.
Keep up the good work
Was that the Canon FD 35mm F2.8 or F2.0? - Video does not match the description for that lens.
It's the 35mm f2.0 concave. Shot at f2.8 stop
@@WanderAndringa Gotcha Gotcha
budget lense better canon fd or nikkor ais ?
Either… Nikkors are more versatile in terms of clinical rendering. FDs are a very tiny smidge overrated but they are the best bang for buck cinema set. The fringing on the FDs wide open can be too much when trying to get a clean look. The FDs also lack a bit of dimension, they don’t wrap around your subject quite like the Nikkors. (I’m a local 600 1st AC, and I own a set of FDs).
what serial #'s range are your leicas in?
what lense adapter were you using ?
Hi Laurence, we didn't use any adapters. But we modded the lenses and replaced the original mounts. For the Canon FD lenses we used the EF mounts provided by: SimmodLens
The Leica-R lenses were modded witih EF mounts as well. I think those are Leitz mounts.