There's also a non-SSC, silver nose Canon FD 55mm 1.2, which I own two copies of. In a Canon marketing brochure from the 70s, I found that these 55mm silver nose lenses were the first to have the Canon's Super Spectral coatings, but they were simply never marketed as SSC lenses. I can sort of confirm that, as the lens with the latter serial number (>174xx) definitely has that multicoating color of reflections. But the other one (
Thanks for the input! The chrome noses are great lenses too. They’re quite a bit heavier than the marked SSC versions. I used to have a chrome nose 35mm concave and it was a decent bit heavier than my SSC 35 concave
@@calebbrunkow hmm, you're probably right because when I disassembled both 55mm chrome noses I discovered that their focusing mechanisms are made entirely out of brass. Apparently weight savings wasn't a consideration when those lenses were designed :) But 55mm SSC looks to be the same size, so it's still a beast when compared to another vintage 50mm I have: Zuiko 50mm 1.2. Speaking of which, you should definitely check out some Zuiko glass one of these days: earlier lenses are insanely compact, and the latter ones have Canon L levels of image quality, but Olympus never compromised on the build quality, and... like with Canon glass, there are also plenty of overpriced, overengineered lenses to strive for :)
@androoy.p I have a full set of 12 Olympus OM lenses that I’ve been wanting to make a video of but just haven’t had the time yet and haven’t shot enough with them yet. Love the OM’s though, I’ll get around to making a video on them someday hopefully somewhat soon
@@calebbrunkow Ahahaha, GAS is real 😂 Looking forward to that video some day, especially with some in-depth direct comparison with other vintage lenses, as there aren't many of such comparisons.
@alanbesedin I think most people are gonna prefer the non asph version given the price difference. I like the flares on the asph more than the regular but they do get close. The thorium yellowing on the asph is also a pain to deal with since that lens uses a ton of thorium
Good stuff...and well done video...thanks for sharing your knowledge. Just purchased the 55 1.2 SSC non-aspherical for my Leica SL. Hoping to love it. Cheers...Ron J
I had to think about this very question "Is it worth it" as I have a Nikkor 50mm f1.2 AIS and was thinking of getting the NOCT version that is like $3000+. I came to the conclusion that it really wasn't. It would be cool for bragging rights but even then? Meh. After watching this I can say the same about this Aspherical lens. I have the chrome nose version of these lenses (Sold my SSC back in May) and I really don't think I am missing out too much on not owning this lens either. Great review and congratulations on the lens and set. Maybe make a video about your set ranking them from your favorite to least.
That’s awesome! I’ve been eyeing the 58 Noct for a while but it’s so expensive. That’s a pretty good idea! I’ve been wanting to make a comparison video between canon FD, Leica R, Contax Zeiss, Olympus OM, and a few others but just don’t have the time at the moment as it would take forever to craft that
@@calebbrunkow there is a good video I watched awhile back called "Nikkor 58mm NOCT f1.2 Shoot Out vs 50mm f1.2, f1.4 and Nikon Z 50mm f1.2 S lens. $5000 Vintage lens" that compares the 50 AIS to the NOCT. Pretty similar to this video. Worth a watch.
I wish I had picked up the 55mm f/1.2 Aspherical a few years ago when it was only $1500 because as you mention they are now asking multiples of that price. The prices of the breech lock versions seem to be more inflated than the nFD versions because (cough cough) film makers like the sturdier mount and heavier build. As with anything else, a factor of ten greater price doesn't mean that the Aspherical lens is ten times better than the regular lens. They may be the same 90% of the time, but chasing that last 10% toward perfection is what costs the money. Whether it's worth it to you depends on your goals and needs.
The hand ground element is only for the AL version, by the time they released the Asperical is was possible to automate it, as far as I know. Look how much an AL costs, if you find one.
@@calebbrunkow the early AL lenses were hand ground I think you will find the Aspherical was machine ground I've done a bit of research into the 55mm Aspherical as I own one, most aspherical lenses are now moulded plastic or glass depending on the lens
For the past 3-4 years the interest from the filmmaker community drove up the prices for the whole Canon FD line up. And when you take into account the collector value of the Aspherical version, it makes it simply insane to buy it for most people. Although it looks like prices are trending down for the past year or so, but 55mm Aspherical is still untenable. Also, 55mm Aspherical was the state-of-the-art lens in the 70s that was designed to produce the highest quality image (aka clean modern look) given the limitation of the technology of that age. So for me it sits in the weird place between vintage lenses that produce unmistakably vintage looking images, and modern lenses that display little to no character. With that said, the alure of that golden "Aspherical" badge is still felt after all the decades that passed, soooo... when should we expect the review of the 85mm Aspherical? 😅
@@calebbrunkow Well, never say never: from what I see on the Japanese auctions, these halo lenses are often end up unsold because the demand for has finaly started to come down. So I bet in couple of years we'll be back to the "reasonable" 1$-2$.
@@calebbrunkow Also, it goes without saying at this point, but, as usual, a great, insightful video with great production, and I really hope more people will see it!
@@FilmRepair hmm maybe I'm missing something but Voigtlander and all those Chinese brands managed to bring something similar to the market. And those Chinese factories are allegedly ripping off lens designes from 70s, so they are literally doing the same thing all over again :)
You can also cut a cardboard box so that your lens will align into direct sun. I used to do this with my old thoriated Pentax lenses...it works very well, you just need to be patient...it takes a day or two depending on where you live and how intense the sun is on any particular day. Hope this helps...Ron J
@@ronaldjohnston7989 I live in Arizona, so leaving glass under the sun will cause more problems, such as lubricants getting all over the internals due to expansion, and damage to the plastic parts. UVB bulb works great.
With a lens this expensive. No way would I use the sun to correct the Thorium. It will get so hot it is likely to damage the elements. Temperature outside is measured in the shade not direct sunlight so add an extra 15-20 degrees in the direct sun for how hot it is.
Sorry but you needed to actually shoot some video to show off the differences. The aspherical doesn't only have better contrast and sharpness at f1.2, but it also has swirly bokeh and better depth - call it 3D pop or microcontrast or whatever. I was really looking forward to a video like this and now i am left lacking. The lens is worth it because there are no 1.2 lenses with great sharpness, swirly bokeh, amazing 3D pop and such good color rendition. I want one and I don't know what to tell my wallet...
Wrong, the aspherical was machine grinded, where the AL version is the hand sanded version of this lens. The AL version is the expensive one, the aspherical, like your model, is only expensive because of lack of knowledge from the users that don’t know this little piece of history
I have the 55 Aspherical I was also convinced that the Aspherical was machine ground the AL hand ground that's why they could sell them a bit cheaper but the lens quality is identical. In fact there are 2 versions of the 55 Aspherical with minor cosmetic changes
There's also a non-SSC, silver nose Canon FD 55mm 1.2, which I own two copies of. In a Canon marketing brochure from the 70s, I found that these 55mm silver nose lenses were the first to have the Canon's Super Spectral coatings, but they were simply never marketed as SSC lenses. I can sort of confirm that, as the lens with the latter serial number (>174xx) definitely has that multicoating color of reflections. But the other one (
Thanks for the input! The chrome noses are great lenses too. They’re quite a bit heavier than the marked SSC versions. I used to have a chrome nose 35mm concave and it was a decent bit heavier than my SSC 35 concave
I can confirm the coating as well. Its beautiful
@@calebbrunkow hmm, you're probably right because when I disassembled both 55mm chrome noses I discovered that their focusing mechanisms are made entirely out of brass. Apparently weight savings wasn't a consideration when those lenses were designed :)
But 55mm SSC looks to be the same size, so it's still a beast when compared to another vintage 50mm I have: Zuiko 50mm 1.2.
Speaking of which, you should definitely check out some Zuiko glass one of these days: earlier lenses are insanely compact, and the latter ones have Canon L levels of image quality, but Olympus never compromised on the build quality, and... like with Canon glass, there are also plenty of overpriced, overengineered lenses to strive for :)
@androoy.p I have a full set of 12 Olympus OM lenses that I’ve been wanting to make a video of but just haven’t had the time yet and haven’t shot enough with them yet. Love the OM’s though, I’ll get around to making a video on them someday hopefully somewhat soon
@@calebbrunkow Ahahaha, GAS is real 😂
Looking forward to that video some day, especially with some in-depth direct comparison with other vintage lenses, as there aren't many of such comparisons.
Excited to see your take on this. My own findings were very controversial 😂
Thanks Alan! What’s your controversial findings? 😂
@@calebbrunkowI preferred the non ASPH version :)
@alanbesedin I think most people are gonna prefer the non asph version given the price difference. I like the flares on the asph more than the regular but they do get close. The thorium yellowing on the asph is also a pain to deal with since that lens uses a ton of thorium
Good stuff...and well done video...thanks for sharing your knowledge. Just purchased the 55 1.2 SSC non-aspherical for my Leica SL. Hoping to love it. Cheers...Ron J
Glad you got something from the video! Enjoy the lens
I had to think about this very question "Is it worth it" as I have a Nikkor 50mm f1.2 AIS and was thinking of getting the NOCT version that is like $3000+. I came to the conclusion that it really wasn't. It would be cool for bragging rights but even then? Meh. After watching this I can say the same about this Aspherical lens. I have the chrome nose version of these lenses (Sold my SSC back in May) and I really don't think I am missing out too much on not owning this lens either. Great review and congratulations on the lens and set. Maybe make a video about your set ranking them from your favorite to least.
That’s awesome! I’ve been eyeing the 58 Noct for a while but it’s so expensive. That’s a pretty good idea! I’ve been wanting to make a comparison video between canon FD, Leica R, Contax Zeiss, Olympus OM, and a few others but just don’t have the time at the moment as it would take forever to craft that
@@calebbrunkow there is a good video I watched awhile back called "Nikkor 58mm NOCT f1.2 Shoot Out vs 50mm f1.2, f1.4 and Nikon Z 50mm f1.2 S lens. $5000 Vintage lens" that compares the 50 AIS to the NOCT. Pretty similar to this video. Worth a watch.
I wish I had picked up the 55mm f/1.2 Aspherical a few years ago when it was only $1500 because as you mention they are now asking multiples of that price. The prices of the breech lock versions seem to be more inflated than the nFD versions because (cough cough) film makers like the sturdier mount and heavier build. As with anything else, a factor of ten greater price doesn't mean that the Aspherical lens is ten times better than the regular lens. They may be the same 90% of the time, but chasing that last 10% toward perfection is what costs the money. Whether it's worth it to you depends on your goals and needs.
I think you could still get one for $1500 if you keep your eyes peeled, the prices have been coming down slightly over the last year
The hand ground element is only for the AL version, by the time they released the Asperical is was possible to automate it, as far as I know. Look how much an AL costs, if you find one.
The aspherical branded lenses were hand ground to my knowledge, the FD L lenses was when they were automated
@@calebbrunkow the early AL lenses were hand ground I think you will find the Aspherical was machine ground I've done a bit of research into the 55mm Aspherical as I own one, most aspherical lenses are now moulded plastic or glass depending on the lens
For the past 3-4 years the interest from the filmmaker community drove up the prices for the whole Canon FD line up. And when you take into account the collector value of the Aspherical version, it makes it simply insane to buy it for most people. Although it looks like prices are trending down for the past year or so, but 55mm Aspherical is still untenable. Also, 55mm Aspherical was the state-of-the-art lens in the 70s that was designed to produce the highest quality image (aka clean modern look) given the limitation of the technology of that age. So for me it sits in the weird place between vintage lenses that produce unmistakably vintage looking images, and modern lenses that display little to no character. With that said, the alure of that golden "Aspherical" badge is still felt after all the decades that passed, soooo... when should we expect the review of the 85mm Aspherical? 😅
Thanks for the input! I’d love to own the 24 and 85 asphericals but simply it makes no sense for me so I’ll stick with my FD 24 1.4 L and 85 1.2 L
@@calebbrunkow Well, never say never: from what I see on the Japanese auctions, these halo lenses are often end up unsold because the demand for has finaly started to come down. So I bet in couple of years we'll be back to the "reasonable" 1$-2$.
@@calebbrunkow Also, it goes without saying at this point, but, as usual, a great, insightful video with great production, and I really hope more people will see it!
Honestly to get a comparable product today you’re talking 2500 so kind of a good deal for something that’s proven it’s worth over 50years
@@FilmRepair hmm maybe I'm missing something but Voigtlander and all those Chinese brands managed to bring something similar to the market. And those Chinese factories are allegedly ripping off lens designes from 70s, so they are literally doing the same thing all over again :)
For eliminating the yellowing from thorium, I've had the best results using a UVB bulb. They're sold at pet stores and are used for pet lizards.
Appreciate it!
You can also cut a cardboard box so that your lens will align into direct sun. I used to do this with my old thoriated Pentax lenses...it works very well, you just need to be patient...it takes a day or two depending on where you live and how intense the sun is on any particular day. Hope this helps...Ron J
@ronaldjohnston7989 appreciate the insight!
@@ronaldjohnston7989 I live in Arizona, so leaving glass under the sun will cause more problems, such as lubricants getting all over the internals due to expansion, and damage to the plastic parts. UVB bulb works great.
@@enanosiniestro Well that makes perfect sense. I'm in Pennsylvania so never that hot...thanks for the reply and best to you! RJ
Why does the aspherical version have more color in quality image? min 4:53
is it because of the yellow of thorium?
The warmer color boost is due to the thorium. To get it back to neutral I need to treat it for longer
With a lens this expensive. No way would I use the sun to correct the Thorium. It will get so hot it is likely to damage the elements. Temperature outside is measured in the shade not direct sunlight so add an extra 15-20 degrees in the direct sun for how hot it is.
Exactly! It is definitely not recommended to use sunlight for that process
I remember when the aspherical was 25k
Woah! When were they that much? I know the 24 was getting around there a while ago
Sorry but you needed to actually shoot some video to show off the differences. The aspherical doesn't only have better contrast and sharpness at f1.2, but it also has swirly bokeh and better depth - call it 3D pop or microcontrast or whatever. I was really looking forward to a video like this and now i am left lacking. The lens is worth it because there are no 1.2 lenses with great sharpness, swirly bokeh, amazing 3D pop and such good color rendition. I want one and I don't know what to tell my wallet...
Appreciate the criticism
@@calebbrunkow let me put it this way, I like your videos and would love to see a follow up on this one. keep doing the great work!
Not worth it. I have normal SSC and it’s beautiful for what it is. But, I keep 50L on my Fuji more.
The 50L is definitely more worth it over the regular 50 than the aspherical over the regular 55
First comment!
Wrong, the aspherical was machine grinded, where the AL version is the hand sanded version of this lens. The AL version is the expensive one, the aspherical, like your model, is only expensive because of lack of knowledge from the users that don’t know this little piece of history
From all the research I’ve done the SSC Asphericals are hand ground while the L’s are machined
@@calebbrunkow not the L, the 55 f1.2 AL version
I hear what you’re saying, I’m saying that when they went to the “L” line the 24 and 85 are machined while the SSC aspherical versions were hand made
I have the 55 Aspherical I was also convinced that the Aspherical was machine ground the AL hand ground that's why they could sell them a bit cheaper but the lens quality is identical. In fact there are 2 versions of the 55 Aspherical with minor cosmetic changes