# A rare Canon FD 24mm f/1.4 S.S.C. Aspherical hits the next Wetzlar Camera Auction with a starting bid of €6,000



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 5, 2022)

> A rare and highly collectable Canon lens is coming up for auction at the always interesting Wetzler Camera Auctions on October 8, 2022
> The lens in question? A Canon FD 24mm f/1.4 S.S.C. Aspherical. This lens was released in 1975 and is pretty rare, no one here has ever seen one.
> This was the world’s largest aperture 24mm wide angle lens at the time. A ground and polished glass aspherical lens surface, applied at the rear surface of the eighth lens element correct spherical aberration and astigmatism to achieve high picture quality even at a full aperture of f/1.4. The floating mechanism achieves high definition from the shortest focusing distance to infinity.
> The starting bid for the Canon FD 24mm f/1.4 S.S.C. Aspherical is €6,000, and it’s expected to fetch between €12,000-€15,000 when it’s all said and done.
> There are currently two of these lenses on ebay...



Continue reading...


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 5, 2022)

The maint point is unfortunately missing here: how many were actually made?
This, and the early use of an aspherical & extreme aperture will determine its collector-value.
Could climb to stunningly high summits...


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 5, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> The maint point is unfortunately missing here: how many were actually made?
> This, and the early use of an aspherical & extreme aperture will determine its collector-value.
> Could climb to stunningly high summits...


Going by the price, not many remain. Unfortunately, those bits of information are extremely hard to come by outside of Leica.

It was a mass-produced lens, but we don't even know the exact number of 1200mm f/5.6L lenses that were made. Even that one has a large range of estimates.

There are two on ebay for $16,000+


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 5, 2022)

Still cheap by Leica M standards...
Edit: not to forget the early screwmount bodies and lenses...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 5, 2022)

I don’t really get it. There’s an EF 24/1.4L II that retails for $1550 and no doubt has better IQ. Why buy a worse lens for 10x the cost to ‘collect’ it. Lenses should be used to take pictures.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 5, 2022)

I watched a guy buy one of those in 1975. He didn't want his wife to know how much it cost, so he paid half the price in cash and put the other half on a credit card.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t really get it. There’s an EF 24/1.4L II that retails for $1550 and no doubt has better IQ. Why buy a worse lens for 10x the cost to ‘collect’ it. Lenses should be used to take pictures.


I have never been much into "collecting" anything really. Everything ever made probably has someone, somewhere collecting it. I do have a 50 1.0L that I don't use often, but I didn't buy it to put on a shelf either.

I guess I collect a few of these, but the epic battles these two had defined part of my childhood.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 5, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> I watched a guy buy one of those in 1975. He didn't want his wife to know how much it cost, so he paid half the price in cash and put the other half on a credit card.


It was before my time.... was there a huge (by 1975 standards) photo nerd buzz around it?


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 5, 2022)

There's nothing rational in collecting, unless you plan to achieve gains in reselling at a higher price.
It's a case of "it's rare, I like it, I want it, and have the money". It's about fun.
And, is a Jackson Pollock worth a few hundred million$, after all, it's just linen with a few paint stains on it.
Fact is, there are many rich collectors seeking rare cameras and lenses, mostly Leica. Why not?
PS: I once started collecting screwmount and bayonet Leicas. After a while, I hated the idea of not being allowed (scratches...) to use them. And sold the lot, to buy more "usable" stuff.
But if ever I find a Noctilux 1,2/50, at a very attractive price, somewhere in a barn in Northern Lappland...


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 5, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> I watched a guy buy one of those in 1975. He didn't want his wife to know how much it cost, so he paid half the price in cash and put the other half on a credit card.


That's a method I've been using myself...well proven!


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 5, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> It was before my time.... was there a huge (by 1975 standards) photo nerd buzz around it?


I wouldn't call it "buzz". There were photo magazines: Modern Photography, Popular Photography and Peterson's Photographic. At one time, I subscribed to all three. At that time, Canon was the only manufacturer making aspherical lens elements, by grinding them. Another widely praised FD lens was the original 300 f/2.8. Everybody was astonished that its sharpest aperture was f/2..8.


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 5, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> I wouldn't call it "buzz". There were photo magazines: Modern Photography, Popular Photography and Peterson's Photographic. At one time, I subscribed to all three. At that time, Canon was the only manufacturer making aspherical lens elements, by grinding them. Another widely praised FD lens was the original 300 f/2.8. Everybody was astonished that its sharpest aperture was f/2..8.


Not correct, Sir!
The Leica M Noctilux 1,2/50mm, with its two aspherical ground lens surfaces, was made from 1966 (!) till 1975.
So, the Canon was a bit late to the party...by 11 years.


----------



## cayenne (Oct 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t really get it. There’s an EF 24/1.4L II that retails for $1550 and no doubt has better IQ. Why buy a worse lens for 10x the cost to ‘collect’ it. Lenses should be used to take pictures.


Well, while I agree with you on only being a collector....
I AM becoming a BIG fan of collecting and adapting vintage lenses to modern mirrorless digital cameras.

Sure the new glass is almost perfect in it's images, and in some cases...that is the problem.

I find the imperfections and warts on some old vintage lenses in their design and implementation to have a way of rendering that I consider a bit more artistic.

I find many of them great to use for portraiture...the softer lenses on skin is nice when shooting women. Todays lenses have a tendency to show "too many" pores, haha.

And while it doesn't float everyones' boats, and it can be overdone....I am a big fan these days of swirly bokeh...and bubble bokeh...etc. I'm enjoying playing with some lenses that blur out the background in what can be described as a "painterly" fashion.

And the good thing is....many of these lenses can be had for a song. Although, the word gets out on some and the prices start to rise.
And also, film is still rising in popularity and many of those old lenses still work GREAT on old film cameras and that's increasing the prices as people scour for them to use on old film cameras.

Anyway....I'm with you that things like this need to be used. And I think there is a place for them in the repertoire for getting different looks, classical looks, that some appreciate at times over the clinical perfection looks with todays modern lenses.

cayenne


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t really get it. There’s an EF 24/1.4L II that retails for $1550 and no doubt has better IQ. Why buy a worse lens for 10x the cost to ‘collect’ it. Lenses should be used to take pictures.


Vintage lenses have their own unique looks.
It is akin to comparing a modern wine to a vintage one.
It is not safe to assume that no one is capturing images with these.


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 5, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Vintage lenses have their own unique looks.
> It is akin to comparing a modern wine to a vintage one.
> It is not safe to assume that no one is capturing images with these.


And they can even be better than modern ones (Apo macro Elmarit, Apo Summicrons, Apo Telyts etc...).
No, I don't have MTFs or sharpness charts, but own the corresponding modern lenses.
So, no objective proofs, but my subjective certainty!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 5, 2022)

Ah, yes…_the look_. 

Like _the soun_d. There are people who prefer listening to music on vinyl, and think it sounds better than the ‘cold and clinical’ remastered, digitized, lossless audio. 

I am not one of those people. I like to hear snap, crackle, and pop from my breakfast cereal, not my speakers.


----------



## TW (Oct 5, 2022)

According to the interwebs that $1300.00 original selling price would be about $7000.00 in today’s dollars. I can’t imagine there were too many people willing and able to plunk that down back then. The U.S. was in a recession with double-digit inflation then too. No wonder it’s so rare.


----------



## kten (Oct 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ah, yes…_the look_.
> 
> Like _the soun_d. There are people who prefer listening to music on vinyl, and think it sounds better than the ‘cold and clinical’ remastered, digitized, lossless audio.
> 
> I am not one of those people. I like to hear snap, crackle, and pop from my breakfast cereal, not my speakers.


off topic but the audio thing isn't so simple and some (not all) the pro vinyl crowd have a point. Ignoring the snake oil audiophile BS with claims analog sounds better (completely debunked myth) it is more about the mastering and not unusual in some genres for the original vinyl pressing to be mastered better vs modern digital remasters. Just because digital containers have higher potential quality doesn't mean the contents has been engineered to take advantage of that, some times much much lower. Much like if you took 16bit photo container and instead of putting 14bit of light info in it you put 4 or 5bit in there folks wouldn't be wrong for saying the 8bit jpeg looked better for high DR scenes. Potentially the 16bit file should have wider DR, less posterisation etc etc but depends on what has been done to the source, same applies to audio.

Not always trending to worse but far from uncommon for modern masters to be compressed to the point you may be looking at a DR of around 4 or 5 (worse in some cases) vs much higher for the vinyl version thus some folks who care gravitate to vinyl version. I've worked with several people with pro audio engineer and e-eng backgrounds who hate audiophile nonsense but prefer some (not always) vinyl versions. Of course they don't listen to it on vinyl but in a digital format but files authored from the original vinyl vs modern remasters, the wider DR versions being unavailable generally in direct download digital or DVDA or CDA forms.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Oct 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t really get it. There’s an EF 24/1.4L II that retails for $1550 and no doubt has better IQ. Why buy a worse lens for 10x the cost to ‘collect’ it. Lenses should be used to take pictures.


Cinematographers and movie studios buy these and have them rehoused into cinema lenses. I have one. It’s quite lovely. I didn’t pay those prices though. It’s gotten quite mad. I have one of every FD Prime, and now I’m afraid to use most of them due to how much they have skyrocketed in value. I’ve had insane offers for my set. Definitely tempted in this economy…


----------



## Johnw (Oct 6, 2022)

kten said:


> off topic but the audio thing isn't so simple and some (not all) the pro vinyl crowd have a point. Ignoring the snake oil audiophile BS with claims analog sounds better (completely debunked myth) it is more about the mastering and not unusual in some genres for the original vinyl pressing to be mastered better vs modern digital remasters. Just because digital containers have higher potential quality doesn't mean the contents has been engineered to take advantage of that, some times much much lower. Much like if you took 16bit photo container and instead of putting 14bit of light info in it you put 4 or 5bit in there folks wouldn't be wrong for saying the 8bit jpeg looked better for high DR scenes. Potentially the 16bit file should have wider DR, less posterisation etc etc but depends on what has been done to the source, same applies to audio.
> 
> Not always trending to worse but far from uncommon for modern masters to be compressed to the point you may be looking at a DR of around 4 or 5 (worse in some cases) vs much higher for the vinyl version thus some folks who care gravitate to vinyl version. I've worked with several people with pro audio engineer and e-eng backgrounds who hate audiophile nonsense but prefer some (not always) vinyl versions. Of course they don't listen to it on vinyl but in a digital format but files authored from the original vinyl vs modern remasters, the wider DR versions being unavailable generally in direct download digital or DVDA or CDA forms.



These are good points but they are more relevant if you are talking about a lossy audio format like mp3 etc, neuro’s point still holds if we’re talking about let’s say 192khz digital masters either with or without the mechanical sounds of a turntable accompanying the track.


----------



## Rivermist (Oct 6, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Going by the price, not many remain. Unfortunately, those bits of information are extremely hard to come by outside of Leica.
> 
> It was a mass-produced lens, but we don't even know the exact number of 1200mm f/5.6L lenses that were made. Even that one has a large range of estimates.
> 
> There are two on ebay for $16,000+


Not sure about mass-produced, in current dollars the price was equivalent of about $8,000, hardly a lens that every amateur was going to jump on. 
It has in my book the best mount with the Canon 1st generation FD spring-mounted bayonet that moved the ring enough to secure the lens when the lens was pushed into the body, and had zero friction so no wear on the interface.


----------



## fragilemachinery (Oct 6, 2022)

Just FYI: photographers aren't the ones driving sky-high prices for the rare FD's, it's cinema rental houses. It's become trendy to re-house FD primes into modern cinema housings (Made by TLS, Zero Optik, and the like), because they have a very similar look to the even rarer Canon K35's, which are themselves in style since the release of the Alexa Mini LF and similar full-frame cinema cameras. The 24mm 1.4 is *particularly* expensive now because they simply didn't make that many of them, and unless you can get your hands on one, you can't make a set with reasonably consistent apertures.
I've seen re-housed FD sets with the 24mm 1.4 sell for $200k+, and I'm sure this one will go into a similar set.


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ah, yes…_the look_.
> 
> Like _the soun_d. There are people who prefer listening to music on vinyl, and think it sounds better than the ‘cold and clinical’ remastered, digitized, lossless audio.
> 
> I am not one of those people. I like to hear snap, crackle, and pop from my breakfast cereal, not my speakers.


_The soun_d... 100% there.
I was so happy, to retire my vinyl in late 80ies. Never regretted to never again remix my Isopropanol cleaning liquids.
Went several times to the HighEnd fair in Munich. Never found an exhibitor to show me a "better" sound coming from a small diamond scratching out a groove than CD or HighRes.
Edit: And as @kten stated out, it is more about the sound engineer and the master than the playback equipment.

_The look... _
I can understand people to collect things. But as others stated, I prefer using them.


----------



## ColdBrewCine (Oct 6, 2022)

Just to add one to what someone else already said. The big thing with the 24mm 1.4 is two companies Zero Optik and TLS have found a way to modify the 24mm 1.4 to make it an 18mm 1.4 (full frame coverage). The only other wide angle options in that FD set are the 20mm 2.8 and 17mm 4. This is a huge deal for vintage cinema lenses. Full sets of converted FD's that include this converted lens, or better two of them to round out the set, are listing for $150k.


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 6, 2022)

TW said:


> According to the interwebs that $1300.00 original selling price would be about $7000.00 in today’s dollars. I can’t imagine there were too many people willing and able to plunk that down back then. The U.S. was in a recession with double-digit inflation then too. No wonder it’s so rare.


I guess there's another reason for its rarity, the extreme difficulty in- mostly manually- grinding and polishing asphericals in the seventies. Leica, in the sixties, encountered huge issues, namely finding qualified experts, producing the specific glass, polishing, achieving a constant quality etc...
In the end they succeeded, but for future asphericals, CAM or glass-pressing methods were preferred, also by Canon.
You won't find a Noctilux1,2/50 for less than 20000 Euro. And that would be a bargain and a real foolproof investment...


----------



## Skux (Oct 6, 2022)

Yeah $15k is a drop in the bucket next to what production companies will pay for cinema glass. I hope this 24mm gets a second life rehoused for filmmaking.


----------



## navastronia (Oct 6, 2022)

CanonGrunt said:


> Cinematographers and movie studios buy these and have them rehoused into cinema lenses. I have one. It’s quite lovely. I didn’t pay those prices though. It’s gotten quite mad. I have one of every FD Prime, and now I’m afraid to use most of them due to how much they have skyrocketed in value. I’ve had insane offers for my set. Definitely tempted in this economy…



Indeed, I watched a video about it yesterday and the look is quite good for cinematography. I was surprised.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Oct 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t really get it. There’s an EF 24/1.4L II that retails for $1550 and no doubt has better IQ. Why buy a worse lens for 10x the cost to ‘collect’ it. Lenses should be used to take pictures.


I guess even if you scan a vintage gear collector's head in the highest resolution MRI you won't find any answer to this question


----------



## cayenne (Oct 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ah, yes…_the look_.
> 
> Like _the soun_d. There are people who prefer listening to music on vinyl, and think it sounds better than the ‘cold and clinical’ remastered, digitized, lossless audio.
> 
> I am not one of those people. I like to hear snap, crackle, and pop from my breakfast cereal, not my speakers.


Vinyl has it's place.....I listen to most of my stuff as high of a quality digital as I can...
BUT...I prefer my amplifiers to be analog tube amps....
Same for my guitar amps...


Stereos that *GLOW* are cool....


----------



## Blue Zurich (Oct 7, 2022)

Maximilian said:


> _The soun_d... 100% there.
> I was so happy, to retire my vinyl in late 80ies. Never regretted to never again remix my Isopropanol cleaning liquids.
> Went several times to the HighEnd fair in Munich. Never found an exhibitor to show me a "better" sound coming from a small diamond scratching out a groove than CD or HighRes.
> Edit: And as @kten stated out, it is more about the sound engineer and the master than the playback equipment.
> ...


OR making them!



Make your own records with this new turntable | Cult of Mac


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 7, 2022)

Starting price at the Leitz Photographica Auction for the Leica M Noctilux 1,2/50 prototype: Euro 200000... Yes, it's the starting price!!!
Estimate is 400000 to 500000.
This Canon 24mm is a real bargain


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 8, 2022)

Desire/scarcity=irrational exuberance. 

I've been there.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 8, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Starting price at the Leitz Photographica Auction for the Leica M Noctilux 1,2/50 prototype: Euro 200000... Yes, it's the starting price!!!
> Estimate is 400000 to 500000.
> This Canon 24mm is a real bargain


I should buy them all and destroy all but one.


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 9, 2022)

This 24 asph. sold for Euro15000 plus (my guess) 20% to the auctioneer.


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 9, 2022)

Ozarker said:


> I should buy them all and destroy all but one.


But destroying such beautiful lenses would register as a new capital sin, and you as Canon Hateboy!


----------



## TAF (Oct 10, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t really get it. There’s an EF 24/1.4L II that retails for $1550 and no doubt has better IQ. Why buy a worse lens for 10x the cost to ‘collect’ it. Lenses should be used to take pictures.


I’d actually like to see a side by side comparison of the two.

And that is the nice thing about lenses; they don’t lose value when you use them.


----------



## TAF (Oct 10, 2022)

CanonGrunt said:


> Cinematographers and movie studios buy these and have them rehoused into cinema lenses. I have one. It’s quite lovely. I didn’t pay those prices though. It’s gotten quite mad. I have one of every FD Prime, and now I’m afraid to use most of them due to how much they have skyrocketed in value. I’ve had insane offers for my set. Definitely tempted in this economy…


But before you sell, you owe it to the CR community to get an adapter for your R6 and shoot something nice with each one. Then the same thing with you RF lens(es). So we can all compare. Who knows, maybe you’ll discover that we should all go back to FD lenses and your collection will be worth even more.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Oct 13, 2022)

TAF said:


> But before you sell, you owe it to the CR community to get an adapter for your R6 and shoot something nice with each one. Then the same thing with you RF lens(es). So we can all compare. Who knows, maybe you’ll discover that we should all go back to FD lenses and your collection will be worth even more.


Oh I’m doing just that. On my R6 and C70. Also, i have put a few pics in the lens galleries already. I’m going to do a video or something with each one.


----------



## TAF (Nov 5, 2022)

CanonGrunt said:


> Oh I’m doing just that. On my R6 and C70. Also, i have put a few pics in the lens galleries already. I’m going to do a video or something with each one.


Awesome. Thank you very much!


----------



## CanonGrunt (Nov 5, 2022)

TAF said:


> Awesome. Thank you very much!


Here‘s one of the horses. Very dreamy look.


----------



## SwissFrank (Nov 16, 2022)

kten said:


> off topic but the audio thing isn't so simple and some (not all) the pro vinyl crowd have a point. Ignoring the snake oil audiophile BS with claims analog sounds better (completely debunked myth) it is more about the mastering and not unusual in some genres for the original vinyl pressing to be mastered better vs modern digital remasters. Just because digital containers have higher potential quality doesn't mean the contents has been engineered to take advantage of that, some times much much lower. Much like if you took 16bit photo container and instead of putting 14bit of light info in it you put 4 or 5bit in there folks wouldn't be wrong for saying the 8bit jpeg looked better for high DR scenes. Potentially the 16bit file should have wider DR, less posterisation etc etc but depends on what has been done to the source, same applies to audio.
> 
> Not always trending to worse but far from uncommon for modern masters to be compressed to the point you may be looking at a DR of around 4 or 5 (worse in some cases) vs much higher for the vinyl version thus some folks who care gravitate to vinyl version. I've worked with several people with pro audio engineer and e-eng backgrounds who hate audiophile nonsense but prefer some (not always) vinyl versions. Of course they don't listen to it on vinyl but in a digital format but files authored from the original vinyl vs modern remasters, the wider DR versions being unavailable generally in direct download digital or DVDA or CDA forms.


Who exactly is hiring people, to make digital masters, that know less than random nobodies on the street like you or me? I have a pretty hard time believing that is true. Granted in the earliest days of digital masters, there were some old hands who were given such jobs who didn't know the most basic things, but there were only a handful of such masters and I imagine they've all been reissued, no? I'm happy to hear you out and learn something and if your story is true I can say that I would find it very amazing and interesting to hear.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 16, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> Who exactly is hiring people, to make digital masters, that know less than random nobodies on the street like you or me? I have a pretty hard time believing that is true. Granted in the earliest days of digital masters, there were some old hands who were given such jobs who didn't know the most basic things, but there were only a handful of such masters and I imagine they've all been reissued, no? I'm happy to hear you out and learn something and if your story is true I can say that I would find it very amazing and interesting to hear.


It's not about knowing basic things or not, it's about how the producer wants it to sound in the end. Have a look at the loudness war wikipedia to see why album quality took a nosedive in the 90s. People started ripping music from the Guitar Hero game since that turned out to be the only source of not-loudnessed Metallica songs.


----------



## SwissFrank (Nov 16, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Have a look at the loudness war wikipedia to see why album quality took a nosedive in the 90s.


but that would apply to both digital and vinyl. Where digital and vinyl used separate masters, there's also equal chance the digital would have the better master. You're only making an argument for what kind of mastering goal is superior, which has FA to do with the storage medium. Of course I know what you're talking about. I recall Rush made a clean break with the loudness wars after a fan showed how their albums were having less and less dynamic range with passing time.


----------

