Disclaimer:
This post is in no way intended as an endorsement or camera gear advice. A very niche post. Written more as an ode to oddities than anything else. This is a “You can get a decent picture out of just about anything.” kind of proposition.
In a previous T80 post I mentioned:
What can I say? I like weird cameras.
Well, these are weird lenses for a weird camera and the same applies here.
Brief Overview:
So what is this Canon AC lens business? It was a one-shot stop gap AF solution Canon implemented between the manual focus FD lenses and the autofocus EF lenses. You can use FD lenses with the T80, without AF, but AC lenses are not compatible with FD or EF cameras. These are lenses that will work with exactly one camera, the Canon T80.
While offering AF it is rudimentary. Here is an AF overview from my T80 post:
- Subpar AF.
- For starters of course it does.
- I have very low expectations for a company’s first attempts at AF.
- I will take it over no AF.
- Honestly do not know what they were on about. While I would not classify it as “good” admittedly I did not have many issues at all. The few shots where focus was off can be directly tied to user error. Specifically user impatience and lack of care regarding the placement of the focus patch. The rest of the time it did fine.
- That being said low light AF is trash. But that is true of many cameras regardless of format.
- Struggles with horizontal lines.
- It loves vertical lines however. Outlined in the manual (I actually read it.) I have worked around it on this first roll by either:
- Turning the camera 90 degrees to focus and then back to capture the image.
- Switching the camera to manual focus.
- Yep. Turning the camera does the trick for me.
- It loves vertical lines however. Outlined in the manual (I actually read it.) I have worked around it on this first roll by either:
- For starters of course it does.
On to the lenses. Not much to say optical performance wise. Not Earth-shattering, but no glaring faults either. They produce solid images with good color like any number of mid-80s SLR lenses. Will post the specs and sample images for each. I will go in the order they were acquired.
Here are the specs from the Canon Camera Museum:
| Marketed | April 1985 |
| Original Price | 30,000 yen |
| Lens Construction (group) | 4 |
| Lens Construction (element) | 6 |
| No. of Diaphragm Blades | 5 |
| Minimum Aperture | 22 |
| Closest Focusing Distance (m) | 0.5 |
| Maximum Magnification (x) | 0.15 |
| Filter Diameter (mm) | 52 |
| Maximum Diameter x Length (mm) | 74 x 48 |
| Weight (g) | 210 |
Sample Images:
Fujifilm Superia X-Tra 400
Rollei RPX 400
Lomography 800
Here are the specs from the Canon Camera Museum:
| Marketed | April 1985 |
| Original Price | 43,000 yen |
| Lens Construction (group) | 8 |
| Lens Construction (element) | 9 |
| No. of Diaphragm Blades | — |
| Minimum Aperture | 22 |
| Closest Focusing Distance (m) | 0.39 |
| Maximum Magnification (x) | 0.2 |
| Filter Diameter (mm) | 52 |
| Maximum Diameter x Length (mm) | 76 x 68 |
| Weight (g) | 285 |
Sample Images:
Rollei RPX 400
That wraps things up for these two lenses. There is a third AC lens, the AC 75-200mm f/4.5. I might pick it up down the road, but I currently have no interest in doing so.
Conclusion:
Do I like these lenses? Yep.
Do I recommend either of these lenses? Not really.
With beverages and food stuffs, I do not like the phrase “acquired taste”. A fancy way of saying, “Sure. It does not taste good. But if you tolerate it long enough you will become accustomed to it.” Nonsense to me. How about I just go with what tastes good.
This whole AC system is an acquired taste.
But I like them.
-ELW
Eric L. Woods 