35mm Lens wanted for Canon FD mount
-
A
- Thread starter Odot
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy (Rada? Rollex?) Roll film back for Kodak Recomar No. 18 camera
- Started by alanshaw
-
Sold Rollei Rolleinar 2 Bay II
- Started by skylight1b
-
For Sale Beseler 8053 35mm Negative Carrier for the 23C models
- Started by mgb74
-
For Sale NIKON 20mm f/2.8 AF-D
- Started by Acere
-
Sold Coolscan 4000/5000 MA-21 Slide mount adapter (free)
- Started by RoboRepublic
Forum statistics
What aperture, fast, really fast or slower, Canon made 35mm from F2 to 3.5?
An F2 will do just fine, i am willing to do tradeoffs in speed if the 3.5 delivers better overall image quality
Not one f2 35mm lens in FD-mount from any other manufacturer than Canon comes to my mind. And I did not find such in my archive either.
So I wonder what "all of these 35mm lenses out there" you have seen. I experience 35mm as rare anyway.
Deleted member 88956
Unless you are after pixel peeping approach to lens "quality", whichever FD from Canon will do better than fine. Price points vary significantly in all of Canon choices and if that is not an issue go with the 2.0, otherwise 2.8 is not going to hold back your photography. Then there is 35 shift lens, which is another story and special application one and useful for general shooting, too bulky and too heavy if shifting not desired.
I forgot to mention that I plan to shoot Film only with this lens and since the prices did vary so much, I did wonder what the differences in image quality is.
I had a 35mm 2.8 that I used with a T90, it was fine lens, could easily resolve Tmax 100 at 200LPM. I expect that the F2 will do just as well with Tmax or Ekta 100. I think mine was a later MC model, don't recall the details. I would have no hesitancy in getting a 35mm F2, Canon made fine lens, FD were as good could get for any manual focus SLR lens. Someone will have both and will be more informative than I am.
If you decide to go with an F2.0 lens, know that Canon made three of them. The first, concave front element version came out in 1971 and is legendary among Canon users because of its image quality. It also contains radioactive Thorium. The second convex front element came out in 1976 and contains no Thorium. The final version is a FDn lens that came out in 1979 or so.
All three are quite good.
Jim B.
.
Here is a comparison, it really depends on your budget https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/35mm.htm
I have both of these optics and they are both good lenses the 2.8 version having six elements is much lighter to carry around than the f2 version which has ten elements that have a "floating element design".
On the used market the f2 one costs around three times the price of the f2.8 one, which for most purposes for most people's practical needs is more than adequate.
The FD 35mm f2 lens I have is one of the original chrome-nosed Thorium ones that throughout the lenses aperture range is the sharpest lens I own, and I have fourteen FD lenses.
Last edited:
All Canon FD 35mm lenses are great and i think i've owned almost all of them: fl 35/2.5, fd 35/2 chrome nose, fd 35/3.5 first version, fd 35/3.5 late version, 35/2.8 FDn, 35/2.8 tilt-shift.
Yes the 35/3.5 FD SC, particularly the latest version (recognized by the beveled rear element) is extremely sharp and has no optical defects at all. High contrast, low distortion, high resolution, even good bokeh. The 35/2.8 FDn is also wonderful too although i feel the 35/3.5 is better corrected for distortion.
A nice thing about Canon FD cameras, especially the F1s old, n and N is they also take other makers lenses with adapters, so, if you want a Canon 35mm buy have to wait until you have the cash on hand, or simply would like a softer focus, you can use M42 glass, etc, until you get the lens you really want in the FD line.
In particular, old Pentax M42 glass, can go into your bag, and stay there even after you have the Canon lens you want, as it gives a nice, but different look to your work, just as having multiples of 50mm, etc, will.
Yes, you have to give up auto engagement of apertures and do stop-down metering if you do no use a separate meter, but the end result is you can get top quality glass, with different but disarable effect, for no a lot of money and be shooting that focal length sooner than a more expensive lens, like the concave and expensive 35mm.
The Canon FD cameras offer many options, both in the system and in a wider universe of alternative kit.
In particular, old Pentax M42 glass, can go into your bag, and stay there even after you have the Canon lens you want, as it gives a nice, but different look to your work, just as having multiples of 50mm, etc, will.
Yes, you have to give up auto engagement of apertures and do stop-down metering if you do no use a separate meter, but the end result is you can get top quality glass, with different but disarable effect, for no a lot of money and be shooting that focal length sooner than a more expensive lens, like the concave and expensive 35mm.
The Canon FD cameras offer many options, both in the system and in a wider universe of alternative kit.
Yes, I referenced this, however, the old Pentax glass, is worth the effort and there are many, many pieces of quality optics out there that also can be used with the M42 adapter, as well as other adapters, so totally worth the effort for beginners, who need to learn the basics of making a photograph and also want to try different approaches to building a system.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |