Canon 35mm f2 FD vs Pentax 35mm f2 K-mount

[TheFlyingCamera]

Has anyone here shot both of these lenses, and if so, do you have a preference of one over the other? As a secondary question, aside from the quirkiness of the concave 35mm f2 for Canon FD, is there anything in particular about it that makes it better than the standard 35mm f2?

 

[Craig]

I have only used the concave version and it seems to work fine. It does have thorium glass in it, so it yellows over time. Probably fine for B&W work, but I wouldn't use it for colour.

Looks like there was 2 versions of it, one made from 1973-76, and revised edition made 1976-79, both of which had 9 elements in 8 groups. The new FD has 10 elements in 8 groups. The later AF version is a different design again, 7 elements in 5 groups.

I can't find any MTF charts of the FD lenses, just the EF ones. No experience with the Pentax, but I'm sure it's of an equal quality to Canon.

A comparison of the two FD lenses: https://phillipreeve.net/blog/guide-canon-fd-lenses-digital-age-2/#Canon_nFD_2035

 

[Radost]

35mm on SLR is super dificult to focus even with the split prism in the middle.

 

[loccdor]

Concave 35mm f2 for Canon FD clears up fine with UV light or leaving in a window for a week. I've used it for slide film before I sold it, no visible cast.

Haven't used the Pentax version.

If you have a camera that can mount it, you may want to look into the more modern Tamron SP 35mm f/1.8 VC which should be sharper than both and also has image stabilization and weather sealing, as well as near-macro focus capability.

 

[benjiboy]

35mm on SLR is super dificult to focus even with the split prism in the middle.

Not in my experience.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Concave 35mm f2 for Canon FD clears up fine with UV light or leaving in a window for a week. I've used it for slide film before I sold it, no visible cast.

Haven't used the Pentax version.

If you have a camera that can mount it, you may want to look into the more modern Tamron SP 35mm f/1.8 VC which should be sharper than both and also has image stabilization and weather sealing, as well as near-macro focus capability.

The cameras I have (and want to get a lens for) are a Pentax LX and a Canon F1 (old). So no to the Tamron.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

35mm on SLR is super dificult to focus even with the split prism in the middle.

As opposed to what? A rangefinder?

 

[xkaes]

35mm on SLR is super dificult to focus even with the split prism in the middle.

I use a Minolta 35mm f1.8 and find it easy to focus, partly because the wide aperture has such a narrow DOF.

 

[dynachrome]

The 35/2 concave front lens is very sharp. I use it with color print film and any color cast is easily filtered out. I wouldn't use it with slide film. Slide film is very expensive now and other lenses are more suitable. After the concave front lens there was a convex front 35/2 FD SSC, which is also very good. The later 35/2 New FD is smaller and lighter and also sharp but not as mechanically sturdy as the earlier two lenses.

Between 1975 and 1977, Pentax made a 35/2 SMC Pentax K mount lens. It looks like a carry-over design from the last M42 35/2 SMCT. There were then two versions of the smaller 35/2 SMC Pentax-M. I have one of those and it is very good. Other choices, if you don't need as much speed are the 35/2.8 SMC Pentax-M and the older 35/3.5 SMC Pentax. Both are good but the f/3.5 model is exceptionally good. It traces its design back to the 1950s. I have several M42 versions, which are also excellent.

For the Canon, if you do not intend to use slide film, the concave front lens (FD SSC) would be fine. If you will use slide film, I would recommend the convex front FD SSC. For the Pentax, I would get any 35/2 SMC Pentax-M that is in good condition.

 

[beemermark]

35mm on SLR is super dificult to focus even with the split prism in the middle.

Manual focus lenses can be difficult to focus on digital bodies because the focusing screen is made for AF lenses.