Canon FD 35mm f2 lenses...?

[gnashings]

I know of 3 different variants of this (35mm f2 FD)lens, but would like to get the input of the resident Canon-ologists and FD gurus.
What I would like to know is the following:
-how many were there? (I know of the two locking ring, original FD era f2 and f2 SSC as well as the New FD version - is there more?).
-what were the differences (I know some had the concave front element, for example).
-which are more/less desireable (from a performance point of view)

I just spend some time doing research on this lens - and found a lot conflicting reports (especially as to which lenses had the concave element, as well as the pros and cons of that). I would really appreciate it if any of you could clarify this for me or point me to a site that can help (I found the photography in Malaysia site to be a good stand by, but on this subject I found little info, and much contradiction).

Thanks in advance for all and any help and information,

Peter.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I owned the last version--great lens, a real sleeper, and a good bargain now. A few years ago they were going for around $200, and now they're often under $100.

The early chrome nose with the radioactive concave front element is considered to be excellent for B&W, but can have some problems with color, perhaps due to yellowing of the front element or perhaps due to the design of the lens.

 

[gnashings]

Thanks for the info - so its the chrome nose (earliest version) that had the concave lens? Right there you helped me out - many sources say it was the SSC with the concave element... but I always questioned that as the ones I saw first hand and in pictures appeared to have a regular, convex lens. Thanks for clarifying that, too.

Peter.

 

[cao]

Does the UV bleaching trick work here?

The early chrome nose with the radioactive concave front element is considered to be excellent for B&W, but can have some problems with color, perhaps due to yellowing of the front element or perhaps due to the design of the lens.

I know that some have had success bleaching the yellow out of the Pentax 50/1.4 (Super and SMC) Takumars by exposing them to ultraviolet light, and I wonder if that would work with these Canon lenses as well.

 

[gnashings]

Apparently most of the rare-earth glass will "bleach" if exposed to sunlight for a while. Never tried it myself.

 

[kunihiko]

As far as the Canon Camera Museusm lists, there are 3 versions of chrome nose 35mm f2, a concave s.s.c and a convex s.s.c.

 

[gnashings]

As far as the Canon Camera Museusm lists, there are 3 versions of chrome nose 35mm f2, a concave s.s.c and a convex s.s.c.

Thanks for that info. See what I mean? Right there we have several versions, which is what I encountered with these lenses. Then there is the New FD version... oy!

Peter.

Edit:

This just in: I went to museum site, and found the info you speak of. When I tried to access it before, on several occasions, I was unable...

So i guess there is the 3 chrome nose, 2 ssc and 1 New FD.
Now, I am unable to tell the differences between the 3 chrome lenses, which ssc lens is better (since the newer one is convex... and generally, they do get better as they develop)?
The only significant difference I can find other than the front element is that the New FD lens has more lenses in more groups...

So i guess it boils down to this: are the concave lens models worth pursuing for any reasons other than curiousity and the appeal of the unusual? And also, is the New FD model significantly better?

I DO know that most of these differences will be of purely academic significance, and most likely, be lost on my meagre skills - not to mention the inherent limitations of hand-held, 35mm phtography. But I would still like to know