Canon FD Lens service recommendation

[1963mca]

My FD 35-70mm 2.8 has just developed a minor "clunk" when the lens shifts position. The zoom portion of the lens moves a bit when the lens orientation shifts (I point the lens up or down and the lens moves on its own a fraction of an inch and a tiny clunk can be heard). Anyone encounter this and any recommendations on who to contact for service? Never had a problem with my FD gear in nearly 50 years. Not that it matters but it is used on my F-1 although it happens even when not attached to the camera body.

 

[AgX]

This is to a certain extent inherent to all single-ring zoom lenses (with one barrel ring for both zooming and focusing)
Though once a manufacturer had a zoom lock.


If the damping of that ring is too strong, zooming will be a hassle. If it is too weak the zoom setting will easily be lost.
Basically there should be a medium damping. However when I had the choice between 3 samples of one FD zoom lens I chose the less damped sample, even though it had a scratch at its front element, as for my use the lesser damping was most ideal.

The damping may change over decennia, and can be redone at a workshop. But I said the above to indicate thet there is no optimum damping, it depends on the needs of the user.

 

[1963mca]

Thanks for the information. In my case, however, the lens uses two rings, the front for focus and the rear for zoom (Macro/35 to 70mm). I haven't used this lens for a while and I don't recall it having this zoom issue before. I don't know what affect, if any, it will have on the focus. I'm guessing once I set the zoom with the rear ring, then focus with the front ring, without tilting the camera so the zoom portion ,moves slightly, I'll be fine. I'll take a roll of film under different conditions and see if I can see any differences. I did set it to Macro with it locked and the zoom element still moves back a forth slightly.

 

[AgX]

Sorry, I went for the obvious and thus mixed up the various respective lenses.

I got one FD 35-70mm 2-ring lens, where at 35mm setting one can push the front assembly back in, with as result the zoom ring rotating. However I did not yet experience a 2-ring lens with the lens assembly sagging out of itself.

Another thing to to consider, expecially at the FD-range, is falling apart of the roller guides controlling the cam movements inside these lenses. A roller falling apart will leave only its axle, thus introducing play.
This is likely what you experience.

 

[1963mca]

Kind of figured it might be something like that. I'm primarily trying to find a recommendation for Canon repair of this older gear. I've never had to have a piece of Canon equipment repaired, so have no idea who to look at. Figured film oriented folks might have some leads on repair services. Take care!

 

[Mackinaw]

Ken Oikawa, in California, has a stellar reputation for servicing Canon FL/FD gear. He's a retired Canon repair tech. Google for contact info.

 

[1963mca]

Thanks much, I will try both of these individuals!

 

[benjiboy]

The FD 35 - 70 can be bought so cheaply these days in excellent condition it's much cheaper to replace it than to pay to have it serviced.

 

[1963mca]

True, but how do I know another used lens won't have some other issue down the road? Except for the zoom issue, my lens is already in excellent shape, perfect cosmetically with no damage, dings or wear marks. I'd rather see about getting it fixed even if it costs a little more. It's an issue of nostalgia. Been using my Canon film gear for near 50 years and won't be buying any more, so I would like to keep what I have going if it is a reasonable repair.

 

[Rowreidr]

Toshio from TF camera repair (East Brunswick, NJ) is extremely well respected in the Canon repair world. I somehow unscrewed the helicoid on my ugly quality FD 50 1.2L back in 2010. It took a little while, but he basically disassembled, cleaned, adjusted, and replaced all the screws. It was costly ($350+), more than what I had paid for the lens, but so worth it. It's been a while since I've used him, but also did excellent work with my digital Canon gear.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

The FD 35 - 70 can be bought so cheaply these days in excellent condition it's much cheaper to replace it than to pay to have it serviced.

This attitude is so wasteful.

 

[AgX]

I do not think so.
Such cheap-replacement concept comes up to my mind too. I'm known as saviour of photomechanical stuff, but I have nevertheless economics in mind too.

However, if in this case the cause are the rollers, and if that lens model is prone to roller decay, a repair including exchange of all rollers for better ones (very hypothetic) may be benefitial over exchanging unrepaired sample by sample for the same cause.

 

[flavio81]

My FD 35-70mm 2.8 has just developed a minor "clunk" when the lens shifts position. The zoom portion of the lens moves a bit when the lens orientation shifts (I point the lens up or down and the lens moves on its own a fraction of an inch and a tiny clunk can be heard). Anyone encounter this and any recommendations on who to contact for service? Never had a problem with my FD gear in nearly 50 years. Not that it matters but it is used on my F-1 although it happens even when not attached to the camera body.

The lens groups ride the zoom cam using some bushings that get destroyed or degraded over time. I have seen this with my very own eyes. They will need replacement. This makes the zoom groups rattle and not keep exact proper position. A symptop is that the zoom lens isn't parfocal anymore -- you focus at one focal length and when zooming to the other extreme the focus is lost.

Apparently most '80s canon FD lenses use those bushings and will need service.

 

[eli griggs]

This attitude is so wasteful.

It also depends on which lenses we are speaking to.

Generally Canon lenses, in my experience of plus 40 years, are great performers and need only a minimum of care, and the FD series throughout low cost to L series have a continuity of imaging that no other 135 maker, with perhaps the exception of Contax, can match.

Another reason Canon lenses are so low cost is, Canon meet the needs of the market so well, and sold exactly what each level of the market, wanted/needed, that the abundance of lenses can no help but be lower because there are so many available.

Folk like to point out Nikon lenses are 'better' thus more expensive, but it depends on what your need in a lens is, and Canon made sure beginner to top professionals had precisely the 'right' body and lens for their needs.

This is why, when I bought my first F1 AE kit, L series lenses populated my bag and they were the reason I did no go with what I considered 'lesser' Nikon quality glass.

IMO, then and today.

 

[benjiboy]

True, but how do I know another used lens won't have some other issue down the road? Except for the zoom issue, my lens is already in excellent shape, perfect cosmetically with no damage, dings or wear marks. I'd rather see about getting it fixed even if it costs a little more. It's an issue of nostalgia. Been using my Canon film gear for near 50 years and won't be buying any more, so I would like to keep what I have going if it is a reasonable repair.

We are not talking about "a little more" it could be 2 to 3 times more, lenses are made by machine, they are repaired by hand.
I too have been using Canon FD gear for about 50 years but if my 35 -70 f2.8 -3.5 zoom became faulty because they are such cheaply manufactured plasticy optics after more than thirty years use, I would put it in the bin and replace it.

 

[flavio81]

We are not talking about "a little more" it could be 2 to 3 times more, lenses are made by machine, they are repaired by hand.
I too have been using Canon FD gear for about 50 years but if my 35 -70 f2.8 -3.5 zoom became faulty because they are such cheaply manufactured plasticy optics after more than thirty years use, I would put it in the bin and replace it.

The 35-70 2.8/3.5 has nothing that can be considered "cheaply" or "plasticy"! That was a professional zoom.

The zoom cams rode on nylon bearings because Canon engineers thought this was the best idea. Lenses like the 35-70 mentioned use expensive glass and precision zoom cams, Canon could have easily used other materials there, but they choose nylon. Who are we to fault them?

 

[flavio81]

Folk like to point out Nikon lenses are 'better' thus more expensive,

And they aren't better. Maybe some amateur New FD lenses have indeed lesser build quality than the corresponding 80's Nikkor lenses. For example the New FD 50/1.8 has really cheap build quality compared to a Nikkor 50/1.8 long nose. Or the nFD 135/3.5 to the equivalent 135/3.5 AI (I own the Nikon and Canon lenses I am mentioning, btw). But even then, the helicoids of the New FD are better (rarely show play and are smoother; don't require mainteinance as some AI lenses i've gotten did.)

Even then, i'd prefer the Canon New FD 135/3.5 over the Nikkor AI 135/3.5: The canon is smaller, lighter, and modern tests using a Sony A7 show that optically it's very good and the bokeh too. The Nikkor is also an excellent lens and one of my favorites.

Now, on the '60s lenses the Canon FL lenses build quality is slightly inferior to the nikkors until perhaps 1965 or so. For example the 85-300/5 Canon FL (which I owned) was fantastically built. (It was one of the most expensive FL lenses ever, on the other hand). Or my FL 19/3.5R, well built, nothing inferior in build quality (or optics!) to the Nikkor-UD 20/3.5.

The 70s FD line is well built, the good "pro-quality" lenses (i.e. the regular FD 55/1.2 or 50/1.4) have, for example, all diaphragm mechanisms running on a huge number of tiny ball bearings. Same for the "good" new FD lenses by the way. Only the cheapest new FD lenses got no such treatment: The nFD 28/2.8 lacks ball bearings, but the 28/2.0 did (as well as the older FD 28/2.8 and even the first FD 28, which is the f3.5).

Even then the "build quality" point is moot, because in the 60s and 70s, Pentax had the highest build quality in lenses by far. Change my mind!!

 

[eli griggs]

And they aren't better. Maybe some amateur New FD lenses have indeed lesser build quality than the corresponding 80's Nikkor lenses. For example the New FD 50/1.8 has really cheap build quality compared to a Nikkor 50/1.8 long nose. Or the nFD 135/3.5 to the equivalent 135/3.5 AI (I own the Nikon and Canon lenses I am mentioning, btw). But even then, the helicoids of the New FD are better (rarely show play and are smoother; don't require mainteinance as some AI lenses i've gotten did.)

Even then, i'd prefer the Canon New FD 135/3.5 over the Nikkor AI 135/3.5: The canon is smaller, lighter, and modern tests using a Sony A7 show that optically it's very good and the bokeh too. The Nikkor is also an excellent lens and one of my favorites.

Now, on the '60s lenses the Canon FL lenses build quality is slightly inferior to the nikkors until perhaps 1965 or so. For example the 85-300/5 Canon FL (which I owned) was fantastically built. (It was one of the most expensive FL lenses ever, on the other hand). Or my FL 19/3.5R, well built, nothing inferior in build quality (or optics!) to the Nikkor-UD 20/3.5.

The 70s FD line is well built, the good "pro-quality" lenses (i.e. the regular FD 55/1.2 or 50/1.4) have, for example, all diaphragm mechanisms running on a huge number of tiny ball bearings. Same for the "good" new FD lenses by the way. Only the cheapest new FD lenses got no such treatment: The nFD 28/2.8 lacks ball bearings, but the 28/2.0 did (as well as the older FD 28/2.8 and even the first FD 28, which is the f3.5).

Even then the "build quality" point is moot, because in the 60s and 70s, Pentax had the highest build quality in lenses by far. Change my mind!!

I agree, then and now, that the FD lenses are better, but many people do promote that particular meme, who have no idea in the fullness of the various lines within FD series.

Good systems in your kit, require careful picking and exclusion of it contents.

 

[flavio81]

Good systems in your kit, require careful picking and exclusion of it contents.

Yes, this is true, at least for Canon and Nikon and Pentax and most likely for all other manufacturers.