Canon Fdn 35 -70 mm, f 3.5/4.5

Discussion in '35mm Cameras and Accessories' started by ronwhit, Mar 2, 2018.

  1. ronwhit

    ronwhit Subscriber

    Messages:
    75
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Location:
    Rehoboth, MA
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I recently purchased a Canon Fdn 35-70 mm, f 3.5/4.5 lens at a flea market for $7.00, complete w/ a nice skylight filter. The lens still sported its JCII inspection sticker, and appeared to have been lightly used, if at all. With a "plastic" (polycarbonate?) mount and light weight, it probably was a kit lens for Canon A or T series cameras. I won't be using it to produce 11 x 14's, but expect it will make a good "walking around"/snapshot lens. I've looked for on-line reviews, and those that I have found all note a 52 mm filter size. This one takes a 55 mm filter, which seems to make it a strange exception. Do any of you fine folks own/use this lens, and can you comment on its performance and usefulness? Thanks, ronwhit
     
  2. Theo Sulphate

    Theo Sulphate Subscriber

    Messages:
    5,249
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2014
    Location:
    Gig Harbor & Palm Springs
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
  3. Ozxplorer

    Ozxplorer Subscriber

    Messages:
    176
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Ron, Theo is correct! The filer size is 52mm. I own this lens and have used it mainly for slide film projection. I think you will be pleasantly surprised to find that it will produce very acceptable 11x14s. A handy “go to” lens... used with auto exposure settings does away with the need for variable exposure readings being necessary because of the zooming aperture changes.
     
  4. DWThomas

    DWThomas Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,518
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Location:
    SE Pennsylvania
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I also own one, but it's 52mm. I find it great for a walk-around lens as it's light and compact and the performance is quite respectable. The version I have, the attached filter nearly sucks inside the lens barrel at some zoom settings, so I suspect a a 55mm could be iffy. That said, a 52 to 55 step-up ring would be a pretty inconspicuous item -- any chance there is one on your filter? I bought mine second hand from a friend 20 years or more ago, so I have no idea as to its manufacture date.
     
  5. vlasta

    vlasta Member

    Messages:
    92
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Location:
    Europa
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Canon lenses and cameras has a date code, till now, so manufacturing date is easy to decode.
     
  6. OP
    OP
    ronwhit

    ronwhit Subscriber

    Messages:
    75
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Location:
    Rehoboth, MA
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Thank you all for your enlightening replies. Indeed, this lens does take a 52 mm filter. It looks like the previous owner had somehow managed to engage just enough threads on a 55 mm to have it catch on the inner lens diameter. Once removed, I could not get it to thread properly to put it back on. (It seems metal filter threads can engage plastic lens bodies if one tries hard enough.) I tried a 52 mm and it worked fine. As DWThomas said, the filter kind of disappears into the lens barrel at some zoom settings, most notably at about 65 mm or so. A 52-55 mm step-up ring would probably make it easier to use a polarizing filter. Thanks! ronwhit
     
  7. Ozxplorer

    Ozxplorer Subscriber

    Messages:
    176
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
  8. DWThomas

    DWThomas Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,518
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Location:
    SE Pennsylvania
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thanks - mine has a Y*** number on it which suggests 1984, that sounds reasonable, since I think the EF lenses took over circa 1987. I did do tests on mine that showed some barrel distortion, especially at the wide end, but for shots of mountain scenery, cityscapes, and other vacation topics, it's quite adequate. (I do own the classic 35-105, but wearing that on a strap that canabout cut off the circulation in my neck after half a day!)
     
  9. vlasta

    vlasta Member

    Messages:
    92
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Location:
    Europa
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    How the OP lens compare with FDn 35-70mm / f4.0 ?
     
  10. DWThomas

    DWThomas Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,518
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Location:
    SE Pennsylvania
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I recall turning up some comments on that with a Google search. The comments said the earlier lens was better optically and perhaps stronger mechanically, but notably larger and heavier.
     
  11. OP
    OP
    ronwhit

    ronwhit Subscriber

    Messages:
    75
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Location:
    Rehoboth, MA
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Ozxplorer, thanks for the link to determine the manufacturing date for Canon lenses. This particular lens has a 7 digit s/n, 1716150, and a date code of A310, so it doesn't seem to fall into the format outlined on that site. Perhaps the A in the date code refers to 1986, which does make some sense. And the front does say "lens made in Japan". ronwhit
     
  12. DWThomas

    DWThomas Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,518
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Location:
    SE Pennsylvania
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Yes somewhere on one of those sites there was a comment that sometimes the leading digit was omitted on the month, if a '0', and they also recycled the letters. "And no one knows what the last two digits mean." Enh, close enough! :D
     
  13. Ozxplorer

    Ozxplorer Subscriber

    Messages:
    176
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I agree, March 1986 is a possibility as this lens may have been manufactured & sold to support the Canon T90 which started production in 1986.
     
  14. Craig

    Craig Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,207
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    Location:
    Calgary
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    It was introduced in late 1982. They said it was their first zoom to use 3 group zoom, so I think this must have been one of their first computer designed lenses. I had one, as well as the earlier 35-70 F4, and it is quite a bit smaller and lighter than the F4 version. It makes for a great travel lens, and I got some very nice images from it.
     
  15. benjiboy

    benjiboy Subscriber

    Messages:
    9,820
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Location:
    U.K.
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Groups:
    Contrary to popular opinion, largely because the barrels of these lenses are all polymer people discounted them, but these very useful little lenses aren't crap and optically they can produce some very good results, are a useful addition to any Canon FD lens collection.that can be bought for pocket change.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2018
  16. CMoore

    CMoore Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,293
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2015
    Location:
    USA CA 94585
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Yeah, i have the older one. It is metal, and 2x the size of the smaller Zooms.
     
  17. flavio81

    flavio81 Member

    Messages:
    3,221
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    Location:
    Lima, Peru
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Canon used computer for lens design since at least 1968, possibly as early as 1965.
     
  18. flavio81

    flavio81 Member

    Messages:
    3,221
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    Location:
    Lima, Peru
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I have a german magazine scan where the 35-70/4 comes out on top of a lot of comparablr zoom lenses of many brands (including the most expebsive ones).

    I had the 35-40/4 but mine was worn - basixally the zoom groups rattle and optical performance goes to hell. This is a 2-moving-group zoom which was something that apparently Canon released way before Nikon did (early 1970s, FD 35-70/2.8-3.5).

    Thr 35-70/3.5-4.5, which I own in mint shape, is much more compact and lighter. Here Canon lags Nikon - apparently Nikon released a compact 3-group 35-70 before Canon, and this FD followed.

    The 3.5-4.5 has good sharpness and high contrast, but it has a bit of distortion at the long side. The f4 had much less distortion!
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. If you have a Photrio account, please log in (and select 'stay logged in') to prevent recurrence of this notice.