Canon FL

CMoore · May 19, 2016

Any of you guys use your FL lens instead of your FD for some reason.?
I have:
35/2.5
50/1.8
135/3.5
Other than mounting them on an A-1 or AT-1...just to see how they work, I have not used them.
The 35 and 50 look similar to a Nikon (Non) AI lens.
The 135 looks much more like a breech-lock FD lens.
I am still a few months away from having a darkroom, so I do not shoot much anyway, but I am curious about the FL Glass. I acquired them in a bundle situation...either when I bought a body or with other lens deals.
They are not worth much money, so I figured to just keep them and put them to use eventually.
Any of you guys use yours on a "daily" basis.?
I suppose it might be fun to have to deal with the older technology.....sort of the whole idea behind shooting film to begin with. It becomes part of the Art/Hobby of film photography.

Toyo · May 19, 2016

CMoore said:
Any of you guys use your FL lens instead of your FD for some reason.?
I have:
35/2.5
50/1.8
135/3.5
Other than mounting them on an A-1 or AT-1...just to see how they work, I have not used them.
The 35 and 50 look similar to a Nikon (Non) AI lens.
The 135 looks much more like a breech-lock FD lens.
I am still a few months away from having a darkroom, so I do not shoot much anyway, but I am curious about the FL Glass. I acquired them in a bundle situation...either when I bought a body or with other lens deals.
They are not worth much money, so I figured to just keep them and put them to use eventually.
Any of you guys use yours on a "daily" basis.?
I suppose it might be fun to have to deal with the older technology.....sort of the whole idea behind shooting film to begin with. It becomes part of the Art/Hobby of film photography.

These are all very good lenses.
The 135 in particular is excellent - a sonnar type I think and a different design from the FD 135. Use them, you will be pleasantly surprised.
T

gone · May 19, 2016

Don't know about the 35, but I owned the other 2 and they're just fine.

I did a shootout between your FL 135 lens, a FD 135 3.5, and a FD 135 2.5, and found the 2.5 stellar. One of the best Canon FD lenses in their lineup, especially for portraits. Your FL 135 made very nice photos that were quite different that the FD 135 3.5, but you need a good hood on it due to flare. Mine has an odd 48mm filter size, so I put a 48 to 49 step ring on it so that it could use cheap 49mm filters w/ a hood.

The shot below was w/ the FL 50 1.8. HP5, D76, yellow filter. Below it is the FL 135 3.5 w/ Arista EDU Ultra 100 in Mic-X. It's soft wide open, which is what I was looking for w/ portraits. It's probably softer in that shot due to camera movement, as it was handheld at 1/15 in low light in a coffee house, which is asking too much of a 135 lens. You can see the flare on her hair from strong back/side window light, but I like the shot anyway. It would be easy to burn that part in on the final print.

dynachrome · May 19, 2016

I use them more on Canon F-1 cameras because I can change the focusing screens when I need to. My favorite FL lenses are the 135/2.5 and the 85/1.8.

CMoore · May 19, 2016

OK...thanks for the info and photos. That girl looks damn good for 1/15. I am just a beginner, but still, 1/15 would be tough for me I think.
Anyway.....I kind of got these lens by Default/Accident, perhaps I was luckier than I realized at the time.
Thanks Again

David Lyga · May 20, 2016

I think that the softness in the girl's face is due to either camera movement, or, more likely, focus that is less than dead on (easy to mess up with that focal length/large aperture). In fact, the Canon 3.5/135 is capable of almost razor sharp focus at full aperture.

Even a slight angular discrepancy with your SLR mirror might cause this error. I would check it by doing the '45 degree picket fence' test to see just where real focus is (film plane) and seeing if that reveals a possible difference with apparent focus (what your VF tells you). - David Lyga

Mackinaw · May 20, 2016

As for the girl pic, the blur is due to camera shake (hardly surprising considering you’re handholding a 135mm lens at 1/15th).

My favorite FL lens is the 28/3.5. Small, light and compact. with nice image quality. Set it to F8, zone focus, and it becomes a nice street photography lens. I also have a FL 58/1.2. Not too bad wide-open ( bit soft), but very unique bokeh, if that’s your thing. It is big though, so sees limited use on my old Canon FD cameras.

Jim B.

cooltouch · May 21, 2016

I have a few FL lenses, and would like to have a few more. Currently, I own:

35mm f/2.5
55mm f/1.2
85-300mm f/5

For many years, my favorite 35mm has been my FL 35mm f/2.5. Great sharpness and contrast. The 55/1.2 is very usable, even wide open. Canon kept this optical formula when they came out with their FD line of lenses, the only difference other than the mount being the coating. But I haven't found the coating used on the old FL lenses to be a drawback.

Here's a shot I took with the FL 35mm. The lens has great depth of field. Canon FTb, Kodachrome 64:

CMoore · May 21, 2016

That is a beautiful shot there ^^^^^^^

RalphLambrecht · May 21, 2016

cooltouch said:
I have a few FL lenses, and would like to have a few more. Currently, I own:

35mm f/2.5
55mm f/1.2
85-300mm f/5

For many years, my favorite 35mm has been my FL 35mm f/2.5. Great sharpness and contrast. The 55/1.2 is very usable, even wide open. Canon kept this optical formula when they came out with their FD line of lenses, the only difference other than the mount being the coating. But I haven't found the coating used on the old FL lenses to be a drawback.

Here's a shot I took with the FL 35mm. The lens has great depth of field. Canon FTb, Kodachrome 64:

[/QUO
TE]
looks like a shot from a high-quality lens

cooltouch · May 23, 2016

Yep, well I've always considered the FL 35/2.5 to be a high quality lens. Here's a landscape shot of the same subject. Canon FTb, Kodachrome 64:

Here's a shot I took with my FL 35/2.5 the day I bought it. The time of day was close to sunset, hence the strong colors. Canon FTb, Kodachrome 64:

gone · May 23, 2016

I once owned a FL and FD 85 1.8. They were very different in the way they made images. The FL was technically sharper, while I read that the FD was designed on purpose to be a little soft at 1.8 for portraits. It made Leica like 3-D pics at f4 and beyond, and wide open was within a whisker of a Leica R 90 lens for head shots. That's good company. In most ways it was just as good, I just preferred the Leica sometimes.

Still, the FL 135 3.5 is a very capable lens. If you can't make a great portrait w/ it, it/s not the lens.

The first shot is w/ the FL 85 1.8, the second w/ the FL 85 1.8, and the third w/ the Leica R 90 2.8 Elmarit.

MattKrull · Jun 8, 2016

I've got a FL 85mm 1.8
I use it on an AT-1 and an AE-1 (I haven't tried it on my T90 yet). I'm curious about Momus' comments about the softfocus on the FD, because I was under the impression the FL was the same (designed for soft focus at 1.8, sharp by f4). I haven't actually printed any negatives from my 85 yet (despite having owned it for more than a year).

Mainecoonmaniac · Jun 8, 2016

I've shot with my Canon FD 85mm f/1.8 for 30 years. I love the lens, but...the contrast on the Leica R 90 2.8 Elmarit is nicer I think . Is that my imagination?

flavio81 · Jun 20, 2016

I like FL lenses. They are well built. The FL lenses that were launched circa 1968 have the same optical design than the breech lock FD lenses.

I have:
FL 19/3.5R -- i will not post any opinion on it because I don't want prices to rise (wink wink)
FL 85-300/5.0 -- nice, tiny and light zoom lens that i haven't been able to use more due to being about 1.8Kg in weight and bigger than any other lens I own. Build quality is extremely high and shows no distortion.
Cooltouch, what are your impressions on this lens?

I had the FL 35/2.5 which was my fetish, i even got to fully dissasembling it down to the aperture blades and left it in MINT shape, but never got an image I liked with this lens.

Now, don't forget Super-Canomatic (R) lenses. I have the 135/2.5 R and i feel it has even nicer bokeh than the 135/2.5 of FL and R formula.

The 135/3.5 FL has a different formula than the second-gen FD version and than the new-FD version. The FL has nicer bokeh. On the other hand the new FD 135/3.5 is really light and compact.

The 58/1.2 FL has a look of its own.

CMoore · Jun 20, 2016

The problem with that 19 for me is.....it will not fit on an A-1 or an AT-1 body.....according to the Canon Manuals I have.

flavio81 · Jun 20, 2016

CMoore said:
The problem with that 19 for me is.....it will not fit on an A-1 or an AT-1 body.....according to the Canon Manuals I have.

I think this refers to the FL 19/3.5 lens, not the FL 19/3.5R lens. They are very different.

CMoore · Jun 20, 2016

Ah...OK.
Did not notice you were talking about another lens.
Sorry About That

Dennis S · Jun 20, 2016

The FL are great lenses. My 55/1.2 is always on one of my Canons. Here is a photo done with this lens. Sorry if you have seen it on another post but it just just so good I am happy as hell with it.

cooltouch · Jun 27, 2016

flavio81 said:
I like FL lenses. They are well built. The FL lenses that were launched circa 1968 have the same optical design than the breech lock FD lenses.

I have:
FL 19/3.5R -- i will not post any opinion on it because I don't want prices to rise (wink wink)
FL 85-300/5.0 -- nice, tiny and light zoom lens that i haven't been able to use more due to being about 1.8Kg in weight and bigger than any other lens I own. Build quality is extremely high and shows no distortion.
Cooltouch, what are your impressions on this lens?

In short -- I love it. My impressions are just about the same as yours. As big as a mortar tube, but close to zero distortion and little if any CA. Very good sharpness, even wide open at 300mm. Mine came with an original Canon wedge shaped case. I was curious about the reason why the case was wedged shaped until one day when I was looking at how much room there was at the top of the case and then it dawned on me. I mounted an FTb to the lens and dropped it back in the case, and it closed up just fine. So that's kind of cool -- you can carry that big lens around in its original case with a large 35mm camera attached to it, ready to shoot.

I used to own the regular 19mm f/3.5 -- the one that didn't require mirror lock up to use. And I loved that lens. Wish I would have never sold it. Nowadays, prices are steep for that old hunk of glass, but worth it, really.

benjiboy · Jun 27, 2016

These are excellent lenses if you can cope with pre-set diaphragms, I can't all my lenses are F.D.

Mackinaw · Jun 27, 2016

benjiboy said:
These are excellent lenses if you can cope with pre-set diaphragms, I can't all my lenses are F.D.

FL lenses work the same on a FD-bodied camera as a FL-bodied camera. Meeting is stop-down only, but viewing and focusing is with the lens wide-open. The aperture will stop down to the taking aperture when you press the shutter button. No need to pre-set the diaphragm.

Jim B.

AgX · Jun 27, 2016

FL "already" got automatic aperture but is lacking aperture-setting communication between lens and body.

So the aperture must be pre-set manually, but is closed by the camera on releasing.

(Tricky thing in this thread is what to understand under "pre-set" ...)

CMoore · Jun 27, 2016

Mackinaw said:
FL lenses work the same on a FD-bodied camera as a FL-bodied camera. Meeting is stop-down only, but viewing and focusing is with the lens wide-open. The aperture will stop down to the taking aperture when you press the shutter button. No need to pre-set the diaphragm.

Jim B.

Yeah...I am confused, but reading YOUR post makes me think i am doing it the right way.?
Look through the view finder, if i agree with the meter, i set to that aperture, focus, then push the Stop-Down button, then click the shutter.?

cooltouch · Jun 27, 2016

No. You compose and focus the same as you would with an FD lens. You meter with the camera set in its stop-down mode. You do not have to have the lens set in stop down mode when you trip the shutter -- you can if you want, but the camera will set the aperture anyway to its pre-determined value when the shutter is tripped. It is very important that, if you use the camera's onboard meter, you meter with the stop-down lever engaged and then you set the meter needle to the stop-down metering index mark. With respect to the needle, I'm thinking of the AE-1, FTb and F-1. Those cameras with digital or LED readouts will handle the index differently, but the concept is the same.

I am reminded of the Canon A-1 as an example. That camera has a "Stopped Down AE" mode, which is essentially Aperture-Priority AE with the lens set to manual aperture mode. It stays stopped down when the shutter is tripped. But with other cameras, such as the FTb, EF, or original F-1, you can stop the lens down momentarily to meter -- or you can set the stop-down lever to stay put for manual aperture during exposure. Either way works.

Canon FL

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency