Canon New FD NFD 24-35mm F/3.5 L?

[mtnbkr]

What is the general consensus on this lens? I'm mostly a "wide to normal" shooter and think this would be a good "walking around lens" to go with my FT or F-1. The few reviews I've found seem positive, but I was wondering if folks here had any experiences with it. I'm not crazy about zooms from that era, but this one appears to be on the better end of the scale for the era.

Chris

 

[benjiboy]

I have the Canon FDn 20 - 35 f3.5 L zoom lens, the first Canon L lens I bought it used about a year ago, I have wanted one for nearly thirty years since they were first available, this was Canon's first L zoom lens, I couldn't afford one because they were over £ 900 then.
I can confirm that this is a very useful walk around lens that I use a lot because although I have all the Canon FDn individual prime lenses from 20 -35, the L zoom gives prime lens quality, and saves 3 1/2 lb less in weight to lug about, besides avoids making several lens changes and allows precise subject framing.

 

[mtnbkr]

Thanks. I also considered the 20-35, but it's a bit too expensive and I seldom want something as wide as 20. I'm mostly interested in the 24-35 range. I have a couple primes (FD 28/2 and 50/1.8, FL 28/3.5 and 50/1.4 ) so this would make a good general use lens with the primes stepping in when I need more speed or less bulk.

Chris

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have used the Nikon NIKKOR f/2.8D AF 20mm to 35mm for years. Yes, I do not often need the 20mm very often, but when I want to it is there.

 

[mtnbkr]

I have used the Nikon NIKKOR f/2.8D AF 20mm to 35mm for years. Yes, I do not often need the 20mm very often, but when I want to it is there.

I had a 15mm on my Canon rangefinder and found it more gimmicky than useful. I'm sure there are times where something wider than 24mm is useful, but for the majority of what I do, it hasn't been a concern. The cost for the version that goes to 20mm is double that of the 24mm version. I can't justify that with the excuse that I *might* want it one day.

Chris

 

[Hassasin]

If you can swallow price difference take the 20-35 L instead, but 24-35 L is a great lens. Both rather big, even if that comes with performance territory. If you could compare 20-35 and 24-35 in actual use, you would likely see why that wider 20 end is so much more than it appears.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I had a 15mm on my Canon rangefinder and found it more gimmicky than useful. I'm sure there are times where something wider than 24mm is useful, but for the majority of what I do, it hasn't been a concern. The cost for the version that goes to 20mm is double that of the 24mm version. I can't justify that with the excuse that I *might* want it one day.

Chris

Very wide lenses take care to use. Novices like to "take it all in", but that wears thin. Having one close or closer object dominating is a common usage for very wide lenses.

 

[Hassasin]

Thanks. I also considered the 20-35, but it's a bit too expensive and I seldom want something as wide as 20. I'm mostly interested in the 24-35 range. I have a couple primes (FD 28/2 and 50/1.8, FL 28/3.5 and 50/1.4 ) so this would make a good general use lens with the primes stepping in when I need more speed or less bulk.

Chris

Make sure you see & feel the actual size of the 24-35 L, it is quite monstrous compared to primes in under 135 range. Convenience weighs, bulks up, nothing comes free I suppose. Sure If you take 24/28/35 and compare to one single 24-35 it may not seem that way, but that one big is hanging onto your camera at all times. All in all, it will not be beneficial at all in many situations.

 

[mtnbkr]

Very wide lenses take care to use. Novices like to "take it all in", but that wears thin. Having one close or closer object dominating is a common usage for very wide lenses.

Yup. What I found is that I have very few shots where that was appropriate or desirable.

Chris

 

[mtnbkr]

Make sure you see & feel the actual size of the 24-35 L, it is quite monstrous compared to primes in under 135 range. Convenience weighs, bulks up, nothing comes free I suppose. Sure If you take 24/28/35 and compare to one single 24-35 it may not seem that way, but that one big is hanging onto your camera at all times. All in all, it will not be beneficial at all in many situations.

I'm aware that it's fairly large, but I haven't seen one locally to actually fondle in person. I have other cameras and lenses for when I need to travel light. I mainly intend to use this on my F-1, which is already rather large.

Chris

 

[Hassasin]

I'm aware that it's fairly large, but I haven't seen one locally to actually fondle in person. I have other cameras and lenses for when I need to travel light. I mainly intend to use this on my F-1, which is already rather large.

Chris

It will balance well on the F1. I only pointed out its size may surprise, especially when typical reasoning goes one lens vs. 3, got to be better, and it is not always so. But again, 24-35L is a great lens and worth having.

 

[Hassasin]

Just wanted to point out that Canon made same optical design under earlier mount and with S.S.C. designation. Often this lens comes in at a lesser price, but performance is same.

 

[mtnbkr]

Just wanted to point out that Canon made same optical design under earlier mount and with S.S.C. designation. Often this lens comes in at a lesser price, but performance is same.

Thanks, I'll look for one.

Chris

 

[Hassasin]

Canon FD S.S.C. 24-35 this is the one. hood is also something to watch out for, essential for this lens, and usually quite expensive alone.

 

[mtnbkr]

Canon FD S.S.C. 24-35 this is the one. hood is also something to watch out for, essential for this lens, and usually quite expensive alone.

So far every example I've found has been nearly 2x the price of the L version, putting it on par with the 20-35.

At this rate, I might just stick with my primes.

Chris

 

[Hassasin]

This lens can be found as part of a camera package far more often than the L, and when that happens it is often undervalued. Alone you can still find it at lower than L version simply because it does not say L.

Unfortunately, it has prominently displayed "aspherical" and that likely gives people a pause and some believe it is different form L version, which it is not. Could be that there were more Ls made too, I don't know. In its day it w as a ground breaking optical design.

I brought it up because over last 2-3 years I have seen it often enough priced below L version. It is not a given, but does happen. If you can find L version for $200-250, in pristine/great condition, it's an excellent value.

Look at Japan offerings too.

 

[benjiboy]

Make sure you see & feel the actual size of the 24-35 L, it is quite monstrous compared to primes in under 135 range. Convenience weighs, bulks up, nothing comes free I suppose. Sure If you take 24/28/35 and compare to one single 24-35 it may not seem that way, but that one big is hanging onto your camera at all times. All in all, it will not be beneficial at all in many situations.

I weighed my Canon FD 20 -35 f3.5 L lens when I first bought it, against the total weight of my FDn 20 mm f 2, 24 mm f 2, 28mm F 2.8 and 35 mm f 2, and the L zoom was about 2 1/2 lb lighter than them all together.
I never hang my camera around my neck, I use a small shoulder bag, and a hand strap

 

[Hassasin]

I weighed my Canon FD 20 -35 f3.5 L lens when I first bought it, against the total weight of my FDn 20 mm f 2, 24 mm f 2, 28mm F 2.8 and 35 mm f 2, and the L zoom was about 2 1/2 lb lighter than them all together.
I never hang my camera around my neck, I use a small shoulder bag, and a hand strap

not a good comparison, but also not a point I was making.

 

[Craig]

The 20-35 is slightly lighter and smaller than the 24-35, both new FD versions. I've not shot a 24-35, but I am very happy with my 20-35. I picked it up years ago when people were dumping film gear and never regretted it.

 

[benjiboy]

There's no "magic bullet", you can't have the convenience , precise framing ability and prime lens optical quality of a zoom lens like FD 20-35 L, and the lighter weight and handleability of separate prime lenses.

 

[Hassasin]

There's no "magic bullet", you can't have the convenience and prime lens optical quality of a zoom lens like FD 20-35 L, and the lighter weight and handleability of separate prime lenses.

Actually that may no prove correct, all things taken in. Unless we only consider what is attached to the camera, not the whole lot to cover same range. Never mind continues change of angle of view with zoom vs. stepped with up to 4 lenses (20-24-28-35)

 

[benjiboy]

Actually that may no prove correct, all things taken in. Unless we only consider what is attached to the camera, not the whole lot to cover same range. Never mind continues change of angle of view with zoom vs. stepped with up to 4 lenses (20-24-28-35)

As I have already written my friend, although I have all the F.D prime lenses that my FDn 20-35L zoom covers, since I shoot mainly transparency film I find having the constant f3.5 aperture of the zoom very useable, and the ability to frame precisely, and not have to change lenses very useful indeed.

 

[Hassasin]

As I have already written my friend, although I have all the F.D prime lenses that my FDn 20-35L zoom covers, since I shoot mainly transparency film I find having the constant f3.5 aperture of the zoom very useable, and the ability to frame precisely, and not have to change lenses very useful indeed.

Sorry I did not fully grasped your post then. Now it is clearer and I agree.

 

[eli griggs]

I had the 20-35L Canon and it's been my experience, photographically, that once a new to me/you focal length is available, it's use becomes a more often used feature than the photographer anticipated.

If you're able, go for the wider L glass.

 

[benjiboy]

I had the 20-35L Canon and it's been my experience, photographically, that once a new to me/you focal length is available, it's use becomes a more often used feature than the photographer anticipated.

If you're able, go for the wider L glass.

I have never regretted buying my Canon FD 20-35 f3.5 L zoom, I had to wait more than twenty years before I could buy one at a price I could afford, because when the lens was current in the 1980s in the U.K it was about £ 940 ($1669 U.S.) that in those days was out of the question with both my son's at university.
I find the lens to be extremely useful, because although on the face of it 20-35 doesn't seem like an awfully big range in a wide angle zoom it is, and although I have the prime lenses it covers, I find that there's no obvious loss of optical quality between them, and I find that to carry a Canon F1 body and the 20-35 L with the 35-105 zoom will cover most subjects with the minimum of the lens changes, and weight to carry.