FD 35mm F2

[dbbowen2]

Hello all, Ive been on the hunt for a FD 35mm F2 Concave for a while, and as the prices have gone up, and what i have been finding are poor quality glass and bodies...

I was just curious if anyone with experience with this exact lens could lend its first hand experiences over say a nFD 35mm F2? Heck, or even just a non concave ssc one?

I have a cheap 28mm 2.8 and a 50mm 1.4, but I find myself leaning towards the 35 over these two. Is the concave lens really THAT good? Im almost at the point of eating the tariff and buying one from Japan

Thank you

 

[dbbowen2]

@loccdor i saw that you had one listed in the classifieds here a year ago, did it not really live up to the hype?

 

[loccdor]

@loccdor i saw that you had one listed in the classifieds here a year ago, did it not really live up to the hype?

It's quite good and I still have it, I just didn't feel the combination of wide angle and wide aperture had much use to my particular style of photography. I generally use wide angles stopped down. If you're interested in buying it let me know, it's a nice copy, still available and not seeing much use.

For Sale - FD Mount Canon Lenses: 35mm f/2 chrome nose, 35mm f/3.5, 100mm f/2.8 stuck wide open

FD 35mm f/2 - Chrome nose, thorium, yellowing treated with UV lamp, working great - $300 $250 FD 35mm f/3.5 - Working great - $75 $65 nFD 100mm f/2.8 - Only works wide open - $50 $45 nFD 24mm f/2.8 - Working great - $85 Sold! Prices do not include shipping. Items are in USA. Payment through...

www.photrio.com

 

[loccdor]

Here are the pictures I took with the lens. They're 2400 dpi flatbed scans.

Flickr Search

www.flickr.com

 

[dbbowen2]

It's quite good and I still have it, I just didn't feel the combination of wide angle and wide aperture had much use to my particular style of photography. I generally use wide angles stopped down. If you're interested in buying it let me know, it's a nice copy, still available and not seeing much use.

For Sale - FD Mount Canon Lenses: 35mm f/2 chrome nose, 35mm f/3.5, 100mm f/2.8 stuck wide open

FD 35mm f/2 - Chrome nose, thorium, yellowing treated with UV lamp, working great - $300 $250 FD 35mm f/3.5 - Working great - $75 $65 nFD 100mm f/2.8 - Only works wide open - $50 $45 nFD 24mm f/2.8 - Working great - $85 Sold! Prices do not include shipping. Items are in USA. Payment through...

www.photrio.com

Honestly, if you’d be willing to let it go I’d love to take it off your hands. I’d love to see what kind of images I can get out it it!

Most of my photos with this focal length are of my toddler but trying to get some background detail in. It would be nice to try as 50 is a little too narrow and 28 is a little too wide and sometimes makes her face look a little off haha

Either way, I’d love to buy it from you!

 

[dynachrome]

This is an old question. At least ten years ago I bought the 35/2 FD SSC concave front model. I shot some Tri-X, which had been recently reformulated. The photos I took of the conservatory at the Botanical Gardens in The Bronx were very sharp. Later I gave the lens the UV light treatment, which provided some benefit. As my FD collection kept expanding, I got a later 35/2 FD SSC with the convex front element. After that I wound up with three 35/2 New FD examples. All three versions of the 35/2 are very good. If you are shooting black & white film or color print film, the concave front model is fine. If you are shooting color slide film, it's less trouble to use a later lens. There is a 35/2 model before the FD SSC but it isn't coated as well. The convex FD SSC and the New FD are equally good optically but mechanically the FD SSC is better.

 

[dbbowen2]

This is an old question. At least ten years ago I bought the 35/2 FD SSC concave front model. I shot some Tri-X, which had been recently reformulated. The photos I took of the conservatory at the Botanical Gardens in The Bronx were very sharp. Later I gave the lens the UV light treatment, which provided some benefit. As my FD collection kept expanding, I got a later 35/2 FD SSC with the convex front element. After that I wound up with three 35/2 New FD examples. All three versions of the 35/2 are very good. If you are shooting black & white film or color print film, the concave front model is fine. If you are shooting color slide film, it's less trouble to use a later lens. There is a 35/2 model before the FD SSC but it isn't coated as well. The convex FD SSC and the New FD are equally good optically but mechanically the FD SSC is better.

Thank you for the insight, seems like you have had just about all of them haha. I am currently building up my FD lens collection but have not had a single 35mm prime. I shoot mostly color c41 and slide film. Ive been wanting to get into BW, specifically trichrome and infrared though, and thought this focal length would be great for some landscape stuff. I think the new FD 35s especially the 3.5s can be found for very cheap, so it would be worth finding a concave one and also a newer cheaper one and testing them against each other! I read somewhere that the earlier chrome nose non SSC lenses did better wide open than the SSC ones but ive got no first hand experience with it

 

[dynachrome]

A few things: I would be surprised if the chrome front lens were sharper than the concave front SSC. They have the same optical design, just different coating. There were only two New FD 35 versions. There was an f/2.8 lens and an f/2 lens. There were two pre-New FD 35mm f/3.5 versions. The later one is supposed to be better. I have both but have never tested them against each other. Before the FD system came out in 1971 there was the FL system of 1964. That system had a 35/2.5 and a 35/3.5. Before that there was the Canonflex system of 1959. That system had a 35/2.5 R lens. I have all of these.

 

[benjiboy]

Hello all, Ive been on the hunt for a FD 35mm F2 Concave for a while, and as the prices have gone up, and what i have been finding are poor quality glass and bodies...

I was just curious if anyone with experience with this exact lens could lend its first hand experiences over say a nFD 35mm F2? Heck, or even just a non concave ssc one?

I have a cheap 28mm 2.8 and a 50mm 1.4, but I find myself leaning towards the 35 over these two. Is the concave lens really THAT good? Im almost at the point of eating the tariff and buying one from Japan

Thank you

I have had one for more than thirty years. Yes they are really that good,cI don't have a FDn 35 mm f 2
to compare it with, but I do have a FDn 35 mm f 2.8 and I find that the definition on the f 2 is better at most apertures. The 2.8 35 mm lens has multi coating, the chrome nose eara ones didn't.
If Something happened to my Thorium lens, I wouldn't hesitate to buy another.

 

[dbbowen2]

A few things: I would be surprised if the chrome front lens were sharper than the concave front SSC. They have the same optical design, just different coating. There were only two New FD 35 versions. There was an f/2.8 lens and an f/2 lens. There were two pre-New FD 35mm f/3.5 versions. The later one is supposed to be better. I have both but have never tested them against each other. Before the FD system came out in 1971 there was the FL system of 1964. That system had a 35/2.5 and a 35/3.5. Before that there was the Canonflex system of 1959. That system had a 35/2.5 R lens. I have all of these.

I think i am in the minority with the coating thing where lens flares and artifacts like that are more welcomed in my photos of my toddler in portraits. I have a digital ASPC camera for sharp images so with the film photos im looking more for "Character" if that makes any sense. I havent dabbled into the rangefinder canons but they are on the list to try out!

 

[dbbowen2]

I have had one for more than thirty years. Yes they are really that good,cI don't have a FDn 35 mm f 2
to compare it with, but I do have a FDn 35 mm f 2.8 and I find that the definition on the f 2 is better at most apertures. The 2.8 35 mm lens has multi coating, the chrome nose eara ones didn't.
If Something happened to my Thorium lens, I wouldn't hesitate to buy another.

well that settles it. Ill try and pick up @loccdor s 35/2. I think the differences in coating for my uses would be pretty negligible. Have you had to do the UV light treatment to yours?

 

[benjiboy]

well that settles it. Ill try and pick up @loccdor s 35/2. I think the differences in coating for my uses would be pretty negligible. Have you had to do the UV light treatment to yours?

Yes, I used an IKEA table lamp, I also managed to buy the correct Canon hood, the B W 5 5a that helps with flare on eBay from someone in LA, they must be pretty rare these days.
These lenses have ten elements and are pretty heavy, especially on an F1 body, but must be some of the best 35 mm optics ever made.

 

[dbbowen2]

Yes, I used an IKEA table lamp, I also managed to buy the correct Canon hood, the B W 5 5a that helps with flare on eBay from someone in LA, they must be pretty rare these days.
These lenses have ten elements and are pretty heavy, especially on an F1 body, but must be some of the best 35 mm optics ever made.

I actually have an 85/1.2L that i bought damaged. Someone dropped it and dented it all up and then listed it for sale and I was able to take apart and repair for nothing. Id imagine now with this 35mm in my bag its going to be much heavier haha! Ill look up the Ikea lamp treatment. I know people like the yellowing for B&W photography, but id like to use this mostly for color

 

[loccdor]

Sent @dbbowen2 the lens - by the way it was mostly de-yellowed with a UV lamp already, though you might be able to get it a hair clearer with additional treatment, and the yellow will start to come back over time.

 

[dbbowen2]

Sent @dbbowen2 the lens - by the way it was mostly de-yellowed with a UV lamp already, though you might be able to get it a hair clearer with additional treatment, and the yellow will start to come back over time.

Oh perfect! Thats easy enough. Thank you again for the super easy transaction!

 

[Tony-S]

Oh perfect! Thats easy enough. Thank you again for the super easy transaction!

Well? How's it working for you? Photos, please!

 

[Tony-S]

This is an old question. At least ten years ago I bought the 35/2 FD SSC concave front model. I shot some Tri-X, which had been recently reformulated. The photos I took of the conservatory at the Botanical Gardens in The Bronx were very sharp. Later I gave the lens the UV light treatment, which provided some benefit. As my FD collection kept expanding, I got a later 35/2 FD SSC with the convex front element. After that I wound up with three 35/2 New FD examples. All three versions of the 35/2 are very good. If you are shooting black & white film or color print film, the concave front model is fine. If you are shooting color slide film, it's less trouble to use a later lens. There is a 35/2 model before the FD SSC but it isn't coated as well. The convex FD SSC and the New FD are equally good optically but mechanically the FD SSC is better.

Have you compared them to the Old FD 35mm f/2.8 T/S?

 

[dynachrome]

I do not have the Canon T/S. I have the second to last version if the 35/2.8 PC (Perspective Control) Nikkor. I can use it on my Canons with the Canon N Adapter.