FD 35mm F2

[dbbowen2]

The 35/2.0 concave, chrome nose, which I own, is a lens I have almost never used, because:

- It is very heavy
- It has yellowing due to the thorium lenses.

So it is confined to the shelf, really.

The New FD 35/2.0 is a lens i wouldn't recommend, because:

- most samples out there suffer from haze
- it has a floating system and New FD lenses with floating systems tend to suffer from degratadion of the guides required to move the floating assembly. As a result, the moving part of the optical system rattles and is not aligned correctly.

Thus, i'd recommend you to go to the real nice, high performance, small, light and cheap FD 35mm lenses, which are the New FD 35/2.8 and the FD 35/3.5 S.C. Both of them are truly good.

I’d be actually pretty curious to see the difference with the 35/2.8 and the chrome nose concave. I’ve been absolutely loving mine so far and I haven’t shot a single shot on my 50/1.4 ssc since receiving it. I’m lucky that mine doesn’t have the yellowing in it so I’ve just been shooting color with it

 

[flavio81]

I’d be actually pretty curious to see the difference with the 35/2.8 and the chrome nose concave. I’ve been absolutely loving mine so far and I haven’t shot a single shot on my 50/1.4 ssc since receiving it. I’m lucky that mine doesn’t have the yellowing in it so I’ve just been shooting color with it

The 35/2.8 FDn is a superb lens.

No need for a 35/2.0 Chrome Nose unless you want the narrower depth of field. Again, i own the 35/2.0 Chrome Nose, so i'm speaking from experience.

Yet, if you are after narrow depth of field with perfect sharpness, you should move up to medium format... Even 6x4.5 will completely destroy 35mm film, assuming equal film stock and equal scanning/printing.

Thus the 35/2.8 FDn, being compact and light, as well as the 35/3.5, are excellent companions for 35mm photography. The latter (35/3.5 SC) i've extensively used on a trip using Provia 100F and found really satisfying. Yet the 35/2.8 will give slightly more saturated colors.

 

[dbbowen2]

The 35/2.8 FDn is a superb lens.

No need for a 35/2.0 Chrome Nose unless you want the narrower depth of field. Again, i own the 35/2.0 Chrome Nose, so i'm speaking from experience.

Yet, if you are after narrow depth of field with perfect sharpness, you should move up to medium format... Even 6x4.5 will completely destroy 35mm film, assuming equal film stock and equal scanning/printing.

Thus the 35/2.8 FDn, being compact and light, as well as the 35/3.5, are excellent companions for 35mm photography. The latter (35/3.5 SC) i've extensively used on a trip using Provia 100F and found really satisfying. Yet the 35/2.8 will give slightly more saturated colors.

oh medium format is on the wish list for sure. I was thinking a 645 mamiya or something for the economy of more photos per roll haha

 

[flavio81]

oh medium format is on the wish list for sure. I was thinking a 645 mamiya or something for the economy of more photos per roll haha

6x4.5 gets you far better quality than 35mm with just a little bit more weight and size.

6x7 gets you close to 4x5 quality (depending on the film stock) with far quicker speed of operation, and reflex viewing.

 

[Craig]

I have a 35/2.0 concave and it is quite yellowed, I have only used it for B&W film. I actually bought the SSC version years ago from KEH when FD stuff was selling for next to nothing and the only reason I didn't get the nFD was the SSC was cheaper. I had no idea I was getting the concave version.

I can't say I have noticed the optical performance being significantly different from my nFD 20-35 zoom. I certainly can't pick out which lens was used when I put a negative in the enlarger.

 

[Tony-S]

I have a 35/2.0 concave and it is quite yellowed, I have only used it for B&W film.

Who needs a yellow filter when we have thorium!

 

[dynachrome]

The concave front FD SSC, the convex front FD SSC and the New FD 35/2 lenses are all excellent when in good condition. In comparing performance, build and color cast issues, the best compromise for me is the convex front FD SSC. It doesn't have the color cast issue and it is better made than the New FD. I have three examples of the New FD so I should have at least one in good condition for some time. There were two versions of the older 35/3.5 FD. I have both but I have not confirmed that the second version is better. What about the 35/2.8 New FD? I must have three of those. I think they are decent but not as good as any of the f/2 models.

 

[flavio81]

What about the 35/2.8 New FD? I must have three of those. I think they are decent but not as good as any of the f/2 models.

I found the 35/2.8 new FD an extremely good lens.

 

[benjiboy]

ghtflavio81:
I found the 35/2.8 new FD an excellent lens.
I have the 35 mm f/2 concave, and the 35 mm FDn f/2.8 and I agree Flavio the 2.8 is a very good lens, I tend to use the 2.8 more because it's much lighter to carry about, and if I'm shooting colour because of the sleight yellow caste my f2 still has.

 

[Craig]

Thinking of the yellowed lens elements, is there a way to remove the yellow cast? Or is it just part of the glass now. Mine has yellowed enough that I would not use the lens with colour film now.

 

[Tony-S]

Thinking of the yellowed lens elements, is there a way to remove the yellow cast? Or is it just part of the glass now. Mine has yellowed enough that I would not use the lens with colour film now.

With my M42 Pentax 50mm f/1.4 lens, I just sat it in direct sunlight on a windowsill for about 2 weeks and most of the yellowing disappeared.