The humble Canon Beercan lens

[gone]

Ever look through your old shots, and wonder why you changed methods? For years I used Canon FD SLRs, and always developed the Tri-X in D76 full strength. Later, I got more expensive gear, used different films and developers, etc.

Today I was looking at the old shots and wow, that old Canon FD 135 2.5 "beercan" lens was really good! As good as a Leica R lens in many instances, and at a fraction of the cost. The head shots were grab shots, the other 2 subjects didn't move around so much. I should get another one of these lenses.

 

[benjiboy]

Canon FD lenses are better lenses than most of the people who own them are photographers, including myself.

 

[gone]

I agree, even the 50 2.8 budget lens takes great pics. The only downside to the 135 2.5 is it's length, it can be a bit much for a walk around lens.

One day I took identical portraits using a FD 85 1.8 lens, the 135 beer can, and a Leica R 90 2.8 Elmarit (the latter had to go on another camera, couldn't fit it to the FD body). There was very little difference between them, which is pretty crazy given the price spread. They all made beautiful portraits, w/ the 135 giving a nice bit of compression, which is good for keeping the noses small.

 

[benjiboy]

I don't have the F.D 135mm f2.5 lens, I have the FDn 135 f2.8 one and it's bitingly sharp, on some occasions too sharp for female portraits, especially if the lady is "a certain age".