This Canon FD Glass is Pretty Good.

[Steve M.]

My KEH Bgn FD SSC 100 2.8, and FD SC 135 2.5 lenses arrived. Roughly $60 each. Mounted them onto the FT QL, and ran a roll of C41 B&W over to Walgreens afterwards. I was praying that the 100 2.8 would be "good enough" because it was half the size and weight of the 135 2.5, but alas, it wasn't meant to be.

Research showed that the 135 was a sleeper portrait lens, and I concur. It's big, heavy, and single coated....but it makes lovely images. These were from the 135 2.5. Everything hand held and at f2.5 or f4.

[Peter_wrote:]

cool photos. im in love with the fd-lenses, too.

[mervynyan]

love the ssc 50/3.5 macro, with 1:1 extender, it does wonder. otherwise 85/1.2l will do-

[dogberryjr]

I'm sorry to hear you didn't get along with the 100 2.8. I think it's a gem, especially for the price.

[raid]

I have been using FD glass for about 30 years now. My favorites include the 50/1.2L, 85/1.2L, 80-200/4L, 28-50/3.5 SSC and 24mm/2.8.

[Steve M.]

Oh, the 100 2.8 I like. The 135 2.5 I love. Totally different signatures.

[gavinlg]

Too right - canon FD glass is severely underrated. The L lenses in particular are superb.

[sparrow6224]

I just took a bunch of stuff with a newish-ly acquired FD 135/2. It looks like beautiful glass. I can't wait to see the results. Hard to imagine, though, any results better than these. Beautiful work, compositionally and otherwise.

[sparrow6224]

By the way if you love FD glass, it so happens I'm sellling some, on that old auction site: a 28mm f/2, an 85mm f/1.8 and a somewhat compromised but still usable 17mm f/4. (I'm keeping the old chrome-nose concave 35mm f/2, the 50/1.4 SSC and the aforementioned 135/2.) I hate to lose the others but I need some cash and use mostly Nikon so it's hard to justify so much FD equipment lying about unused.

Actually since there are FD fans here -- who knew -- I should post the lenses here....

[Brad Bireley]

After looking at your photos I went on KEH & got one $49.00 ! I have the 100/2.8 & think it's a wonderful lens.

[dufffader]

And for me, its a FD 24mm f2. Took a while to find one.

[Pfreddee]

In the mouse and cat photos, is the cat waiting to nab the mousie??

With best regards.

Pfreddee(Stephen)

PS: Very well done!

[dogberryjr]

Originally Posted by sparrow6224

I just took a bunch of stuff with a newish-ly acquired FD 135/2. It looks like beautiful glass. I can't wait to see the results. Hard to imagine, though, any results better than these. Beautiful work, compositionally and otherwise.

This is the last FD lens I'd like to try (okay, maybe a fisheye, too), but I've yet to find a copy at a price I can live with. I have lately been contemplating getting down to one 35mm SLR system and Nikon seems to make the most sense because I have a D700, but man, it's hard to part with this lovely FD stuff.

[peterm1]

So is the FL glass. I have several FL lenses that I liked partly because the extremely high build quality but could not use them on digital due to the Canons' short register distance until I got a Sony NEX and an adapter. The 28mm f3.5, 35mm f2.5, 50mm f1.8, 58mm f1.2, 85mm f1.8, 135mm f2.8 and 200mm f3.5 are all pretty good to just plain excellent. The 58mm f 1.2 is the one I use perhaps most often due to its good sharpness and excellent bokeh. Its a real keeper. From time to time I look for some of the more models to round out my collection. The 50mm f1.4 is high on the list.

[KoNickon]

Yes, you should!

Originally Posted by sparrow6224

By the way if you love FD glass, it so happens I'm sellling some, on that old auction site: a 28mm f/2, an 85mm f/1.8 and a somewhat compromised but still usable 17mm f/4. (I'm keeping the old chrome-nose concave 35mm f/2, the 50/1.4 SSC and the aforementioned 135/2.) I hate to lose the others but I need some cash and use mostly Nikon so it's hard to justify so much FD equipment lying about unused.

Actually since there are FD fans here -- who knew -- I should post the lenses here....

[KoNickon]

The FL and breech mount FD lenses are beautifully made lenses. The mount seems ridiculously complicated, though.

[Mackinaw]

Originally Posted by KoNickon

The FL and breech mount FD lenses are beautifully made lenses. The mount seems ridiculously complicated, though.

The physical mount itself? Or the linkages? R, FL and FD breech lock mounts are actually pretty simple. The newer FDn mount is definitely more complex.

As for the linkages on the back of the lens, FD lenses were made to work with a 3.5 speed/second motor drive so while the linkages may look confusing, they do work.

But I do agree that other manufacturers did things simpler.

Jim B.

[Steve M.]

Did you buy a 135 2.5 Brad? That's a great price. I just ordered an FD 85 1.8 to compare it to the 135 2.5. Looking at the first roll, I think the 135 needs to be stopped down to maybe f4 on portraits due to it's long focal length. It weighs a ton mounted on that FT QL, but it will be interesting to compare it to the 85 1.8.

[Ace0fClub5]

I have a 135/2.5 as well. Great lens. Iirc, it also has radioactive elements in it, so don't go sleeping with it under your pillow!

[Peter_wrote:]

Originally Posted by Ace0fClub5

I have a 135/2.5 as well. Great lens. Iirc, it also has radioactive elements in it, so don't go sleeping with it under your pillow!

really? i just bought one and wondered myself, if it may have a thorium lens, because the front lens has some yellowish tint.
but it looks only a bit yellow, when i look from the front. looking through it's clear. so i think it's just the coating...

anyway by searching in the net i have only found, that some versions of the 35/2 have a thorium lens...

[Brad Bireley]

Originally Posted by Steve M.

Did you buy a 135 2.5 Brad? That's a great price. I just ordered an FD 85 1.8 to compare it to the 135 2.5. Looking at the first roll, I think the 135 needs to be stopped down to maybe f4 on portraits due to it's long focal length. It weighs a ton mounted on that FT QL, but it will be interesting to compare it to the 85 1.8.

Yeah it was the 2.5! It's in BGN condition. I almost bought the 200 f/4 SSC FOR $22.00! But I want the 200mm f/2.8.

[jarski]

M42 glass is pretty good too

FD 85/1.2 would be nice beast to try. not a sleeper lens unfortunately.

[dogberryjr]

Originally Posted by jarski

FD 85/1.2 would be nice beast to try. not a sleeper lens unfortunately.

It's certainly a great way to find out how narrow 1.2 really is. I can't tell you how many photos I have with the tip of a person's NOSE perfectly in focus.

[Steve M.]

"I can't tell you how many photos I have with the tip of a person's NOSE perfectly in focus".

That's funny. It's what I'm seeing on the 135 2.5. Normally I shoot a 90, and w/ the 135 wide open at 2.5, the part that's in focus is pretty darn narrow.

[Peter_wrote:]

just to push up a fd-related thread

canon fd 135/2.5 sc


Untitled von Me auf Flickr