Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Canon FD 135mm f2.5
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Dec 03, 2014 1:50 pm    Post subject: Canon FD 135mm f2.5 Reply with quote

So, this is my latest (greatest?) purchase. Thoughts so far are that Canon make a mean lens! Rock solid, build is lovely, and everything seems silky smooth. Definitely a big, heavy slab for my little G6 though.



Interestingly, I bought a Kiwiphotos FD-MFT adaptor and focus was slightly off; it went slightly past infinity. No matter, I had an unbranded one from my Vivitar which is spot on at infinity, so the Kiwiphotos went on the Viv (infinity isn't such an issue for a macro lens after all.)

Got a good serial number too! I read that the FDs were numbered starting at 10000, so I believe mine could be the ten thousandth off the production line Smile



Haven't had a lot of opportunities to shoot with it yet, but what I have taken has left me pretty happy. Seems to be quite sharp except wide open, and I quite like the bokeh.





All in all, definitely a keeper! Only thing is, now I fancy an even longer telephoto...time to lurk ebay for a Tair I think!


PostPosted: Wed Dec 03, 2014 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lovely pictures, the moorhen is very good - they are the worst bird in the world to get in focus! the damn things bob their heads all the time and never stay still Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Wed Dec 03, 2014 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ooohhh....the serial number. It`s a collectors dream.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 03, 2014 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

surely it's a FL mount lens! there isn't any f/2.5 on Canon FD's collection!


PostPosted: Wed Dec 03, 2014 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Canon had 2 135mm f2.5s in FD mount, one marked S.C. and one without. I heard that there was no difference in the actual optics and that it was just a marketing move, but without an S.C. version to compare against, I can't be certain of that claim.

Here's the page on the Canon museum site for my version


PostPosted: Wed Dec 03, 2014 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Raxar wrote:
surely it's a FL mount lens! there isn't any f/2.5 on Canon FD's collection!


Definitely an FD lens.
One of my two all time favourite FD's - the other being the 1.8/85 FDn
So sorry to have sold mine some years ago.
OH


PostPosted: Wed Dec 03, 2014 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Raxar wrote:
surely it's a FL mount lens! there isn't any f/2.5 on Canon FD's collection!


I had a look at 'Lens work' the 1981 edition and the 1984 HP Photobook on Canon SLR's and could see no 2.5 listed.







but it is listed in the 1991 Hove Foto Book "Canon Modern Classics" - does that date it?



PostPosted: Wed Dec 03, 2014 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mine was FD, not FDn mount.
Lloyd, your lists seem to be FDn mounts.
OH

PS - mine was like this:



PostPosted: Wed Dec 03, 2014 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

magpi wrote:
Canon had 2 135mm f2.5s in FD mount, one marked S.C. and one without. I heard that there was no difference in the actual optics and that it was just a marketing move, but without an S.C. version to compare against, I can't be certain of that claim.

Here's the page on the Canon museum site for my version

you are right! I mistaken it with 35mm f/2.5 Embarassed also i have fl version and it's an absolute gem Wink


PostPosted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I really like S.C. 2.5/135mm. So rich in colors and splendid bokeh. On NEX:



PostPosted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:21 pm    Post subject: Re: Canon FD 135mm f2.5 Reply with quote

magpi wrote:
So, this is my latest (greatest?) purchase. Thoughts so far are that Canon make a mean lens! Rock solid, build is lovely, and everything seems silky smooth. Definitely a big, heavy slab for my little G6 though.



Interestingly, I bought a Kiwiphotos FD-MFT adaptor and focus was slightly off; it went slightly past infinity. No matter, I had an unbranded one from my Vivitar which is spot on at infinity, so the Kiwiphotos went on the Viv (infinity isn't such an issue for a macro lens after all.)

Got a good serial number too! I read that the FDs were numbered starting at 10000, so I believe mine could be the ten thousandth off the production line Smile



Haven't had a lot of opportunities to shoot with it yet, but what I have taken has left me pretty happy. Seems to be quite sharp except wide open, and I quite like the bokeh.





All in all, definitely a keeper! Only thing is, now I fancy an even longer telephoto...time to lurk ebay for a Tair I think!


I think the second shot focused a bit on the front of the seagull, because the bird looks quite soft to me but the grass in front looks sharper. I expected the results are like the photos in Pancolart's reply. This lens is great, and it's much cheaper than the 135/2, which gives a bit thinner DOF that sometimes it's difficult to realize.

If you're looking for longer telephoto lenses, FD 200/2.8 is also a good choice Very Happy


PostPosted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

magpi wrote:
Canon had 2 135mm f2.5s in FD mount, one marked S.C. and one without. I heard that there was no difference in the actual optics and that it was just a marketing move, but without an S.C. version to compare against, I can't be certain of that claim.


Hi Magpi, that's a nice lens you have there. I think I may have been one of the under-bidders for it on eBay - !

The optics are identical between the 'plain' and SC versions, be sure of that. If there's any difference at all it will be in the lens coating. When the craze for promoting multi-layer coating began to accelerate in the 1970s after the hyperbole surrounding Pentax SMC lenses was gripping the photo journals, Canon introduced its designations of 'SC' and SSC'. SC stood for 'Spectra Coating' and SSC for 'Super Spectra Coating', meaning multi-coated - which you doubtless know already. (I can't remember if there was an SSC 135/2.5 . . .)

Canon's advertising drove home two messages: first, that it did indeed use multi-layer coating on some of its lenses and second, that even when it didn't, its SC coatings were still somehow superior to the 'ordinary' coatings other makers. What the advertising didn't publicise clearly enough was that for some lenses multi-layer coatings gave so little REAL benefit that it wasn't actually worth anyone's efforts and costs to use them. Nor did it spell out that many makers had already been applying two or more coating layers on some lens surfaces where there were specific benefits to be derived. The earliest I heard of that was in 1968 on a Leitz training course and it was clear from the technicians there that it certainly wasn't something that they'd only just started, nor was it peculiar to Leitz.

Pentax were a little bit creative in how they defined multi-layer coated lenses - the implication was that all surfaces had more than two coating layers but the feeling back in the 70s was that Pentax cheerfully used the term whenever multiple layers were deployed anywhere in a lens. Some surfaces had a lot, lot more than two layers - if you can rummage around the internet you'll probably find details.

What we could never tease out of Canon at the time was whether the SC lenses actually had coatings that were different from similar ones that lacked the designation. In any case, lens makers changed - and still change - coatings from time to time to allow for alterations in glass characteristics. We - myself included - all spend far too much time for our own good agonising about the supposed benefits of coating changes. Its one giant step from uncoated to coated, and then a succession of ever smaller steps as coating techniques become more and more sophisticated.

Good shooting with that particular Canon Very Happy