Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Canon FL 2,5/135
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2022 11:57 am    Post subject: Canon FL 2,5/135 Reply with quote
Just bought this lens and tried it on a 25mm extension tube. Nice rendering and quite sharp by f4,0. I was interested since it seems to be a sonnar design which has a good reputation for bokeh. Quite heavy though.


[img]Tulipe | Parc de Saint-Cloud by lumens pixel, sur Flickr[/img]

Last edited by lumens pixel on Sun Apr 24, 2022 8:58 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2022 3:31 pm    Post subject: Re: Canon FL 2,5/135 Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
Just bought this lens and tried it on a 25mm extension tube. Nice rendering and quite sharp by f4,0. I was interested since it seems to be a sonar design which has a good reputation for bokeh. Quite heavy though.


[img]Tulipe | Parc de Saint-Cloud by lumens pixel, sur Flickr[/img]


Very nice picture. I've got this lens as well and much appreciate its sharpness, useable from wide open. Nethertheless,the lens suffers a little bit, like all other Canon FL lenses, from the lack of modern multi-coating. Thus, a certain lack of contrast is one of the "trademarks" of Canon FL rendering, especially compared to the rendering of the more modern FD line. Great for black and white (you'll get transparent shadows and smooth highlights...), the weaker contrast can be handily compensated while post processing, so it's not really a big deal.

BTW, among my Canon FL lenses, I really dig the 28 mm f/3,5, 35 mm f/2,5, 50 mm f/3,5 Macro and 100 mm f/3,5 lenses.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2022 7:05 pm    Post subject: Re: Canon FL 2,5/135 Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
Just bought this lens ... I was interested since it seems to be a sonar design ...


Donno if that's a Sonnar ... I'd rather say it's a Double Gauss, though a pretty asymmetrical one (just like the Biotar 1.5/7.5cm which obviously is a Planar = Double Gauss).

First the Biotar:


Now the Canon FL 2.5/135mm:


However I'm not an optical engineer, and maybe the actual design philosophy of the FL is closer to a Sonnar than a Biotar/Planar ??

S


PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2022 8:19 pm    Post subject: Re: Canon FL 2,5/135 Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
lumens pixel wrote:
Just bought this lens ... I was interested since it seems to be a sonar design ...


Donno if that's a Sonnar ... I'd rather say it's a Double Gauss, though a pretty asymmetrical one (just like the Biotar 1.5/7.5cm which obviously is a Planar = Double Gauss).

First the Biotar:


Now the Canon FL 2.5/135mm:


However I'm not an optical engineer, and maybe the actual design philosophy of the FL is closer to a Sonnar than a Biotar/Planar ??

S


I always get confused when it comes to these lens design classifications. All my books show examples of different designs and their names, but often multiple variants exist and not one book or reference I have found actually describes the defining characteristics of any of those named designs.

Looking at the Wikipedia page for the Zeiss Sonnar, it shows two clearly different lens designs, both called "Sonnar". In Applied Photographic Optics by S.F. Ray, the "double Gauss" is said to be characterised by meniscus lenses concave to a central stop. Then there are literally hundreds of double Gauss variants. But there are also many designs that feature that characteristic but are not double Gauss designs. Go figure... Rolling Eyes

Anyway, my vote would also be for an asymmetric double Gauss.

According to the very interesting site below, the Sonnar is actually a modified Ernostar:

https://www.pencilofrays.com/lens-design-forms/#sonnar

https://www.pencilofrays.com/lens-design-forms/

https://www.pencilofrays.com/double-gauss-sonnar-comparison/


PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2022 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Nope- my vote still goes for Sonnar, because of the extremely thick, non-symmetrical third element that's so common to Sonnars.

Just because the rear group is a little different, doesn't change that. Infact around this era (50s-60s), plus around this focal length and speed, there was a fair bit of variation that's not been repeated since. Ever seen an odd-looking fast 50 from a fixed lens camera in the 50s? etc. Hard to pin this understanding down in one sentence but you get the idea.

Also in almost all triplets the 'third'/last element often sees the least variation/modification - in the journey from Cooke triplet to Sonnar you could say it's untouched.

So you could say that whilst the tweaks at the back are certainly different, they're less consequential than you think. Also probably an artifact of getting to f2.5 speed (so maybe still significant Laughing)

Also the triplet design is awash with alot more 'shape'/thickness asymmetry than Double-Gauss ever is. I'm not even considering modern stuff here, just up to 1960.


As a refresher:

Triplet to Sonnar



Gauss telescope objective to Lee Opic f/2 (one of the first Double-Gauss lenses)



PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2022 10:19 pm    Post subject: Re: Canon FL 2,5/135 Reply with quote
Alsatian2017 wrote:


BTW, among my Canon FL lenses, I really dig the 28 mm f/3,5, 35 mm f/2,5, 50 mm f/3,5 Macro and 100 mm f/3,5 lenses.


I would like to hear your thoughts about these four lenses, specially considering I own the FD 28 2,8, the nFD 35 2,8, the nFD 50 3,5 and the Bokina. What to expect from the FLs in terms of IQ? I would be happy to read they are good since I do enjoy their aesthetics and craftsmanship.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2022 7:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
eggplant wrote:
Nope- my vote still goes for Sonnar, because of the extremely thick, non-symmetrical third element that's so common to Sonnars.


That is a valid observation. That's why it would be helpful to know what all these names actually mean, i.e. what exact characteristics/features a lens calculation needs to have to be validly called a "Sonnar", or "Double Gauss", "Ernostar" etc.

A designer assigning a new name to a new lens, and then some later designs that look a little bit similar also being designated that name seems a bit of a vague practice really Rolling Eyes

One designer's "modified double Gauss" could be another designer's "modified Sonnar", for all I can tell... Wink


PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2022 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
All lenses are doublets with some elements added :p


PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2022 12:16 pm    Post subject: Re: Canon FL 2,5/135 Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
Alsatian2017 wrote:


BTW, among my Canon FL lenses, I really dig the 28 mm f/3,5, 35 mm f/2,5, 50 mm f/3,5 Macro and 100 mm f/3,5 lenses.


I would like to hear your thoughts about these four lenses, specially considering I own the FD 28 2,8, the nFD 35 2,8, the nFD 50 3,5 and the Bokina. What to expect from the FLs in terms of IQ? I would be happy to read they are good since I do enjoy their aesthetics and craftsmanship.


I haven't done any formal comparisons but the rendering of the FL and nFD lenses is very different. While the lens designers of the 1960's valued high resolution above everything (the magazine tests only published resolution numbers...), later on the lenses were more rounded in the sense that contrast was taken into consideration as well (the more modern MTF tests were measuring the two parameters and their relationship to each other) - contrast was further improved by the introduction of multi-coating (SSC in the case of Canon). The FL lenses thus are very sharp but less contrasty than their equivalent FD conterparts, they produce softer, more muted colors while being less resistant to straylight and flare.

* the FL 28 mm f/3,5 and FD 28 mm f/3,5 rendering is quite similar, the later being only single-coated. Center sharpness is equivalent, borders and corners are sharper about 1 stop earlier in images taken with the more modern lens - so you'll need to stop down the FL to f/11 to reach the corner sharness of the FD at f/8.

* the FL 35 mm f/2,5 is quite soft wide open and needs to be closed to f/8 (center) or f/11 (corner) to get optimum sharness at infinity distances, the lens gets sharper at distances between 5 and 10 m where the sharpness is uniformly distributed at f/8 (f/11 to reach the outermost corners). Flare in landscape and night images is well controled. For landscape, the nFD 35mm f/2,8 is sharper by about 1 stop and a half (you need to close the FL to f/11 to get about the same sharpness as the nFD at between f/5,6 andf/Cool.

* the FL 50 mm f/3,5 Macro is a Tessar type lens (4 elements in 3 groups) and thus slightly inferior at infinity to the FD 50 mm f/3,5 (I own and use the SSC version) while being extremely good up close. For landscape you'll have to close it down to f/8 to get sharp corners. Otherwise i's an extremely useful and very sharp lens. A little sensitive to flare though.

* the FL 100 mm f/3,5 is quite a special FL lens since resolution and contrast are high and uniformy distributed throughout the full frame image from wide open. That's one of my favorite medium tele lenses. Flare resistance is good. Very nice bokeh. I would rate the lens about as high as the nFD 100 mm f/2,8 (which is excellent, by the way...).

For me, the FL lenses can't replace my FD SSC/nFD but they complement them very well whenever I want to get a more vintage rendering (the FD SSC /nFD series produce very modern looking images). Furthermore, I love the mechanical contruction and the look and feel of the older lenses, let alone their "maintenance friendliness" - the lens block/diaphragm always separates quickly and easily from the helicoid.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2022 2:06 pm    Post subject: Re: Canon FL 2,5/135 Reply with quote
Alsatian2017 wrote:
lumens pixel wrote:
Alsatian2017 wrote:


BTW, among my Canon FL lenses, I really dig the 28 mm f/3,5, 35 mm f/2,5, 50 mm f/3,5 Macro and 100 mm f/3,5 lenses.


I would like to hear your thoughts about these four lenses, specially considering I own the FD 28 2,8, the nFD 35 2,8, the nFD 50 3,5 and the Bokina. What to expect from the FLs in terms of IQ? I would be happy to read they are good since I do enjoy their aesthetics and craftsmanship.


I haven't done any formal comparisons but the rendering of the FL and nFD lenses is very different. While the lens designers of the 1960's valued high resolution above everything (the magazine tests only published resolution numbers...), later on the lenses were more rounded in the sense that contrast was taken into consideration as well (the more modern MTF tests were measuring the two parameters and their relationship to each other) - contrast was further improved by the introduction of multi-coating (SSC in the case of Canon). The FL lenses thus are very sharp but less contrasty than their equivalent FD conterparts, they produce softer, more muted colors while being less resistant to straylight and flare.

* the FL 28 mm f/3,5 and FD 28 mm f/3,5 rendering is quite similar, the later being only single-coated. Center sharpness is equivalent, borders and corners are sharper about 1 stop earlier in images taken with the more modern lens - so you'll need to stop down the FL to f/11 to reach the corner sharness of the FD at f/8.

* the FL 35 mm f/2,5 is quite soft wide open and needs to be closed to f/8 (center) or f/11 (corner) to get optimum sharness at infinity distances, the lens gets sharper at distances between 5 and 10 m where the sharpness is uniformly distributed at f/8 (f/11 to reach the outermost corners). Flare in landscape and night images is well controled. For landscape, the nFD 35mm f/2,8 is sharper by about 1 stop and a half (you need to close the FL to f/11 to get about the same sharpness as the nFD at between f/5,6 andf/Cool.

* the FL 50 mm f/3,5 Macro is a Tessar type lens (4 elements in 3 groups) and thus slightly inferior at infinity to the FD 50 mm f/3,5 (I own and use the SSC version) while being extremely good up close. For landscape you'll have to close it down to f/8 to get sharp corners. Otherwise i's an extremely useful and very sharp lens. A little sensitive to flare though.

* the FL 100 mm f/3,5 is quite a special FL lens since resolution and contrast are high and uniformy distributed throughout the full frame image from wide open. That's one of my favorite medium tele lenses. Flare resistance is good. Very nice bokeh. I would rate the lens about as high as the nFD 100 mm f/2,8 (which is excellent, by the way...).

For me, the FL lenses can't replace my FD SSC/nFD but they complement them very well whenever I want to get a more vintage rendering (the FD SSC /nFD series produce very modern looking images). Furthermore, I love the mechanical contruction and the look and feel of the older lenses, let alone their "maintenance friendliness" - the lens block/diaphragm always separates quickly and easily from the helicoid.


That is quite helpful. Many thanks. The 35 2,5 does not seems the most interesting of the band.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2022 2:40 pm    Post subject: Re: Canon FL 2,5/135 Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:


That is quite helpful. Many thanks. The 35 2,5 does not seems the most interesting of the band.


I agree. In fact, the FL 35mm f/2,5 is a survivor of the Canomatic R Line so it was designed in the beginning of the Sixties while the nFD 35 mm f/2,8 hails from the end of the Seventies. Meanwhile, optical design and glass research improved quite a lot. The later FL 35 mm f/3,5 is likeable as well though it's a member of the budget FL line (35 mm f/3,5, 50 mm f/1,8, 135 mm f/3,5 and 200 mm f/4,5) of less sophisticated lenses.

Following are two landscapes taken with the Sony A7 and the Canon FL 35 mm f/3,5 :


#1


#2

[/img]


PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well the 35 3,5 seems nice. Do you remember the aperture you have used for these pics?

I am interested in your opinion about the budgets 135 3,5 and 200 4,5 since the 135 2,5 and 200 3,5 are really heavy.

If the 50 1,8 FL II shares its computation with the FD it should be a very good lens.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Bertele_Sonnar/00_pag.htm

Gives me the impression that Bertele or Zeiss started to call the designs Sonnar when the rear group became an assembly of three cemented elements in the Ernostar design. Later on any Ernostar related design made by Zeiss was called Sonnar as it sold better with that name.

It is still a pity that the Gundlach Ultrastigmat does not get its credit in the development of fast lenses based on the triplet. Or for that matter the Ruo Caleinar designs that were developed in the same period Ernostar and Sonnars designs were made.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2022 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
Well the 35 3,5 seems nice. Do you remember the aperture you have used for these pics?

I am interested in your opinion about the budgets 135 3,5 and 200 4,5 since the 135 2,5 and 200 3,5 are really heavy.

If the 50 1,8 FL II shares its computation with the FD it should be a very good lens.


From the "budget" line (I call them like this since they have a simpler construction and a matte finish...), I only own the 35 mm f/3,5 and 50 mm f/1,8 II, the latter sharing the computation of the FD 50 mm f/1,8 SC while having a simpler coating. Both offer solid performance. I don't know the 135 mm f/3,5 and the 200 mm f/4,5. I really like the 200 mm f/3,5 of which I have the first version without built-in lens hood. It's great but unfortunately very heavy so it mostly stays at home .


PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2022 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
Well the 35 3,5 seems nice. Do you remember the aperture you have used for these pics?



It must have been f/11

Group picture of my FL lenses :


#1


PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2022 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very nice set... I am in awe.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2022 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
Very nice set... I am in awe.


Well, i still haven't found an affordable 55 mm f/1,2 Wink


PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2022 6:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alsatian2017 wrote:

Group picture of my FL lenses :


Yesterday I snatched a Canon FL 85mm f/1.8 with a Canon T90 in good working condition as a rear cap )) The first impression of the lens is very positive.

Alsatian2017 wrote:

Well, i still haven't found an affordable 55 mm f/1,2 Wink


I also got one of those three days ago and an equivalent of about $150 in exchange for my second copy of Minolta MD 20mm.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2022 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Manichaean wrote:
Alsatian2017 wrote:

Group picture of my FL lenses :


Yesterday I snatched a Canon FL 85mm f/1.8 with a Canon T90 in good working condition as a rear cap )) The first impression of the lens is very positive.

Alsatian2017 wrote:

Well, i still haven't found an affordable 55 mm f/1,2 Wink


I also got one of those three days ago and an equivalent of about $150 in exchange for my second copy of Minolta MD 20mm.


Very rare lens it seems this 85mm.

Your 55mm was not expensive. I paid mine 210 €. Congrats.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2022 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Old FL 135 2,5 strikes again, on 25mm extension tube :

[img]Tulipe by lumens pixel, sur Flickr[/img]


PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2022 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alsatian2017 wrote:
lumens pixel wrote:
Very nice set... I am in awe.


Well, I still haven't found an affordable 55 mm f/1,2 Wink


Despite the fact that I enjoy a lot the 55 1,2 I might nevertheless buy a 50 1,8. For one lens strolls the 1,2 is perfect but if you travel and plan to have three or more lenses with you the big fat ones are quite weighty. I am not sure that by f3,5 someone could tell one from the other.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2022 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Canon Fl 135mm 2,5 wide open


PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2022 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Manichaean wrote:
Alsatian2017 wrote:

Group picture of my FL lenses :


Yesterday I snatched a Canon FL 85mm f/1.8 with a Canon T90 in good working condition as a rear cap )) The first impression of the lens is very positive.

Alsatian2017 wrote:

Well, i still haven't found an affordable 55 mm f/1,2 Wink


I also got one of those three days ago and an equivalent of about $150 in exchange for my second copy of Minolta MD 20mm.


The FL 85 mm f/1,8 is on my radar screen as well. But since I own a nFD 85 mm f/1,8 I'm not really in a hurry. Furthermore, I rarely pay more than 50 € for my vintage lenses since i tend to buy "As is" lenses in order to repair them.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2022 8:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:

I am not sure that by f3,5 someone could tell one from the other.


That's my experience as well.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2022 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
planet.groove wrote:
Canon Fl 135mm 2,5 wide open


Nice, thanks for sharing.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2