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 135mm f3.5 - that other Sonnar
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:29 am    Post subject: Canon FL 135mm f3.5 - that other Sonnar Reply with quote

Just some images taken around the home, but I find the lens performs well for me.
Most of these are at full aperture.
OH


#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


#6


PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some further images from this morning.
OH


#1


#2


#3


PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Happy Dog

#2 and #5 (1st group) my favorites. Indeed a nice Sonnar derived lens.

(2nd verse, better than the first) All three are winners!

I picked up its replacement at an estate sale. The FD S.C. 135-f/3.5. Haven't used it, since I have so many 135s in my 'collection'. Wink
Need to dust it off and see how it compares.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is this the common, cheap, 135 / 3.5 ? If it is, I should use mine more often. Lovely pictures Tom.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks fellas.

Lloydy wrote:
Is this the common, cheap, 135 / 3.5 ? If it is, I should use mine more often. Lovely pictures Tom.


I'm not sure if there are other versions but yes - cheap and good.
Here is mine.

OH



#1


#2


#3


PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2016 6:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excellent shots Smile

I wonder if the FL is the same layout as:


DSC01562 by unoh7, Canon LTM 135/3.5

Both are 4 elements in 3 groups Smile This is also quite a good lens, not as cheap as the FL but still just 85USD or so.

Here it is on the M9 around f/5.6:


L1014496 by unoh7, on Flickr


PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

uhoh7 wrote:
Excellent shots Smile

I wonder if the FL is the same layout as:


DSC01562 by unoh7, Canon LTM 135/3.5

Both are 4 elements in 3 groups Smile This is also quite a good lens.


Thank you for the kind words.
I am not sure about the layout, but it stands to reason that they could easily be the same.
Your landscape is very well taken.
I have been delighted with the performance of this lens and I re-shot one of the images above that I was not happy with.
Here are a few more as well as the re-done image.
OH


#1


#2


#3


#4


PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We are approaching mid-late summer here, and the eucalypts have grown to the point of shedding their old bark.
So that you know what I am talking about, here is an image of eucalypts taken with a wide angle lens:



Usually, the new trunks are beautiful in their colouring but yesterday I was taken by the bark itself.
Here is an image - the Canon FL again.
OH



PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great samples! Does anybody know if the FD S.C. version is the same? (i have one of those, never used it)


PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2016 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TrueLoveOne wrote:
Great samples! Does anybody know if the FD S.C. version is the same? (i have one of those, never used it)


Gratias amigo.
I think that the two are the same optically, but someone can correct me here. The FD 135/3.5 SC and the FL have four elements in three groups. The FDn 135/3.5 has four elements in four groups and is a different design.
Go ahead and give it a spin - you might like what it does. I am delighted with mine
Very Happy


PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2016 2:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Beautiful samples. Thanks for sharing.

I have a Canomatic R 135mm f3.5 (preset) which I believe preceded the FL range, but haven't had time to try it out yet. Hopefully it will be similar.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have the M39 version, it's a good lens but can't quite match a 'real' sonnar.

Canon 3.5/135:



CZJ Sonnar 3.5/135:



PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2016 5:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[oldhand]
Like Dog

Simply great! Love the additional images, especially the bark composition.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2016 6:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ian,
That's a big difference in contrast! Your post kicked some dormant memory cells...I may have this older Canon as well.
What does your M39 look like? Serenar? Earlier, later?


PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2016 6:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mine is a black one, the later type.

I forgot to mention - the Sonnar is a late model with multicoating, hence the much greater contrast.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2016 7:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:

Go ahead and give it a spin - you might like what it does. I am delighted with mine
Very Happy


I'll do that soon!


PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I found this searching today:

"Canon changed the FD 135mm/3.5 S.C. lens formula in 1976, going from from 4 elements in 3 groups (like the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm/3.5 Sonnar) to 4 elements in 4 groups. "

Therefore it's not the same lens. And after taking some shots with it this afternoon, the results can't match Oldhand's images. But even if I had the very same lens, I don't think I would match Oldhand. Wink

The FD S.C. was able to yield pretty good resolution, but I found it to have more chromatic aberration in the off focus areas.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2016 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are indeed 2 versions of the S.C. 3.5/135. You can tell the difference by counting the diaphragm blades, the 4/3 has 8, the newer 4/4 design has 6. The older version is also heavier, v1 is 465gr and v2 is 385gr.

I guess i'm lucky, i've got the older version!

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_FD_135_mm_lens#cite_note-4

Cheers, René!


PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TrueLoveOne wrote:
There are indeed 2 versions of the S.C. 3.5/135. You can tell the difference by counting the diaphragm blades, the 4/3 has 8, the newer 4/4 design has 6. The older version is also heavier, v1 is 465gr and v2 is 385gr.

I guess i'm lucky, i've got the older version!

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_FD_135_mm_lens#cite_note-4

Cheers, René!


Thanks for that link Rene.
From it there seems to be three versions of the FD 3.5/135 SC - with release dates of July 1970, March 1973 and November 1976
The FL was released in 1966.
Counting the blades is a good tip - thank you for that as well.
Interesting history Like 1 small
OH


PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Really great as usual Tom,but you could take a prize winner using the bottom of a Coke bottle as a lens. Like 1


PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kryss wrote:
Really great as usual Tom,but you could take a prize winner using the bottom of a Coke bottle as a lens. Like 1


Hahaha - thank you kryss.
You have given me a challenge - I'll see what I can do Smile
OH


PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kryss wrote:
Really great as usual Tom,but you could take a prize winner using the bottom of a Coke bottle as a lens. Like 1


Actually it took a while to find a coke bottle - most come in plastic these days.
Laughing
So I took some images through the coke bottle - the best I could achieve were - well - abstract.
Anyhoo, here they are
OH


#1


#2


#3


#4


PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great Tom,I really like 1&2 as textures or background. Laugh 1 Like 1 small


PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:

So I took some images through the coke bottle - the best I could achieve were - well - abstract.


Laugh 1


PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laugh 1

You're good, Thomas!