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 35mm f/3.5 first go
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:31 am    Post subject: Canon FL 35mm f/3.5 first go Reply with quote
Oh this looks like being a little cracker of a lens from first glance at first day's doings. Many more to process.



uncropped image:



and cropped image



And it would seem not to be spolied by the inclusion of a glazed EOS adapter, which is nice!



PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Not sure about that bokeh in your #2

BBut then I had a problem with my 55/1.2 and a glazed adapter - really weird bokeh at times!


PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I actually like that 'wierd' bokeh in both those examples.

If you find you really like this lens you could always have it converted to EOS mount, FL lenses can be successfully converted as they have a one piece optical block with all the aperture linkages at the rear.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:


If you find you really like this lens you could always have it converted to EOS mount, FL lenses can be successfully converted as they have a one piece optical block with all the aperture linkages at the rear.


Easy tiger! Stan has already done my FL55 f/1.2, he's currently working on a 135mm and he'll then have an 85mm and possibly others too. (Though he may not yet know that part of the plan so shhhhhh! Wink )


PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I got FL 35 f3.5 and

this is an absolutely superb lens! I just held the lens in front of the camera

and developed RAW files

The colour rendition is amazing and sharpness?

Please, hold the line and wait for crops... Wink

1


2


3


4


PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Colours and detail in #3 and #4 incredible!


PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2020 5:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Amazing little lens.
As good as a Flektogon?
T

#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


#6


PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2020 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Like 1 Like 1
Nice family photo!


PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2020 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well nice results oldhand with that lens, but slightly off topic and for me I thought a cheaper way to use some Canon lenses was "FL" ...so bought a fL 100mm f3.5, well it might be a bad copy as comparing it with a Nikon pre AI 105mm lens and it doesn't seem as sharp..the difference is sharp and razor sharp. Maybe the FL has qualities that I haven't spotted but until then will use the Nikon (or Fuji 100mm).


PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Two more from this excellent lens from today.
T

#1


#2


PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
And a picture of the lens itself.
Quite small really, but not as tiny as the Takumar 3.5/35.

#1


PostPosted: Tue Jun 06, 2023 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I bought one and was unhappy about corner performance on A7. Would gladly try again if someone states it's a good lens on the whole frame and before f8. I have red that FL and early FD are same computation but that late FD ( not nFD) is a new computation, maybe better. Any info would help.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2023 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
I bought one and was unhappy about corner performance on A7. Would gladly try again if someone states it's a good lens on the whole frame and before f8. I have red that FL and early FD are same computation but that late FD ( not nFD) is a new computation, maybe better. Any info would help.


The FL 35 mm f/3,5 is a good "landscape" lens - sharp throughout the frame stopped down to f/11 but soft wide open.

The first two versions of the FD 35 mm f/3,5 were indeed the same lens in a different barrel (March 1971, 325 g, chrome nose, and March 1973, 295 g) the last 2 versions (March 1975 and July 1977, 235 g) have a much improved optical computation which offers uniform sharpness stopped down to f/5,6 and a much improved macro-and microcontrast.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alsatian2017 wrote:
lumens pixel wrote:
I bought one and was unhappy about corner performance on A7. Would gladly try again if someone states it's a good lens on the whole frame and before f8. I have red that FL and early FD are same computation but that late FD ( not nFD) is a new computation, maybe better. Any info would help.


The FL 35 mm f/3,5 is a good "landscape" lens - sharp throughout the frame stopped down to f/11 but soft wide open.

The first two versions of the FD 35 mm f/3,5 were indeed the same lens in a different barrel (March 1971, 325 g, chrome nose, and March 1973, 295 g) the last 2 versions (March 1975 and July 1977, 235 g) have a much improved optical computation which offers uniform sharpness stopped down to f/5,6 and a much improved macro-and microcontrast.


That is helpful, as always. Merci.

Is the last computation good wide open and how would it be rated compared to the 35 2,8, if you compared these two?


PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2023 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alsatian2017 wrote:

The first two versions of the FD 35 mm f/3,5 were indeed the same lens in a different barrel (March 1971, 325 g, chrome nose, and March 1973, 295 g) the last 2 versions (March 1975 and July 1977, 235 g) have a much improved optical computation which offers uniform sharpness stopped down to f/5,6 and a much improved macro-and microcontrast.


Thanks for that information - I didn't know there were two computations of the FD 3.5/35mm. I just checked mine, at 285g (measured without caps) it's probably the first computation.

S


PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2023 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:


That is helpful, as always. Merci.

Is the last computation good wide open and how would it be rated compared to the 35 2,8, if you compared these two?


Je t'en prie.

The last computation is good wide open in the center and along the borders, the extreme corners stay a little bit soft on Sony A7 II due to residual spherical abberations. By f/5,6, all the frame gets sharp, the optimum seems to be reached by f/8.

I just compared my FD 35 mm f/3,5 SC (last version, serial 217508) to my nFD 35 mm f/2,8 (built in 1984, date code Y) and the latter has uniform sharpness (very slight softness in the extreme corners) starting from wide open. Thus, my sample of the newer nFD lens seems to be clearly superior to my sample of the older one. In my opinion, the nFD just has one single weakness, the pronounced distorsion. I correct it with a self-made profile in Camera Raw.

Nethertheless, the FD 35 mm f/3,5 SC is a very nicely built lens with more than satisfying IQ.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2023 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Three "budget" Canon 35 mm lenses (from left to right Canon FL 35 mm f/3,5, Canon FD 35 mm f/3,5 SC (last computation) and Canon (n) FD 35 mm f/2,Cool :


#1


#2


#3


Note that the diameter of the front lens shrinks progressively. The front group of the first computation FD 35 mm f/3,5 (SC) lens has an amber colored coating, that of the second computation appears bluish as well. The nFD version is multi-coated (SSC) instead of single-coated.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2023 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alsatian2017 wrote:
lumens pixel wrote:


That is helpful, as always. Merci.

Is the last computation good wide open and how would it be rated compared to the 35 2,8, if you compared these two?


Je t'en prie.

The last computation is good wide open in the center and along the borders, the extreme corners stay a little bit soft on Sony A7 II due to residual spherical abberations. By f/5,6, all the frame gets sharp, the optimum seems to be reached by f/8.

I just compared my FD 35 mm f/3,5 SC (last version, serial 217508) to my nFD 35 mm f/2,8 (built in 1984, date code Y) and the latter has uniform sharpness (very slight softness in the extreme corners) starting from wide open. Thus, my sample of the newer nFD lens seems to be clearly superior to my sample of the older one. In my opinion, the nFD just has one single weakness, the pronounced distorsion. I correct it with a self-made profile in Camera Raw.

Nethertheless, the FD 35 mm f/3,5 SC is a very nicely built lens with more than satisfying IQ.


Fantastic info. I have the 35 2,8 that is indeed very good. I envisaged a pure breech lock set and excluded the 35 2,0 for financial reasons. Hence the 3,5. But if the quality regression is too important compared to the 2,8 that might be a bad idea.

I have tested the FL 2,5 and was simultaneously impressed by supreme sharpness on very local central areas around f 4,5 and on most of the frame at f8,0 but regretted bad performance out of central area before f8,0. So I did not see a marked benefit compared to a midrange zoom.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2023 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:


Fantastic info. I have the 35 2,8 that is indeed very good. I envisaged a pure breech lock set and excluded the 35 2,0 for financial reasons. Hence the 3,5. But if the quality regression is too important compared to the 2,8 that might be a bad idea.

I have tested the FL 2,5 and was simultaneously impressed by supreme sharpness on very local central areas around f 4,5 and on most of the frame at f8,0 but regretted bad performance out of central area before f8,0. So I did not see a marked benefit compared to a midrange zoom.


Like you I appreciate the breech-look series more than the nFD series. Back in the nineties I've been using an FD 35 mm f/2 SSC with concave front element and I was thrilled by the excellent sharpness wide open. Unfortunately, I've been selling this lens when migrating to an EOS system. Nowadays, this lens is simply out of reach in financial terms (not that i couldn't spend that money, but it just doesn't seem reasonable to spend that much for such an old lens...). At present I'm the happy owner of an nFD 35 mm f/2 lens and I'm sure that optically it is at least as good as the older versions without being as nice in esthetical and mechanical terms (but nice enough and much lighter, smaller and cheaper...).

The FL 35 mm f/2,5 is one of the oldest lenses of the breech-lock system given that its computation is as old as the Canonflex system (which is dating back to 1959....). So no wonder that it doesn't comply to modern optical standards. Since there's quite a lot of coma and spherical aberration, the bokeh at least is special Wink
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1