Comparison between Canon FL 35mm f2.5 e Zeiss Distagon T* 35

saboldo · Joined: 21 Sep 2013 Posts: 4 Location: Bergamo, Italy

Hi all! i just bought an almost new Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f2.8 on ebay for 200euro, and i compared him with my old canon FL 35mm. Just a bunch of shots, nothing really professional, but i can say either the canon was a very good lens, or the new Zeiss is nothing so special regarding his fame...
The camera is a samsung NX100 via adapter, shot in raw, none kind of adjustment done.
enjoy!

[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20139/big_7346_f28comparison_1.jpg]

[/url]
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20139/big_7346_f8comparison_1.jpg]

[/url]
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20139/big_7346_f28comparisonexterior_1.jpg]

[/url]
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20139/big_7346_canonFD35mmf28_1.jpg]

[/url]
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20139/big_7346_carlzeissdistagon35mmf28_1.jpg]

[/url]
[/img]

DR.JUAN · Joined: 08 Feb 2013 Posts: 661

First approuch.

Knowing the relativity of this class of comparison, can see the sharpest 2,8 aperture in the Zeiss at close focus. The plants images taken with Xeiss seems tk be a bit out of focus and shows a little CA at the bottom right zone.

IMHO the Zeiss clearly win at close focus at f/2,8 and f/8.

Nice to see what about f/11.

At the range from 1,5/2 m to 4/5 m? Nice to see too, isn't it?

Pancolart · Expire: 2013-11-18

One cannot expect image quality will raise in accordance to the money spent when comparing two good lenses. Difference is always marginal and subtle. Mostly it comes down to the question of taste. In action the decisive factor is photographer's skill.

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

Well done...I've often hinted that the guys with the top lenses could show comparisons with lenses that many of us use, to see what we miss.
I haven't compared my flek 35mm f2.4 with my Canon 35mm f2.8, but mention any comparison tests on film and no one is interested Sad

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

The Distagon does visibly better in this comparison.

saboldo · Joined: 21 Sep 2013 Posts: 4 Location: Bergamo, Italy

Well, i can see the differences in sharpness and lateral CA, and i'm not disappointed: first at all, i bought it in replacement of the canon because the Canon has a defective focus ring that make it difficulty to use. Second, i always wondered how much difference there is between a "top notch" lens and a "cheap one". Well, like Pancolart said, the real difference is in the capability of the photographer. I think that 200 euro was a fair price, the condition was exceptionally good. That said, i have also a Vivitar 24mm 2.0 (Kiron): in this case the difference is brutal, here a link http://www.saboldo.com/VIVITAR_24mm_f2.0.html

saboldo · Joined: 21 Sep 2013 Posts: 4 Location: Bergamo, Italy

Here some shots in "real field" to have an idea of the real capacity of the lens. In this case i mildly changed the color balance (warmed lights and cooled shadows) and applied a slighty sharpen mask. All shots are taken with a -2 stops compensation to preserve the lights, and the shadows were matched in camera raw. First shot were taken with the lens wide open, the second i don't remeber.

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

fermy · Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974

Thanks for the test.

Two conclusions for me: Distagon clearly wins ( it would be embarrassing if it didn't), but it's not a knockout victory, and Canon FD 35/2.8 is a very solid performer. Nothing unexpected here really. FD line is great, we are lucky that one can buy those lenses so inexpensively nowadays. Those slower FD lenses are very good as well. They are cheap not because they are poor, but because they are plentiful on the market, so collectors don't drive the price up to silly levels.

Btw, your title says FD 35mm f2.5, while there is no F2.5 lens in FD line up, it should be FD 35 f2.8. Would you please edit the title?

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

My conclusion is about the same as fermy's. The Distagon is the winner, but not by a long shot. Pretty much as to be expected. What the images reveal to me is that PP could easily make up for the differences.

Yes, I too noticed an opening reference to an FD 35/2.5 and then a later mention of a 35/2.8. I wondered about this as well, since Canon made an FL 35mm f/2.5. Which just so happens to be my favorite 35mm lens. The FL 35 is a beauty and produces just fantastic images. I like it a lot more than my Nikkor 35/2 OC.

But you were comparing an FD 35mm, right? Was it a New FD or a breechlock SSC model?

saboldo · Joined: 21 Sep 2013 Posts: 4 Location: Bergamo, Italy

Well, thanks for made me realize the mistake! The lens is the FL version, not the FD. I tested it stopped down to 2.8. I corrected the title.

ManualFocus-G · Expire: 2014-11-24

The Contax SLR lenses don't usually do well in close focus wall chart type tests. In fact my Planar 50/1.4 was well beaten by the Canon EF 50/1.8 II. However, in real life usage the Contax lens had better contrast and much more interesting rendering. At infinity, the Contax lenses are untouchable, and again in this case it blew the Canon EF away, particularly in the corners.

An interesting test would be at infinity if you get the time Smile

The old Canon 35/2.5 is known as a real bargain as far as I remember.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

I have the old FL 2.5/35, sadly it needs repairing, the aperture and focus have jammed up. It's a really great lens though, rivals my Biogon 2.8/25 for sharpness, even wide open.

It's well worth having if you see one for sale.

DR.JUAN · Joined: 08 Feb 2013 Posts: 661

Is these with concave front element?

Lightshow · Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3666 Location: Calgary

Nope, convex, you are thinking FD 35/2

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

I recall that a few years ago you could still pick up the FL 35/2.5 for peanuts. The word has gotten out about that lens, though, and prices on eBay -- or at least BIN prices -- have taken a solid jump in value. There are five on US eBay right now and all, except one, are well over $100. Three or four years ago, it was possible to find them for under $50. I had put off replacing the one I sold years ago until earlier this year and I had to wait around until an actual auction appeared. When one finally did, I was able to pick up my close-to-mint copy for about $40.

I already had a Vivitar 35mm f/1.9 in my Canon lens stable, but it's just good to have that old FL 35 back. That was the first used lens I ever bought, so I have a sentimental attachment to that lens. But the sentimental attachment is due, not just to it being the first used lens I ever bought, but more to it being just a solid good lens.

What I've always liked most about the Canon FL 35mm is its corner-to-corner sharpness and excellent depth of field for that focal length. In the following photo, note the foreground detail, especially in the corners, as well as the fine detail in the tree branches off in the distance. This was a very overcast day and I was shooting with Kodachrome 64, so I probably didn't have the lens stopped down any further than f/8.

This is a digital duplicate of a 35mm slide taken circa 1984. Dead tree along the Kern River outside Bakersfield, California. Canon FTb, Canon FL 35mm f/2.5, Kodachrome 64, exposure unrecorded:

casualcollector · Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 1:48 pm Post subject:

I've overlooked this lens as some years ago I had read a comment about it's predecessor, the Super-Canomatic 35/2.5 being mediocre. Either that reviewer's opinion was off base or Canon made some improvements with the FL version. Both are listed by Canon as 7 element, 5 group construction.

DR.JUAN · Joined: 08 Feb 2013 Posts: 661

And, what about CA at wide aperture and closing it?

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

Good question. I don't worry too much about CA anymore since I can get rid of it in post. But severe CA can result in a loss of image sharpness. About all I can say at this point is I just don't recall it being a problem. Part of the problem is remembering with certainty which photos I took with which lenses all those years ago. I sold my FL 35 about 24 years ago. Sometimes when I page through images of my old slides. or sift through the slides themselves, something will jog my memory and I'll remember the camera/lens combo I used. I remember the above shot clearly and the camera and lens combo I used because I recall selecting them and carrying them for the walk I took to get to that spot. I recall another shot I took with that lens that came out really nice because I took the photo not an hour after I had bought it and the camera I used for the shot.

Lightshow · Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3666 Location: Calgary

I picked up my FL 35/2.5 last year at an antique mall in Arizona for $45 I think.
I look forward to trying it out on the FF NEX when it lands in my hands.