Flektogon and Canon 35mm

scsambrook · Expire: 2011-11-18

Some everyday comparisons . . .

Taken with a Lumix G1, camera on tripod. Subject distance a bit over one foot/30cms from front of lens.

Raw files, processed in Capture 1.6 Express, sharpening etc as applied by Capture 1.6, no additional sharpening. Even with the magnified focusing, you can see the last pair aren't quite focused on the same point. I make no comment on the resepctive merits of either lens, beyond the blindingly obvious that for this sort of photography both are extremely good. If you have a Lumix or NEX, though, the price advantage is still with the Canon FD lens.

Canon FD (later style)35mm f2.8 at f2.8

Canon 35mm f2.8 at f8

Flektogon 35mm f2.4 at f2.4

Flektogon 35mm f2.4 at f8

We are short of flowers in our garden right now, and this hollyhock was waving in the breeze, so I had to keep hold of it with one hand! Then I thought to try some artificial flowers in a more sheltered place:

Canon 35mm at f8:

Canon 35mm at f8, crop from above:

Flektogon 35mm at f8:

Flektogon at f8, crop from above.

Is it my imagination, or are the full frame images from the Flektogon slightly larger than those from the Canon? All distances identical.

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

Interesting comparison shots.
My Canon FDn 35mm f2.8 is a very good lens, but the f2 versions are supposed to be better, I also have the flek 35mm f2.4 and Tak 35mm f3.5 and would say in many shots you would be hard pressed to see the difference and then it would probably be minor swings and roundabouts.

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

The older FL 2.5/35 is a wonderful lens too, quite uncommon but well worth having, perhaps my favourite 35mm lens, stunningly sharp wide open with very nice bokeh.

Gerris2 · Expire: 2014-01-17

What a lens! Stunning foxglove shots!

martinsmith99 · Expire: 2013-11-18

The F8 shots of the Foxglove are interesting. Are you sure you didn't fron focus the Flek, as there seems greater DOF on the Canon?

Also, the lenses appear to be different focal lengths, which may account for DOF.

killwilly · Joined: 16 May 2011 Posts: 111 Location: United Kingdom

On my screen the pics taken with the FD lens do look sharper. I have a number of FD lenses, which I do use with an FD-EOS adapter. At close distance all work quite well, except perhaps the 28mm. I think maybe some time in the future, I shall get a used NEX, or similar camera to see what the FD lens can do digitally.

This was taken with my FD 35-105 and adapter on my EOS 450D.

scsambrook · Expire: 2011-11-18

Thanks for all observations!

Martin - focusing on the foxglove was a problem because it was waving in the breeze. I was holding it with one hand and focusing with the other, whilst avoiding the hard-working bees who were zooming around going about their lawful business. So, yes, there's no guarantee of scientific accuracy in focusing! As for relative sharpness, well . . . looking at all the other shots I took I think this particular Canon 35 has the edge on this particular Flektogon, but - as the Duke of Wellington is supposed to have said, it's 'a damned close-run thing'. Both show how good relatively modest specifications can produce superb quality at reasonable cost.

And the image sizes ARE different, aren't they? I guess the next test is to try my other 35mm lenses along with these to see if there's variety amongst them. Maybe, just maybe, the Flektogon is actually the 37mm length which reputedly was the norm with European designs through to the 70s and 80s. Not that it matters, it's just interesting.

On the Lumix, the Flektogon is actually easier to use, and it does focus a good bit closer than the Canon. The click-stops on the Canon are very firm and the aperture ring is on the small side. But I'm not sure I'd want to pay the going eBay prices for the Flektogon when you still get the Canon for around a fifth of those prices. I got mine for a silly price from a charity shop . . . maybe I should go back and give them some more money Embarassed

mo · Expire: 2016-07-30

The flek images seem to be only missing a little contrast boost? The Flek seems smoother,in any case you have two very nice lenses....where is that third arm when you need it to hold things steady.

I must say after viewing the real flowers then the fake...I vote for real and a little wind any day but great thinking outside the box .... Laughing

scsambrook · Expire: 2011-11-18

[quote="mo"...where is that third arm when you need it to hold things steady.
Laughing

[/quote]

Ahhh, I have one of Mr Manfrotto's wonderful devices with the three sticky-out legs and the vertical tube-thing that goes up and down like a submarine's periscope . . . er, wossit called?????? Rolling Eyes