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

Street - by canon fd 35mm f2
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:49 pm    Post subject: Street - by canon fd 35mm f2 Reply with quote
On nex5n, slightly pp add black level.
There is some CA/PF in high light edges, but I leave it there.

#1, at f8


#2, at f2.4


#3 at f4


#4, at f4


#5 at f2


#6, at f2


#7, at f8


#8, at f8


#9, at f8


PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excellent.. Where are these taken?.. Sweden?, Denmark?


PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If this would be trick question 90% would answer T* here Smile. Splendid!


PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the scenery and that is a fine looking lens

patrickh


PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hoan, these kick a**!!! i ,ove them all, but really love 2. i dont know anything about this system, except some of the lenses, including this one, seem exceptional. any impressions you care to share?
tony


PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Top notch photography and top notch lens.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice shots.....the Canon FD 35mm f2.8 is a VG lens as well.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 6:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice series...
I had experienced with white nose version and SSC one, both perform similar, except the SSC has little bit sharper at wideopen.
I'm not surprise with this results, 35mm lens sharpest at infinity. Which version do you have hoanpham?


PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wonderful series, thanks for sharing.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very nice Oslo shoots Hoan, hopefully i will have at the next visit a little bit more time for a real photo walk.

Wink


PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for all your kind comments.

Nisseliten,
I had a meeting in Oslo and spent 15min walk to central station.

Excalibur,
As we had discuss earlier, this lens does have flare reflection from the sensor plan, at least on the nex bodies. So direct sun/light in certain angles will cause problem.

I have been focused on the best properties of the lens. I use with a normal hood, deep enough to cover the crop sensor. Sharpest f-stop is f8, but very good allready from f4.

IAZA,
My is FD ssc.

Tony,
This is among the best 35mm I have, and not just one - I have 3 copies of this lens, with 3x F1 bodies, and almost complete FD/FL what worth to keep as a lens library: 20/2.8, 24/1.4, 35/2, 50/1.4, 55/1.2, 55/3.5 macro, 85/1.2, 200/2.8, and 135/2.

FD/FL lenses are bigger and heavier than other makers', but the fd 24/1.4 and fd 85/1.2 are the cheapest among equivalents.
The F1 body also among the most reliable.

Last edited by hoanpham on Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:30 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
hoanpham wrote:


FD/FL lenses are bigger and heavier than other makers', but the fd 24/1.4 and fd 85/1.2 are the cheapest among equivalents.


Not really. It greatly depends on the year of issue of the lenses that you compare. FL lenses are actually smaller and lighter than most full metal Japanese lenses of the same period, for example Hexanons or old school Minolta MC's. The really heavy ones are early breech locks FDs, later ones use progressively more plastic and are smaller and lighter. FDns are some of the lightest lenses available, FDn 2/35 is only 245grams, 2.8/35 is only 165gr.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice shots, I've gotten a FD 35/2 was one of my favourites on nex, and now converted to SA mount. Is yours the concave front element version? and what is the minimum aperture? I've heard these thorium, concave front element lenses are considered best performers though never seen real life comparisons.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
hoanpham wrote:


FD/FL lenses are bigger and heavier than other makers', but the fd 24/1.4 and fd 85/1.2 are the cheapest among equivalents.


Not really. It greatly depends on the year of issue of the lenses that you compare. FL lenses are actually smaller and lighter than most full metal Japanese lenses of the same period, for example Hexanons or old school Minolta MC's. The really heavy ones are early breech locks FDs, later ones use progressively more plastic and are smaller and lighter. FDns are some of the lightest lenses available, FDn 2/35 is only 245grams, 2.8/35 is only 165gr.


fermi, it is hard for me to believe the fd lenses are smaller/lighter than the hexanons. is that really true?


PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
RTI wrote:
Nice shots, I've gotten a FD 35/2 was one of my favourites on nex, and now converted to SA mount. Is yours the concave front element version? and what is the minimum aperture? I've heard these thorium, concave front element lenses are considered best performers though never seen real life comparisons.

If you read my reply above, you can find something..Smile
white nose is same concave one.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
IAZA wrote:
RTI wrote:
Nice shots, I've gotten a FD 35/2 was one of my favourites on nex, and now converted to SA mount. Is yours the concave front element version? and what is the minimum aperture? I've heard these thorium, concave front element lenses are considered best performers though never seen real life comparisons.

If you read my reply above, you can find something..Smile
white nose is same concave one.


I did, you asked the same question Smile Concave, also called "silver nose" Wink


PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:


fermi, it is hard for me to believe the fd lenses are smaller/lighter than the hexanons. is that really true?


If you exclude FD breech locks and compare the lenses of the same vintage, then the answer is generally, yes.

FL 1.8/50 is smaller and lighter than Hexanon 1.8/52. FDn 1.4/50 (235gr) is smaller and lighter than Hexanon 1.4/50 (even the later 265gr version). Same goes for FDn 2/35 (235gr) v Hexanon 2/35 (320gr), etc. Essentially if you compare equivalent FDn lenses with Hexanons, FDn will invariably be lighter.

However, FDn line does not have equivalent of the 40mm Hexanon pancake. That's the only reason why people think that Hexanons are small and light. In general they are heavier than FDn and Minolta MD lines.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy thank you so much, really appreciate the reply. i'm always on the lookout for small, light, high quality gear that can be used on both film and digital.

having said that, i dont think the AR 40mm pancake is the 'only' reason we think the AR series is smaller and lighter. ive had lots of different 'system' legacy glass and imo the AR series is the most compact ive used. in addition almost all lenses have the same size filter ring.
tony


PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:

having said that, i dont think the AR 40mm pancake is the 'only' reason we think the AR series is smaller and lighter. ive had lots of different 'system' legacy glass and imo the AR series is the most compact ive used. in addition almost all lenses have the same size filter ring.
tony


Well, all that depends on your point of reference. If you compare later Hexanons with early breech lock FDs or full metal MCs, Hexanons will be wonderfully compact, if you compare with MD II though, they will look rather bulky.

Yeah Hexanon had always 55mm filters, it's a good and bad thing. Canon and Minolta shrinked the filter size 55->52 and 55->49 respectively, I suspect that lead to a lot of weight saving. FLs were predominantly 48mm to begin with, so they are slim and slender.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
good points that i didnt know. thanks.
tony
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1