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 FD 35mm 3,5
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2023 10:11 pm    Post subject: Canon FD 35mm 3,5 Reply with quote
I have just bought a copy of this lens. It is not so common and totally overshadowed by the FDn 35 2,8, itself considered benign compared to the FD 35 2,0 and needless to say the concave version.

There are many versions but apparently two computations. The early one dating to the FL line and a later one from 1976. The first one can be closed to f16, the second up to f22.

I have red somewhere that the second version was superior. So 45 € later I can say a few words about the f22 version before showing in the coming weeks some pics.

Volker G in the course of an exchange pertaining to the 35 2,5 FL discussed with me the interest of owning the 3,5 version indicating that corners would be a step behind the 2,8 FDn.

He was right. Of course no issue near f6,7 but in extreme corners up to f5,6 the 2,8 is a better lens.

However I did note on maybe 80% of the field an excellent performance of the little 3,5 lens with, to my eyes, superior definition and micro-contrast.

So one could choose this belittled lens considering that, for landscape use, it could be closed to f8,0 or so and that for every other use it is maybe a better lens.

Keep in mind that I have compared the FDn 2,8 with the 2,0 concave I was about to buy and I did not note a superiority of the concave lens at shared apertures. So the performance of the 3,5 makes it punch well above its weight.

When comparing the 2,8 and 3,5 I noticed a narrower field of view of the 3,5. I calculated the focal length based on the field of view and indeed it is a 38,4 mm lens, not a 35. Maybe even 39 or 40 distorsion corrected.

So Canon used improved glass, got some ease on the aperture side and lengthened the focal lens to optimise the lens performance.

I am quite happy with that since I enjoy everything getting close to 40 to 43 mm focal length which is very natural to my eye. But it is better to be aware of that if you are expecting a true 35mm.

More to come in the next few weeks.

Last edited by lumens pixel on Sun Dec 17, 2023 4:42 pm; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2023 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very nice discussion. While I have no experience with the Canon 35, there are some common things to be aware of in the slower variants of the o.e.m. wide to semi-wides.

Price point is a bit easier in the case of the nikkor line. The 28 3.5 A/I that I shot with a bit was very capable of producing high quality "near focus" images. With landscapes the rendering was nothing spectacular, but very usable with a somewhat "flat" rendering.

I was very impressed with the f/d 50's rendering. The f/d lenses were mostly quite high quality for their time frame.

Looking forward to your images and further comments on this lens.

I wonder how common the narrowed focal length was with o.e.m. wides...

-D.S.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2023 8:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Curious about your results. I bet that Canon is pretty good.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2023 9:04 am    Post subject: Re: Canon FD 35mm 3,5 Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
I have just bought a copy of this lens. It is not so common and totally overshadowed by the FDn 35 2,8, itself considered benign compared to the FD 35 2,0 and needless to say the concave version.

There are many versions but apparently two computations. The early one dating to the FL line and a later one from 1977. The first one can be closed to f16, the second up to f22.

I have red somewhere that the second version was superior. So 45 € later I can say a few words about the f22 version before showing in the coming weeks some pics.

Volker G in the course of an exchange pertaining to the 35 2,5 FL discussed with me the interest of owning the 3,5 version indicating that corners would be a step behind the 2,8 FDn.

He was right. Of course no issue near f6,7 but in extreme corners up to f5,6 the 2,8 is a better lens.

However I did note on maybe 80% of the field an excellent performance of the little 3,5 lens with, to my eyes, a superior definition and micro-contrast.

So one could choose this belittled lens considering that, for landscape use, it could be closed to f8,0 or so and that for every other use it is maybe a better lens.

Keep in mind that I have compared the FDn 2,8 with the 2,0 concave I was about to buy and I did not note a superiority of the concave lens at shared apertures. So the performance of the 3,5 makes it punch well above its weight.

When comparing the 2,8 and 3,5 I noticed a narrower field of view of the 3,5. I calculated the focal length based on the field of view and indeed it is a 38,4 mm lens, not a 35. Maybe even 39 or 40 distorsion corrected.

So Canon used improved glass, got some ease on the aperture side and lengthened the focal lens to optimise the lens performance.

I am quite happy with that since I enjoy everything getting close to 40 to 43 mm focal length which is very natural to my eye. But it is better to be aware of that if you are expecting a true 35mm.

More to come in the next few weeks.


I am a little confused by the Canon FL/FD 35mm f3.5 series.
The Canon FL 35mm f3.5 was introduced in 1968 and then there followed three iterations of the Canon FD 35mm f3.5.
Version 1 in 1973, version 2 in 1975 and version 3 in 1977
Version 1 had a minimum aperture of f16 - like the FL - while the other two had a minimum aperture of f22
All - including the FL - are 6 elements in 6 groups.
Are there any other differences that mark them apart?
Interested to know what makes them different.
Cheers
Tom


PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2023 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here's the f16 version of the Canon FD 3.5/35mm compared to the Minolta MD-III 2.8/35mm:



The [5/5] computation of the Minolta 2.8/35mm was introduced in 1975 (as MC-X); it clearly outperforms the contemporary Canon design.

S


PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2023 10:41 pm    Post subject: Re: Canon FD 35mm 3,5 Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:
lumens pixel wrote:
I have just bought a copy of this lens. It is not so common and totally overshadowed by the FDn 35 2,8, itself considered benign compared to the FD 35 2,0 and needless to say the concave version.

There are many versions but apparently two computations. The early one dating to the FL line and a later one from 1977. The first one can be closed to f16, the second up to f22.

I have red somewhere that the second version was superior. So 45 € later I can say a few words about the f22 version before showing in the coming weeks some pics.

Volker G in the course of an exchange pertaining to the 35 2,5 FL discussed with me the interest of owning the 3,5 version indicating that corners would be a step behind the 2,8 FDn.

He was right. Of course no issue near f6,7 but in extreme corners up to f5,6 the 2,8 is a better lens.

However I did note on maybe 80% of the field an excellent performance of the little 3,5 lens with, to my eyes, a superior definition and micro-contrast.

So one could choose this belittled lens considering that, for landscape use, it could be closed to f8,0 or so and that for every other use it is maybe a better lens.

Keep in mind that I have compared the FDn 2,8 with the 2,0 concave I was about to buy and I did not note a superiority of the concave lens at shared apertures. So the performance of the 3,5 makes it punch well above its weight.

When comparing the 2,8 and 3,5 I noticed a narrower field of view of the 3,5. I calculated the focal length based on the field of view and indeed it is a 38,4 mm lens, not a 35. Maybe even 39 or 40 distorsion corrected.

So Canon used improved glass, got some ease on the aperture side and lengthened the focal lens to optimise the lens performance.

I am quite happy with that since I enjoy everything getting close to 40 to 43 mm focal length which is very natural to my eye. But it is better to be aware of that if you are expecting a true 35mm.

More to come in the next few weeks.


I am a little confused by the Canon FL/FD 35mm f3.5 series.
The Canon FL 35mm f3.5 was introduced in 1968 and then there followed three iterations of the Canon FD 35mm f3.5.
Version 1 in 1973, version 2 in 1975 and version 3 in 1977
Version 1 had a minimum aperture of f16 - like the FL - while the other two had a minimum aperture of f22
All - including the FL - are 6 elements in 6 groups.
Are there any other differences that mark them apart?
Interested to know what makes them different.
Cheers
Tom


That might help a bit:
https://flynngraphics.ca/fd-35mm-f3-5/


PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2023 10:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Canon FD 35mm 3,5 Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:


That might help a bit:
https://flynngraphics.ca/fd-35mm-f3-5/


Wonderful.
Thank you
Tom


PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2023 8:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Here's the f16 version of the Canon FD 3.5/35mm compared to the Minolta MD-III 2.8/35mm:



The [5/5] computation of the Minolta 2.8/35mm was introduced in 1975 (as MC-X); it clearly outperforms the contemporary Canon design.

S


The Minolta MD 35mm f/2.8 is the only 35mm I currently own. For this reason.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2023 1:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Let me stirr the pot, I had that minolta and an Elmarit-R 35 F2.8.... They shot the same, even though its not an attributed collaboration lens that I am aware.. Kept the minolta for a while, sold the Elmarit but ultimately went to the Canon 35 F2 LTM for my 35..... For me 35 has always been a tweener. 24/28-40


PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2023 4:39 pm    Post subject: Pics Reply with quote
Now the illustration on Sony A7II.

L'arbre | The tree by lumens pixel, sur Flickr

And a crop:



PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2023 12:05 pm    Post subject: Re: Canon FD 35mm 3,5 Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:


I am a little confused by the Canon FL/FD 35mm f3.5 series.
The Canon FL 35mm f3.5 was introduced in 1968 and then there followed three iterations of the Canon FD 35mm f3.5.
Version 1 in 1973, version 2 in 1975 and version 3 in 1977
Version 1 had a minimum aperture of f16 - like the FL - while the other two had a minimum aperture of f22
All - including the FL - are 6 elements in 6 groups.
Are there any other differences that mark them apart?
Interested to know what makes them different.
Cheers
Tom


According to the "Canon Handbook" written by Bob Shell, the first and second versions of the FD 35 mm f/3.5 had the same optics as the FL 35 mm f/3.5, the second version (march 73) being a little bit lighter (295 g instead of 325 g) and marked "SC". The third (march 75, f/16) and fourth (july 77, f/22) versions of the lens having an improved optical construction while being even lighter (235 g). I've got the FL lens and the fourth iteration of the FD lens and could compare them - the FD v4 is markedly better than the FL version in optical terms, especially outside of the center of the frame. In fact, it is nearly as sharp as its successor nFD 35 mm f/2.8. and the test results by Stephan certainly point to one of the two first versions of the lens given that my sample is much, much better in the extreme corners of the frame.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2023 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
stevemark wrote:
Here's the f16 version of the Canon FD 3.5/35mm compared to the Minolta MD-III 2.8/35mm:



The [5/5] computation of the Minolta 2.8/35mm was introduced in 1975 (as MC-X); it clearly outperforms the contemporary Canon design.

S


The Minolta MD 35mm f/2.8 is the only 35mm I currently own. For this reason.


The Minolta MD is certainly very good, my own sample proves that again and again. But here, you're comparing apples to oranges, since your copy of the FD still uses the old 1960s computation of the FL which is every bit as good (or as bad...) as the first computation of the Minolta MC Rokkor 35 mm f/2.8 Wink


PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2023 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alsatian2017 wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
stevemark wrote:
Here's the f16 version of the Canon FD 3.5/35mm compared to the Minolta MD-III 2.8/35mm:



The [5/5] computation of the Minolta 2.8/35mm was introduced in 1975 (as MC-X); it clearly outperforms the contemporary Canon design.

S


The Minolta MD 35mm f/2.8 is the only 35mm I currently own. For this reason.


The Minolta MD is certainly very good, my own sample proves that again and again. But here, you're comparing apples to oranges, since your copy of the FD still uses the old 1960s computation of the FL which is every bit as good (or as bad...) as the first computation of the Minolta MC Rokkor 35 mm f/2.8 Wink


I bought long time ago a FL 35 3,5 and it was very disappointing on borders and corners indeed. This computation is miles ahead.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2023 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The 35mm f3.5 doesn't look too impressive. But I would get the FL 35mm f2.5 for the classic rendering and thinner DOF and just take bokeh shots.
For me a slow lens needs to be able to stopped down well.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2023 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
blotafton wrote:
The 35mm f3.5 doesn't look too impressive. But I would get the FL 35mm f2.5 for the classic rendering and thinner DOF and just take bokeh shots.
For me a slow lens needs to be able to stopped down well.


The FL 35 3,5 and 2,5 works the same, except aperture wise. They both are very valid options on APSC cameras but I would not recommend them on full frame.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2023 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
blotafton wrote:
The 35mm f3.5 doesn't look too impressive. But I would get the FL 35mm f2.5 for the classic rendering and thinner DOF and just take bokeh shots.
For me a slow lens needs to be able to stopped down well.


The FL 35 3,5 and 2,5 works the same, except aperture wise. They both are very valid options on APSC cameras but I would not recommend them on full frame.


While the FL 35 mm f/2, 5 has nice bokeh and vintage rendering, I wouldn't use it for getting razor sharp images up to the corners of the full frame, since you would have to close it down to f/11 to obtain detailed corners. The different FD 35 mm f/2, f/2,8 and f/3,5 (only last two versions) iterations have a much more "modern" rendering and are suitable to a much wider range of photographic subjects.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2023 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
blotafton wrote:
The 35mm f3.5 doesn't look too impressive. But I would get the FL 35mm f2.5 for the classic rendering and thinner DOF and just take bokeh shots.
For me a slow lens needs to be able to stopped down well.


The FL 35 3,5 and 2,5 works the same, except aperture wise. They both are very valid options on APSC cameras but I would not recommend them on full frame.


For bokeh the 2.5 looks good on full frame when looking at samples. That would be its main use because I have better lenses for sharpness but those doesn't have as interesting bokeh like the MD Rokkor 35mm 2.8.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2023 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alsatian2017 wrote:

The Minolta MD is certainly very good, my own sample proves that again and again. But here, you're comparing apples to oranges, since your copy of the FD still uses the old 1960s computation of the FL which is every bit as good (or as bad...) as the first computation of the Minolta MC Rokkor 35 mm f/2.8 Wink


Yes sure, I'm not pushing the "Minolta is better than Canon" narrative here, I just meant go give some meaningful information about the different characteristics of those lenses. Some may prefer the old Canon because of its rendering; others may prefer the newer Minolta MD because of its overall resolution & contrast. Canon nFD 2.8/35mm would probably as good (or better?) as the Minolta MD, but I don't own it ...

S


PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2023 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Both MD and nFD 35 2,8 are quite close quality wise. I like them both. I prefer the manufacturing of the Minolta against the nFD. But I often prefer the manufacturing of the FD against Minolta non MC lenses.

Since the optical quality of the late 35 3,5 is very good it is a nice offering if you are not absolutely after the half aperture stop.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2023 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
Both MD and nFD 35 2,8 are quite close quality wise. I like them both. I prefer the manufacturing of the Minolta against the nFD.


That's my experience as well. My sample of the nFD 35 mm f/2,8 is slightly sharper in the corners wide open and at f/4 than my sample of the MD Rokkor 35 mm f/2,8 but the difference is too small to prefer one over the other. On the other hand, the nFD has much more distorsion than the Minolta MD, that's why I've used the latter more often than the former.

lumens pixel wrote:
Since the optical quality of the late 35 3,5 is very good it is a nice offering if you are not absolutely after the half aperture stop.


My sample of the FD 35 mm f/3,5 SC (december 1977) is nearly as sharp as the nFD 35 mm f/2,8 (maybe half a stop weaker in the corners, by f/4 they're pretty equal) but the distorsion is very well corrected - perfect for landscape and architecture.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2023 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Alsatian2017 wrote:

The Minolta MD is certainly very good, my own sample proves that again and again. But here, you're comparing apples to oranges, since your copy of the FD still uses the old 1960s computation of the FL which is every bit as good (or as bad...) as the first computation of the Minolta MC Rokkor 35 mm f/2.8 Wink


Yes sure, I'm not pushing the "Minolta is better than Canon" narrative here, I just meant go give some meaningful information about the different characteristics of those lenses. Some may prefer the old Canon because of its rendering; others may prefer the newer Minolta MD because of its overall resolution & contrast. Canon nFD 2.8/35mm would probably as good (or better?) as the Minolta MD, but I don't own it ...

S


I much appreciate your tests Wink

The nFD is basically as good as the Minolta MD, but the distorsion is much more pronounced as well. Right now I'm often reaching out for the FD 35 mm f/3,5 (last computation, f/22 version) which is as sharp as the two others while minimizing distorsion and vignetting.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2023 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alsatian2017 wrote:
lumens pixel wrote:
Both MD and nFD 35 2,8 are quite close quality wise. I like them both. I prefer the manufacturing of the Minolta against the nFD.


That's my experience as well. My sample of the nFD 35 mm f/2,8 is slightly sharper in the corners wide open and at f/4 than my sample of the MD Rokkor 35 mm f/2,8 but the difference is too small to prefer one over the other. On the other hand, the nFD has much more distorsion than the Minolta MD, that's why I've used the latter more often than the former.

lumens pixel wrote:
Since the optical quality of the late 35 3,5 is very good it is a nice offering if you are not absolutely after the half aperture stop.


My sample of the FD 35 mm f/3,5 SC (december 1977) is nearly as sharp as the nFD 35 mm f/2,8 (maybe half a stop weaker in the corners, by f/4 they're pretty equal) but the distorsion is very well corrected - perfect for landscape and architecture.


Interesting. Agreed on the corners where the 2,8 is better than the 3,5 before f6,7. My sample of the 3,5 is better (marginally) in the center and mid frame than the 2,8. However I judge distortion quite important on the 3,5 quite similar too the 2,8 but I need to check again.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2023 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alsatian2017 wrote:

My sample of the FD 35 mm f/3,5 SC (december 1977) is nearly as sharp as the nFD 35 mm f/2,8 (maybe half a stop weaker in the corners, by f/4 they're pretty equal) but the distorsion is very well corrected - perfect for landscape and architecture.


My sample is from October 1976, so the first batch of the f22 computation. Maybe there are still some computation differences between your copy and mine.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2023 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
More of the same, all f5,6 or f6,7.


Avenue Foch by lumens pixel, sur Flickr


Café Ella by lumens pixel, sur Flickr


Or | Gold by lumens pixel, sur Flickr


PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2023 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
More of the same, all f5,6 or f6,7.


Avenue Foch by lumens pixel, sur Flickr


Café Ella by lumens pixel, sur Flickr


Or | Gold by lumens pixel, sur Flickr



Superbes images, bravo !
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2