I use Canon FD gear a lot and have most of their lenses. Really can't say that there are any duds at all amongst them, despite the negative comments that you sometimes hear. The advantage of FD lenses over the Nikon counterparts is price, Canon stuff is undervalued these days...which is great!
Starting with the 50's, I mostly use the 50mm 1.2L, a lens that is still a bit pricey these days, but I also have a few different versions of the 1.4, and all are fine. Same with the 28's. I have owned the 2.8 and now use the F2 version, both are fine lenses...ditto the 24mm.
Also have the 100mm F2 and 135mm F2 with the 135mm being a standout...this is a really great lens, but quite large and heavy. The 100 is very compact and also very sharp, except at full aperture where it is a bit soft...Canon deliberately made it that way for portraits.
The 35mm F2, as others have stated, is one of Canon's finest, try to find a SSC version. If you need wider there is the 20mm 2.8, which, despite some reviews, is really great also.
I also have the 85mm 1.2, which is as good as it's reputation, plus it looks really great. The downside is the weight and cost, one of the few FD's that doesn't come cheap! The 100 could serve the purpose just as well, though the wide aperture performance of the 85 is unbeatable.
My choice if you are on a budget would be a 24mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 100mm 2 (or 135mm 2.5), hope that helps.
The only Canon FD lens that I know is reputed to be poor, and to be avoided is the 100-200 mm f 5.6 zoom, speaking generally all F.D. lenses are more than twenty years old and the quality of the results they are capable of like all lenses of that age depends to some degree (regardless of the original specifications) on how the previous owners have treated them, and the conditions they have been stored in.