Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,553   Posts: 1,573,139   Online: 790
      
Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    gnashings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,376
    Images
    17

    Two Canon FD lenses - which one is better?

    Hi there,

    I am looking at a mild wide angle lens (35mm) and saw these two come up.
    One is an old SSC breech mount, the other is a "new" FD. The only difference I know is that the two have different fitler threads (the old is 55mm, the new is 52mm). Does anyone know how different these two are, quality wise, etc? I know the old SSC lenses were very good, but I was also told that all the new FD lenses basically had the same standard of optics. I am not sure I believe that...So far, I have a collection of 55mm filters, so if the lenses are identical, I'd hold out for an older SSC - all other things being equal. What do you think?

    Thanks for all the input,

    Peter.

    PS - Here are a couple of eBay threads for example:

    http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?...530863624&rd=1

    and

    http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?...529957145&rd=1

    The older lenses seem to keep price better...

  2. #2
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,443
    Images
    20
    I'd say take the one in better condition (play in the focus of the newer one doesn't sound good), and if you have 55mm filters, then that's as good a reason as any to take the older one. I have the later one, and it's an excellent lens.

    There is an earlier 35/2.0 with a convex front element--super sharp, higher collector's value, better for B&W than color because the front element is prone to yellowing due to radioactivity, but that doesn't apply to either of the lenses you're looking at.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  3. #3
    gnashings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,376
    Images
    17
    Ah yes! I saw one of these - if I had the money to pay for the collectors value, I'd just have to have one - nothing looks quite like it! So I guess optically these lenses are pretty much on par (not the convex-radio-active one, jusdt these "regular ones")?

    Thanks for your reply - appreciated as always!

  4. #4
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,443
    Images
    20
    Oops--I meant "concave" front element. The normal one has a convex front element like most lenses.

    The late FD 35/2.0 SSC and the later FDn 35/2.0 are probably the same design, but check the Canon Museum and the big Malaysian FD site to be sure. There's also a very active FD group on Yahoo!Groups.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  5. #5
    gnashings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,376
    Images
    17
    Thanks again - and don't worry about the concave/convex issue - I knew what you meant exactly, and didn't notice we were both upside down onthe terminology until you pointed it out



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin