How good is the FD 35-105/3.5 (72mm)?

Can anyone comment of the image quality of the 35-105/3.5 FD?

 

Thanks

See http://members.aol.com/canonfdlenstests/default.htm

 

Not sure if the 72 filter size version is the same as the f3.5 he tested. The one tested looks like excellent mid aperture performance typical of a decent lens, with the extreme edge distortion typical of less than state-of-the-art zooms.

I have had an FD 35-105mm f3.5 a good long time (and yes it does take a 72mm filter.) I have always been pleased with its sharpness and contrast. In my opinion, its a very good lens.

 

I suppose Canon could have made a version of this lens that didn't take 72mm filters. If they did I am unaware of it.

There were two Canon FD 35-105 zoom lenses. The earlier one was the bigger and heavier and used and had a 72mm filter. It also had a straight through 3.5 ap. Its operation was 2 touch.

 

The later one was smaller and lighter. It had an aspherical element. Its ap was variable 3.5-4.5. Its operation was one touch. The filter size is 58mm.

 

I have the earlier 72mm variety. It is among the best of the zooms I have used. I picked it after some research. Its down side include its size and clunky close focus operation.

 

From what I heard and my research, the earlier 72mm is better on all optical counts that the 58mm. I am not saying the 58mm is poor, it is reputed to be good. The 72 is talked about as being the best Canon made FD zoom.

Thanks for the answers. It looks pretty interesting from the test results.

 

The 3.5-4.5 version became the EF 35-105/3.5-4.5 with the same optical formula and push-pull zoom. It was quite good for a consumer lens and was the first on the market to use a molded aspherical element. I had the EF version for a long time so I know what it can do.

very sharp on the long end. a little soft at wide angle, but that may be a focusing issue on my part.

 

Solid with good build quality.

 

Front rotates when focusing, so using a polarizer is a bother.

 

The f3.5 constant max fstop is nice and yes it takes 72mm filters.

I had one mnay years ago. Generally OK, but as noted a little soft at the edges at 105mm at maximum aperture, but I found this quite agreeable for portraits. I got rid of it when I moved away from zooms to primes simply because of the weight.

Good for its time (25 years ago), but average compared to today's zooms at similar

apertures. The FD 35-70 is better.

The Canon FD 35 - 105 is a good lens, my son uses it as his standard objective, and has consistently good results.

 

The Macro possibility is a laugh, because the lens then focuses only up to about 1:5.

 

I recently bought a Vivitar Series 1 28 - 105 mm F 2.8 zoom.

 

This lens is better than the Canon 35 - 105, and it focuses down in macro to about 1:2 at the 28 mm setting. This zoom has a little bit of barrel distortion at the 28 mm setting.

 

A disadvantage of the Vivitar lens is that you have to refocus after zooming - it is a one touch zoom.