tom_cheshire Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 <p>Hey, the forum is "Canon FD" but what about us diehard FL users? We are out here staunch in our defense of the venerable FL mount. I, for one, am not into that "new fangled" stuff like the T series or A series Canons with their strange bayonet mount. Breech mount or nothing. </p> <p>So, how about it? Tell us some edge of the seat stories about you and your Pellix or Ft. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven_bristow Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 <p>I own three FL bodies, an FP, FT, and a TL. The meterless FP is my favorite Canon body, I even prefer it over my F1. Perhaps the best feature of the FL bodies is that ALL of them will function without batteries.</p> <p>I don't own any FL lenses, but I do want a 100mm f3.5 and 19mm f3.5. I do like the breech-lock mounts much better than the bayonet type.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h_s1 Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 <p>I have used an FT QL. Wonderful experience! The Quick Loading feature is quite convenient, similar to the motorized system of modern electronic cameras (EOS). The meter has never let me down. I am currently using an FTb body, but I have an FL lens among other FD lenses.<br> The biggest convenience in FTb is, of course, the wide aperture metering. No need to stop the lens down. I gather that otherwise FTb is quite similar to the FT (except the focusing screen, of course). The simplicity yet the professionalism of the FT QL is quite impressive, e.g. a dedicated button for the mirror lockup.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_de_ley Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 <p>Already had a few FL lenses, but no bodies until I received a TLb just three days ago. Feels very well built and everything seems to operate smoothly, but I still have to finish my first roll & get it developed. The only thing that I might miss compared to my childhood AT-1 is the split prism, other than that it's a joy to chase the circle with the needle in the viewfinder again!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou_Meluso Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 <blockquote> <p>what about us diehard FL users?</p> </blockquote> <p>The Classic Manual Camera forum is a good spot for Pre-FD Canon gear.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 <p>I don't have any problem with FL people on this forum, it's all the same historical lineage. However, the Classic Manual Forum <strong><em>is</em></strong> a swell place to hang out. I and others have fought a sort of modest battle over the last some years to broaden the CMC forum, originally they didn't allow anything in that was after 1970, <strong>1970</strong>! This excluded a lot of cameras that otherwise had no home.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony_perez Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 <p>Well I was strictly an 'FD' guy until my wife and I hit an antique shop while vacationing in South Carolina. There in the corner was an absolutely mint Pellix... with 200, 50, & 28mm lenses, that booster thing, and filters for the sale price of $50. Haven't really played around with the booster but I love the Pellix!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_kennedy3 Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 <p>I have an FTb and an FTbN. The FTbN took a bath in a pond (my fault) and seized up and I never seem to use the other unit. I do use some of my FL lenses occasionally on my A1. I'm real fond of my 100/3.5. Like to try a Pellix. Good find Tony!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capitalq Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 <p>I have a FX, FT and a two Pellix. The metering is certainly better in the later Canon mounts but the very fast FL glass is superb. I often use the FL 58mm f1.2 on my F-1 and other FD bodies. The breech mounts just look better. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulo_trindade Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 <p>Generaly i use FD,but i have one Pellix first model and one black FT with the canon booster and the FL lens i have are 28f3.5;35f3.5;50f1.8 and 135f3.5,sometimes i use them.<br> I have and use the canonflex with the R50f1.8 too.<br> But my preference goes to FD stuf</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon_yee Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 <p>I've managed to acquire most of the Canonflex and FL bodies as well as many of the R and FL lenses. However, I usually use my FD bodies and lenses. Some of my Canonflex and FL bodies and lenses are in need of service, mostly due to neglect and disuse by previous owners. Most problems are simply due to lubrication: shutter curtains capping, oily diaphragm blades, and sticky aperture and focusing rings. Nevertheless, a lot of my equipment is still fully functional after 40-50 years. I'm impressed with the engineering and build quality of Canon's early SLRs, as well the Canon LTM rangefinders I've acquired recently.</p> <p>Tom and Steven, while I also prefer the FL/FD lenses with the breech ring, the New FD "bayonet" lenses are technically and functionally the same breech lock mount. I've used a mix of the new and old style lenses for years so that it's become second nature to me. I've never had a problem with any New FD lens. I'm still impressed that Canon re-engineered the mount such that any FD lens, new or old, is fully functional on any FL/FD body.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_miller4 Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 <p>For what I do with my older Canon SLR's (FT, FTb, TL-QL, TX), FL lenses are excellent choices. I have these FL lenses: 50mm/1.8, 50mm/1.4, 50mm/3.5 macro, 35mm/3.5, 85mm/1.8, and 135mm/3.5. I also have the short-mount preset lens M 135/2.5 which was made to fit the Canon 7 rangefinder's mirror box; because of its breechlock mount, I can mount it onto the above cameras with a 25mm extension ring and get infinity focus.<br> Merits of the FL lenses include ease of switching to manual aperture, rugged old-time metal+glass construction with great workmanship, and low cost. The lens coatings are effective, despite not being multicoatings. I use lens hoods, so flare issues seldom materialize. The FL 50mm/1.8 and 50mm/3.5 lenses have deeply recessed front elements and typically need no hoods.<br> The cameras themselves are rock-solid. With these lenses, they can also be rock-heavy, but that seems to reduce camera shake in use.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_janes Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 <p>Beautiful and capable optics, my FLs are often paired with a Canonflex body for black & white work. They are delightful to use once I'm re-familiarized with their specific aperture controls.<br> Current FL inventory includes its bookends (both versions of 19mm and the 1200), 35/2.5, 50/1.4 & 1.8, 135/2.5 (formerly NOS!), FL-F 300 & 500/5.6 Fluorites.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_miller4 Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 <p>Correction to my comment above:</p> <p>The M 135mm/2.5 lens really needs about 24.7mm added extension for true infinity focus when mounted on a Canon SLR, so I can't quite get that with a 25mm ring---I need to use a shorter ring or combination for that.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_502260 Posted August 14, 2010 Share Posted August 14, 2010 <p>I have an FX, a black FT QL, a chrome FT QL and two TL QLs. My favorite FL lenses are the 50/1.4 FL II, 50/3.5 macro, 85/1.8 and 135/2.5. The 100/4 FLM is handy for bellows use because it isn't too large or heavy. I also use FL lenses more with FD cameras. A Canon F-1 with an L screen has a much brighter finder than any of the FL camera bodies and this is helpful if the lens is slow or if the light isn't very strong. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_cheshire Posted August 15, 2010 Author Share Posted August 15, 2010 <p>So nobody has the 38mm f2.8 lens specifically made to fit the Pellix only? </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_502260 Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 <p>The 38 is not very common and someone not using a Pellix or Pellix QL would probably prefer the 35/2.5.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon_yee Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 <p>I have the FLP 38mm Pellix-only lens. My Pellix bodies need CLAs so I haven't run any film through them in years. I'm waiting for my latest acquisition, a black Pellix QL body.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r.c._booth Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 <p>I'm in! Have Canonflex, RM and R2000 and FX, FP, FT and Pellix bodies with several R lenses and many FL lenses. I use the FP and FT quite a bit.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_tran14 Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 <p>The FL lenses also work on FD bodies, so I guess they can be here too</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony_vranic Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 <p>I don't have any FL bodies, but I have two FL lenses: the 58mm f/1.2 and the 135mm f/2.5. Both were purchased at the same time years ago in an old camera shop, and I was too distracted (hypnotized?) by the wide apertures and all-metal-and-glass heft to notice that they were FL's and not FD's. :) The stopped-down metering didn't slow me down enough to return the lenses. I was happy with the 135 for many years until I'd finally 'gone EF' and purchased an EF 135 f/2... and, well, not much was the same after that. :) I was using the 58 on my New F1, when I happened to notice in the manual that I -- explicitly -- am not supposed to be able to mount that lens on my body. (The same admonition appears in the manuals for my AE-1 Program and my T70. Does anyone know why we're not supposed to be able to mount the 58mm FL on FD bodies?) Given that I'd been having issues with my F1, (<a href="009ZK9">http://www.photo.net/canon-fd-camera-forum/009ZK9</a>) and still am, I've resigned myself to using the 58 as a rather well-corrected wide loupe. It feels sacrilegious to just keep it in the cabinet, but I'm reluctant to sell it. Perhaps I'll go find an old "proper" FL body to pair it up...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now