Canon FD 35-70mm zoom for manual focus canon A1...

<p>Greetings, I have just bought a zoom lens for my canon A1 but unlike the camera body which is very robust, the lens is very light weight and plasticky. I have other FD lenses which seem heavier and better made. Why is my new zoom lens so light weight? is there a more substantial version? <br>

Many Thanks.</p>

<p>The other lenses you own are most likely the older "breech-lock" versions. The new zoom is the FDn bayonet-style mount, of which, many of the lenses went to plastic bodies.</p>

<p>I do not know if there is a comparable BL lens.</p>

<p>Both 35-70mm FDn zooms are terrible lenses. Lousy build quality and poor optics (compared to modern zooms). Get rid of it. If you really need a zoom, get the 35-105 / 3.5 macro, which is pretty good for its time.</p>

<p>Marcus, I have one of those lenses, which came with an FD body I bought a few years ago. I suspect you could easily get through airport security with that lens in your pocket, and not set off the metal detector. It was probably a "kit" lens that came with something like the T-50 camera. It's ok for the casual snapshooter, but with the prices of quality FD lenses now, I'd opt for a better zoom. The 35-105 f3.5 that Jake mentioned is far superior...and also about 4 times heavier.</p>

<p>Actually the body of the lens is a Polycarbonate the same material the top of your A-1 is made of.</p>

<p>It amazes me how going on 40 years since the first of the new mount Polycarbonate lenses hit the market. People are still assuming they are some how fragile or of lessor quality then the metal ones.</p>

<p>The material is less likely to expand or contract with temp changes and there for remains more accurate.</p>

<p>Since a lens weighs less should you happen to drop it it has less mass and will hit with less transfered energy. (Ask anyone who flys model airplanes if the heavy plane survives a crash better)<br>

I have both style mounts and in all my years of using the nFD mount I have never had an issue. except the tiniest rotation while mounted that I have never been able to detect any problem as a result of.</p>

<p>I owned a 35-70mm f3.5/4.5 and while I agree it's not a lens for 16 X 20's if your shooting for 8X10's it's a great little light weight travel lens. Fits inside the ER case and I have dozens of real nice shots from mine.</p>

<p>There was a general trend among camera companies in the mid-1970s to make their products smaller and lighter. Canon and other major manufacturers essentially produced two lines of lenses, though Canon marketed them as a single line. The consumer lenses were smaller, lighter and less expensive due to the use of polycarbonates, fewer parts and new mass production methods. The premium lenses, designed for heavier use, employed more substantial materials.</p>

<p>While the consumer lenses will not take as much abuse as the premium lenses, my experience parallels Mark's. I have had no problems with any of my New FD mount consumer lenses. In fact, I'm impressed with how well they were engineered and manufactured.</p>

<p>There were two consumer FD35-70mm lenses. One has a constant f/4 maximum aperture. I've never used this lens but it tested extemely well in Modern Photography's 10/79 test. The other has a variable aperture of f/3.5-4.5. I have this lens in the AC version (autofocus for the T-80). While I don't use it much, it's a decent performer. Since you already have the lens, try it out before rushing to judgment.</p>

<p>I'll echo Mark's sentiments about well made, polycarbonate bodied lenses. If you want a heavy metal 35-70, find the f-2.8~3.5 SSC version. Drag one around on the front of a motorized F-1 for a day and you'll have a bit of a workout.</p>

<p>I have an old Tamron adaptall II 35-70 F3.5 lens that is well built and a good performer. When I bought it I found it was a better performer than either of the two canon alternatives. I also have the Canon FD 35-105 F3.5 which is a much better lens but considerably larger and heavier.</p>

<p>I've found that the FD 35-70 2.8-3.5 SSC has much better optical and build quality than the later FDn 35-70 3.5-4.5 (and it's obviously faster, as well). In fact, I literally gave away my copy of the latter because it had very loose focusing and zooming rings. As previous posters have stated, however, the earlier zoom is rather heavy, and is also relatively hard to find these days.</p>

<p>I'll reiterate the received opinion and say that the best FD "standard" zoom is the FDn 35-105 3.5. It's very sharp, has excellent resolution, and has more reach than a 35-70. Better still is the marvelous FDn 80-200 4 L, which delivers stunning sharpness, resolution, and colour rendition. Round off this collection of zooms with the excellent (albeit pricey) FDn 20-35 4 L, and you'll have the ultimate walkabout FD kit. </p>

<p>To reiterate comments about the 35-70 f/2.8~3.5 S.S.C. This is one of my favorite lenses and feels like you could pound some nails with it and still take great photos. I've only ever heard negative things about the FDn 35-70, although I've never owned one. I do recommend the 2.8~3.5 SSC though.. </p>

<p>Hi, Many thanks for all your comments. You have been all very helpful and I will probably invest in a 35-105 zoom. </p>

<p>I've never used the 35-70mm 3.5-4.5, so I can't comment on it, but I've owned and used the constant f/4 and f/2.8-3.5 lenses and have never been let down by either one. As previous posters have noted, the 2.8-3.5 is a bigger, heavier lens with better image quality than either of the smaller versions, but the constant f/4 version is really sharp and contrasty also. You can't go wrong with either the f/4 or f/2.8-3.5 lens.</p>

It's very difficult to use filters, esp polarisers, on the 35-70/4 due to its telescoping hood design.

<p>It's not the greatest lens in the world - it's not the worst, but if you have to travel light and had to take just one lens, you wouldn't be let down by this lens. And it's a little piece of history: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdzooms/3570.htm#compact<br>

I have one. I hardly use it because I just never liked zoom lenses all that much, I prefer a 24mm or 28mm for "the one lens", but when I do use it I get the results I need. The 35-105 I had was stolen when my apartment was broken into way back when, and I miss it. That was one superb lens. Bastards also stole my 135mm, and Olympus Infinity waterproof camera. I'ver probably bought them back on eBay in the 14 years since. : )</p>

 

<p>A have a FD 35-70 f3.5-4.5 zoom, I never wanted this lens it was on a T90 I wanted to buy, and the store wouldn't sell it body only, I have shot a couple of rolls of Velvia 100 with it and was surprised that the slides on projection on a my 50"x50" screen were pretty good, a lot better than I expected.</p>

I acquired one with an A1 that I got from an estate sale. I’ve used it on my Nikon D610 where it’s 50-100mm. Makes nice ”Lomography” soft focus shots wide open, reasonably sharp “normal” shots when stopped down. It’s quirky. I like it. Looking forward to putting it through its paces on the A1. It prompted me to buy a new, old-stock AF Zoom-NIKKOR 35-70mm f/3.3-4.5, which I love. It’s great to have fun with these lenses and see what you can get out of them.