Canon 35mm/2.5 FL

Hi,

I have read that the 35mm "concave" lens is one of the better

performers among Canon FD lenses. What about the 35mm FL lens? It

seems to be concave. Is it also "special"? Who knows anything about

this lens?

The 35mm f2.5 FL is a lens with a convex front element it has 7 elements in 5 groups with a magneta single layer coating, nothing special about it's construction or formula. The 35mm f2.0 Chrome nose and first version of the 35mm f2.0 S.S.C. that have a concave front element has an element that is made from Thorium containing glass (a rare earth element) which both adds to it's resolution as well as now with the yellowing (over the years caused by the radioactive nature of this glass) of the glass or glue or what ever has created a lens with incressed contrast ideally suited to B&W photography. The 35mm f2.5 while being a great lens in it's day is not of any special note.

 

Mark W.

 

All info is from Canon literature

Thanks, Mark. You answered my question well.

Raid,

 

I had that lens, and traded it in on a 35mm/f2.0 with the concave

front element. The 35mm/2.5f lens is a great little lens, and

pretty darned sharp too. I got a good trade-in on it when I did, but

in some ways wish I still had it. I've found that the 35mm/f2.0 is

not good on slide film because of the yellowing, so I keep it with

print film (the prints can be easily color-corrected). If I were you,

I'd keep it.

 

John C. Ratliff

<p>Ten years later I think people Forgot about this lens. I recently had an opportunity to buy one for thirty five dollars. I haven't committed yet. I am still debating it.</p>

Too bad, I have both the SSC 35 2 convex and the FL 35 2.5. Both render differently and like all FL lenses the 35 2.5 as more film appeal in appearances.

The BL mount is the best, nothing is reliably firmer or tighter in a locking mechanism, people generally manage to complain about the Breech Lock as if mentioning this feature frees them from the embarrassment? Nothing embarrassing about a BL to me, they lock out light and mount lenses firmly better than any other mounts. The single coating is one expensive coating that seems to be capable of withstanding nuclear contamination in some cases, not to mention 50 years of reliable consistent service?

 

So 15 years later, I have seen them rise in popularity only to wane again.... they refuse to die. The 35 and the 28 3.5 have outstanding resolution and make excellent landscape values in crop factor and m4/3 applications.

 

The FL 35 2.5 and SSC 35 2 (convex not concave) only have one thing in common, their focal lengths and nothing else, which is why I own both

Edited November 4, 2018 by greg_buchanon

I bought my first 35/2.5 FL back in 1984 and found it to be exceptionally sharp with outstanding contrast and great edge detail. It became my favorite 35mm lens. I've never owned one of the special concave 35/2s so I'm not able to make a direct comparison. Nonetheless, I've always been impressed with its image quality. Here are a couple of examples I shot with it, both of which are 35mm slides that I duped with a rig I cobbled together that consists of a NEX 7 and a Nikon 55/2.8 AIs Micro-Nikkor.

 

Dead tree, Canon FTb, Canon 35mm f/2.5 FL, Kodachrome 64

http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/dead_tree_kern_river_2a.jpg

 

Palos Verdes overlook Canon FTb, Canon 35mm f/2.5 FL, Kodachrome 64

http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/paloverdes1.jpg

The FL35/2.5 has the same optical formula as the R35/2.5. Peter Dechert, in his Canon SLR book, bashed the R35/2.5, calling it a “pretty poor retro-focus design, best forgotten.” I think Peter is being unduly harsh, the 35/2.5 is soft wide-open, but sharpens up nicely after that. Personally, I consider the concave front element, thorium FD35/2.0 to be a much superior lens.