Jump to content

FDn 35mm f/2...


Recommended Posts

anyone compared the EF 35mm f/2 to the FDn 35mm f/2

AS far as I know the only difference is the mount and perhaps the coatings.

 

FWIW, the EF 35mm f/2 original is still one of my favorite shooters on a 24x36mm image.

MO-StL-MBG.jpg.25211b3baee4cb4d08674d91eadcc659.jpg

EF 35mm f/2 on EOS 3, Ektar 100

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the Canon 35/2 lenses, going back four decades, are pretty good to excellent. A few vintage versions have been talked up WAY too much on various blogs and forums, to the point they have somewhat exaggerated followings. The truth is, the first-version (non-VR) EF will ace most of them simply by being AF. All things being equal, a sharply focused image from a "sterile modern" lens will be more appealing than an off-focus image from a manual focus lens with "character".

 

So I'd recommend trying a good-condition used copy of JDMvW's first-version EF 35/2. Compared to the current, overpriced and oversized EF-VR, the original EF is compact and light. Performance of a good copy is similar to the late FDn, with the added bonus of AF. If you find it too boring, resell it and look for something weirder like pre-FDn cult Canon 35/2 SC or SSC with concave front element and Thorium glass. These are considered the "best ever" Canon 35/2, but tend to yellow from the aging Thorium (and are larger than the FDn).

Edited by orsetto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...