An under $50 135- FD 3.5 or 2.8?

I used a 135 long ago, and, looking back at the images, I decide I

like the way I could isolate a person or a few people out of a group.

I read a review of the 2.8 vs the 3.5 and the 3.5 was rated higher.

(A condensation of a French review)I've also heard disparaging remarks

made about 4-element 135's as cheaply designed and constructed. The

3-element Leitz Elmar is a cult classic, but a 4-element Canon 135 is

junk, because it's only 4-elements? Seems there would be less glass to

bounce light rays around. Anyone have experience with one or both of

these? I like seeking out good cheap lenses, the 35 2.8 FD being a

favorite.

The 135mm f3.5 nFD or S.C Canon lens is a fine portrait lens sharp in the mid range and a tiny bit soft wide open. It is a very very inexpensive lens nice ones selling on ebay for under $60.00 So buy one try it if not to your liking sell it. I have used one and found it more then satisfactory. And by the way the 3 element Elmar is about 10 times as much as the Canon lens. And the std. 135mm f4.5 Hektor is nothing compared to the Canon 135mm f3.5 even the origional chrome rangefinder version litalone the FD mount version.

If you're looking for a good, cheap FD 135mm lens, IMO you're looking at the wrong ones. Take a look at the FD 135 2.5 SC. It don't get no respect for some reason, but IMO it's better than either the 2.8 or 3.5 ... it was made with real metal in the barrel, and real glass (lots of it) in 6 elements (5 groups.) Generally cheaper than either the 2.8 or 3.5, too. This one <I>should</I> be a cult classic. I'd avoid the non-SC version of the same lens, I assume that's uncoated.

First there are two types of Canon 135F3.5. The first came with a chrome filter ring, as did all first generation Canon lenses, and had a 55mm filter thread. Later the chrome was replaced by an all black lens except for the remaining chrome mounting ring. Neither lens has a built in lens shade, but both versions use the fairly common BT-55. And both are contemporary to the faster and heavier 135F2.5, which does have a built in lens shade (an advantage imo). The F2.5 also requires a 58mm filter thread--shared only by the 55F1.2, 55F1.2L, 50-135 and 80-200 zoom lenses. Later, Canon introduced the FD series and 3 newly redesigned 135 lenses--F2.0, F2.8 and F3.5. The F2.0 is renowned as an excellent lens, takes 72mm filters and is expensive compared to the others. The new F2.8 and F3.5 both take 52mm filters, matching your 35F2.8 and have built-in lens shades. If it were me, I'd go for the F2.8 as it is faster and I believe a MC lens, while the older F3.5 and F2.5 and possibly the new F3.5 lenses are SC lenses. However, Canon made NO junk lenses that I know of and I can personally attest that I found an earlier F3.5SC lens (4 elements in 3 groups) much sharper than a sample of the much more complex Vivitar Series 1 90F2.5 macro lens.

On checking old notes, Chasseur d'Images appears to favor the 135F3.5FD, giving it 4 stars for performance and only 3 stars for perfromance to both the famed F2.0 and the F2.8--fwiw.

This is what Chasseur d'Images has to say about the 200 f/4 macro:

 

From f/4 to f/16 good but not exciting. Diffraction visible in corners at f/22 and everywhere at f/32 (rating: Avg) This lens is far from average

 

Also the TS35 f/2.8

 

G in full field from f/2.8, E from f/5.6 onwards. Decentered by 8 mm, sharpness becomes good after stop down to f/8. Are they saying the lens is only average until it's stopped down to f/8 when decentered?

 

Sorry, but I don't agree.

Someone posted a question about a "Focal" brand 135mm above. I had a JC Penney 135 that I picked up for $35 and had surprising optical quality. I'm sure you've looked at the Canon FD 50mm 1.4, which is considered world class and can be had cheaply. I also had a 28mm 2.8 which was quite nice for around $50.