Any Canon FL users out there or what?

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

 

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

 

<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>

 

<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>

<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>

<p>So nobody has the 38mm f2.8 lens specifically made to fit the Pellix only? </p>

<p>The 38 is not very common and someone not using a Pellix or Pellix QL would probably prefer the 35/2.5.</p>

<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>

<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>

<p>The FL lenses also work on FD bodies, so I guess they can be here too</p>

<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>