Canon FD 135mm f/2.5

<p>Is there any difference between the non S.C. than the S.C. one?</p>

<p>Johnny, the consensus seems to be that <em>all</em> of the versions of the FD 135/2.5 have Super Spectra (SC) coating, regardless of how they are marked. And their optical formulae are identical. For a thorough discussion of the lens, see <a href="http://www.photo.net/canon-fd-camera-forum/00O1m4">http://www.photo.net/canon-fd-camera-forum/00O1m4</a>.</p>

<p>By the way, the 135/2.5 is a fabulous lens. The only 135mm FD lens that's better is the FDn 135/2.</p>

<p>Some photo.netters have seen a chrome front 135/2.5 FD or even a photo of a chrome front 135/2.5 FD which would not have been marked SC.</p>

<p>S.C. denotes Spectra Coating (not Super Spectra Coating, which is S.S.C.). It appears that the earlier Canon FL 135mm/2.5 lens had the same coating as the FD versions; is there a way to prove this?</p>

<p>Thanks for the correction, Bob. As an FD enthusiast, I know that "SC" stands for "Super Spectra Coating" and "SC" for "Spectra Coating." I don't know why I made the error in my earlier post. Perhaps there's a poltergeist in my keyboard!</p>

<p>And I, too, would like to see definitive info as to whether or not all versions the FD 135/1.5 are SC. </p>

<p>Johnny, look at the "travel with a f1" thread 3 down from this one, some nice pics with the 135 and others</p>

<p>Canon's brochure on FD lenses published in February 1979 is the newest one I have for the breech lock lenses. It lists the FD 135mm f/2.5 S.C. lens. The brochure published in May 1979 shows only the New FD breech-bayonet mount lenses, including the New FD 135mm f/2.8 lens that essentially replaced the f/2.5 lens.</p>

<p>According to Peter Dechert's book on Canon rangefinder cameras, Canon's first 135mm f/2.5 lens was designed for the Canonflex and subsequently modified for use on the RF cameras with the MB2 mirror box. [Note that the Canon Camera Museum shows that the RF version was first marketed in 1958 while the Canonflex version appeared in 1960. Perhaps the Canonflex version was put on hold until the Canonflex was in users' hands.] The FL 135mm f/2.5 lens appears to be the same optically as the Canonflex R mount version. Canon's published specifications on all three versions state that "magenta" coating was applied, indicating single coating. The FD version of the 135mm f/2.5 lens was a new optical design.</p>

<p>I do not have any detailed information on Canon's SC and SSC lens coating technology which they consider to be proprietary (as do most lens makers). Nevertheless, I believe that Canon's SC lens coating is more advanced than the single layer coating applied to their older lenses. The different colors reflected from the lens surfaces would indicate that different materials and/or thicknesses of coatings were applied to different lens surfaces. I recall reading in a photo magazine test report that, while the FD 50mm f/1.8 lens is listed as having SC coating, some of the lens surfaces were multicoated.</p>

<p>"The FD version of the 135mm f/2.5 lens was a new optical design." Just as well, if the FL 135/2.5 that I once owned was typical of the breed!</p>

<p>The 135/2.5 Canon FL is one of the best FL lenses and one of Canon's best lenses overall. I have seven of them. Six have standard helicoids and one has been adapted for bellows use but has all of its glass. If you have a 135/2.5 Canon FL lens in good condition and your results are not good, it's not the lens.</p>

<p>Gordon Yee wrote "According to Peter Dechert's book on Canon rangefinder cameras, Canon's first 135mm f/2.5 lens was designed for the Canonflex and subsequently modified for use on the RF cameras with the MB2 mirror box.'<br>

I have one of these preset type RF lenses with 13 diaphragm blades, which can be mounted on a Canon FL/FD-type SLR using a 25mm FL or FD extension tube. The extension required for infinity focusing on the SLR is more like 24.7mm, so this configuration doesn't focus all the way out to infinity. It's great for short-range and portrait photos, though. Canon once made an M15-25 (mm) variable extension tube, which would allow infinity focus. <br>

See http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/s/data/100-1000/s_m135_25.html</p>

 

<p>According to Peter Dechert, the Canon 200mm f3.5 lens was also designed in parallel with the Canonflex. As with the 135mm lens, it was designed to be used with a mirror box. The Canonflex R version was also updated to an FL version and replaced with a new design, the FD 200mm f/4.</p>

<p>I have one of these 200mm RF lenses which happened to be attached to a Canon Tele-Coupler R. The Tele-Coupler R allows any of the mirror box RF lenses to be used on the Canonflex with infinity focus:</p>

<p>http://captjack.exaktaphile.com/canonflex/Canonflex%20Accessories.htm</p>

<p>Bob, I think your lens should be marked as an M135mm and should have a breech ring type mount:</p>

<p>http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_MB2.html</p>

<p>The Tele-Coupler R has a dual mount to accomodate the breech ring and screw mounts. The 200mm has a screw mount so it can be used with either of the Canon mirror boxes.</p>

<p>Gordon, my M135mm lens is from the same series as the one pictured in your second link above, and has a nearby serial number. I had ordered the R (Canonflex) version from an NYC mail order house (late 1970's?). The purchase arrived in a box marked R but turned out to be the M lens, which I had never heard of. I was really ticked at first when I mounted it directly to my Canon TX camera and it wouldn't focus right! Someone told me later about the short mount, mirror box, etc. With a custom glass-free adapter, the M lens would work great on a digital SLR.</p>

<p>"If you have a 135/2.5 Canon FL lens in good condition and your results are not good, it's not the lens." It most certainly was the lens, Jeff – I was perfectly capable of taking sharp photographs even forty years ago. I'm happy to learn that it was not typical, either a bad copy or faulty in some way.</p>