FD 35mm f/2 vs. EF 35mm f/2?

Discussion in 'Canon FD' started by joseph_dickerson, Nov 22, 2017.

  1. Explains itself I think...

    Anyone ever made a comparison of the FD 35mm f/2 (any of them) to the EF 35mm f/2 (non IS)?

    Thinking of one or the other for an EOS M-5.

    Thanks,

    JD
     
  2. I don't know how well they compare but there's not a good way to mount an FD lens to an EOS camera without some loss in quality. Ironically that's not the case with FD lenses mounted on many other modern cameras.

    It may not be enough of a loss that you'd care, but since you're asking, I'm assuming you do.
     
  3. I think you might be wrong...I'm using an EOS M5. Mounting FD lenses isn't an issue as the adapter doesn't require optics. Also the camera has focus peaking so focusing is not a problem.

    Is there another issue that I'm not aware of? I know that mounting FD lenses on a Canon DSLR is problematic but are there other issues with M cameras that I should know about?

    Thanks for the reply...
    JD
     
  4. I think you're right - I'm wrong. ;-)
     
  5. With an EF to M adapter you can retain AF and auto diaphragm with an EF 35mm on an M5. For me that advantage would outweigh any potential benefits using an equivalent FD lens.
     
  6. Huh, that's good to know. Waiting for Canon to come out with a FF M before I jump into that pool. I've already got a NEX 7 and it does what I need, but APS-C unfortunately.
     
  7. If you did use a FD 35mm, you’d do it more for a certain “look, than practicality. The M-5 being a APS-sensor camera, you’re only going to be using the central part of the lens image circle (EF or FD lens). Normally the central part is the sharpest so all of the resulting pics (EF or FD) should look pretty good.

    I would be interesting to see how a Thorium FD35/2.0 would look on a APS-camera. Don’t know if the “look” of the Thorium FD35/2.0 would transfer over to APS-digital.
     
  8. Is the Thorium FD 35mm f/2 considered the "pick of the litter"? I know there's several models of that lens in FD mount, I had one a hundred years ago when I shot with a Canon F-1 but I don't remember which version. I do remember thinking it was pretty damn good.

    JD
     
  9. The concave-front element Thorium FD35/2.0 has become a legendary optic. Longevity helps, the 40+ years it’s been around had added to its mystique. It is good, especially when used with B&W film. Very sharp wide-open too. Thorium though, hasn’t aged well, meaning it turns yellow. Color images taken with this lens will look very warm. Of course most, if not all of the warmness, can be corrected in Photoshop with a click of your mouse.

    Canon also made a non-Thorium, convex-front element FD35/2.0 as well as used an updated design for the FDn 35.2.0.

    I do have the original EOS-M camera and maybe, someday, will buy an FD adaptor just so I can use some of my FD lenses on it. The Thorium FD35mm would definitely be one that I would use.
     
  10. I had a convex front element FD 35 F2.0 (don't know if it was thorium or not). Good lens be quite nose heavy when used on a 1st generation Canon F-1. Can't imagine it would be comfortable to use on an EOS M. Hopefully they start making some fast primes for the M system.
     
  11. The early 35mm f/2 Canon FD lens is a beautifully built & performing lens.​
    I personally UV bleached mine with a 'cheap' Ultra Violet LED light unit bought from Ebay; no more amber cast...​
    P1010588.JPG
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
  12. It is my recollection that only the mount is different between the EF and the FD version. Is this not mostly right?

    It is one of Canon's long-term legacy lenses, only recently revised in a much more expensive IS version.

    It is truly a gift to the faithful.

    It is, however, the only EF lens that I have ever had to have repaired.
     
  13. Optically, there are three different versions of the FD 35/2.0. In EF mount I'm not sure of Canon ever redesigned the lens, but considering the EF 35/2.0 was first introduced in 1990, my guess is yes.
     
  14. I suspect the latest FD and the earliest EF lens are essentially the same in all performance metrics that matter, but like everyone else it seems we don't know for sure. The EF-M adapter will make the old EF work very nicely on an EOS-M with all functionality. I even tried it with that exact lens at PhotoExpo. I didn't much care for the camera, but the system worked well.
     
  15. My "accessorized" EOS-M3 with a EF-EOS mount adapter and a fantastic EFS 10-18mm zoom,
    is IMHO the most versatile bargain V-log'ers combo.

    P1010727.JPG

    The EF-EOS mount adapter has its own very useful tripod mount, and the camera not only has a built-in microphone jack, but
    also has a "Flip-Up" screen ! - All essential for decent V-logging...
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
  16. Gus,

    Nothing wrong with the Canon M-camera (I tried the M5), but I didn't really like it to use as it was just too small for me. I thought Fuji or Sony or Olympus were streets ahead in handling: but each to their own. In fact I am surprised how similar the Sony and Olympus are despite the format difference.
     
  17. Of course they did, see the reply just above yours. The EF 2/35mm IS USM is the latest version, replacing the old one from the late 80s/early 90s. It is a truly great lens with a stellar performance and very fast AF.
     
  18. Don't forget that due to the crop factor of 1.6x a 35mm lens will perform like a 56mm on an APS-C system such as the wonderful M5. if you want the same angle like the 35mm shows you on FF, I'd recommend the EF-M 2/22mm. In case, you knew all this, just disregard my posting.
     

Share This Page