Upgrade nFD35/2.8 to 2.0

[kunmori]

<p>Dear All,<br>

I have NewFD 35/2.8, but many FD users recommend to change 35/2.0.<br>

Yes, I know. 35/2.0 is one of the best FD Lens. But for upgrading, it needs to spend $100.<br>

I'm complicated. Does 35/2 has brilliant merits than 35/2.8?<br>

Thanks for your advise. :)</p>

[User_502260]

<p>I have three 35/2.8 New FDs and four 35/2 New FDs. The 35/2.8 New FD does not seem to be a favorite on this forum. I suppose there can be some sample variation. I find that it's a very decent lens. My favorite FD 35 is the f/2 FD SSC with the concave front element. There have been may postings about it. I gave mine the light treatment and it's just about clear of color cast. The 35/2 New FD is also very good. My only complaint about it is that in general I don't find the New FD lenses to be as well made mehcanically as the earlier breech lock lenses. I recently had a 35/2 New FD serviced. Most of the 35/2 New FD lenses I have seen have play in the focusing mount. You can expect to pay $50-$75 to have the lens serviced. Another of my 35/2 New FD lenses has a very small amount of play in the focusing mount but can still be used. The other two could use service. <br>

Whether you need an f/2 lens depends on how often you work in low light. Even if you don't use the f/2 setting that often, the extra finder brightness is nice to have. At the smaller stops I don't think you will see a big difference in performance between the f/2.8 and the f/2. At f/2.8 you might find the f/2 lens slightly better. Going in the other direction, I sometimes use a 35/3.5 FD SC. That's a pretty good lens too. </p>

[alan_swartz]

<p>In the New FD 35/2.0 lens, the focusing ring is coupled to the internal mechanism with a pin and fork arrangement. The pin has a plastic covering to create a quiet and precise fit as it slides in the fork. Over the years, the thin plastic deteriorates and the connection becomes metal-to-metal. The only thing this affects is the coupling of the outer ring to the internal focusing helical. It introduces no focusing error except the possibility that the lens might not focus quite to infinity. It does create some play and some noise.</p>

<p>The first two copies I had of this lens had a very cloudy element near the diaphragm. I think it is caused by outgassing of the black paint applied to the edge of a neighboring element. These may have been isolated examples of the problem, but it might pay to check carefully before buying.</p>

<p>I agree that the extra viewfinder brightness is a significant advantage of the faster lens. My eyes are getting old.</p>

[frederick_muller]

I use the 35mm f2 Concave. It is excellent for both color and black and white. The sunlight treatment works. Definitely worth an extra $100 if you can afford it. Best with an F-1 and split-image focusing screen.

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Jeff, I have the nFD 35mm f/2.8, nFD 35mm f/2 and Chrome-nosed, pre-SCC, Concave front element, Thorium 35mm f/2. The big advantage of the f/2.8 is its light weight. It's a very good performer. The nFD f/2 performs better from f/2 (obviously)-to-f/4, but beyond that I don't see a difference. The extra brightness of the high speed lens is nice and you will notice it but it's not a huge difference. Only you can decide if the weight vs. speed and wide open performance is worth the extra dollars for your work. I would shoot with what you have for a while and time will tell if a higher speed lens would be useful to you.<br>

The old, Chrome-nosed, Thorium (radioactive) 35/2 is in a class by itself and is the best 35mm lens I've ever used. Extremely sharp and contrasty, however due to it's perchant to yellow with time and lack of SCC coating, it's color doesn't match the other FD lenses. I reserve it for Black and White work. If you find one of these in good shape, at a good price, snap it up!</p>

[kunmori]

<p>Thanks Jeff(not me), Alan, Frederick & Louis.<br>

All your advises are so significant to me! :)</p>

[jeff_guthrie]

<p>I also have the old 35/2 chrome nose lens, and it is the one which is usually mounted to my camera. I found this lens at a local camera shop in mint shape for 10,000 yen ($100). The lens was on he shelf for a long time, but kept passing it by because I had ended up buying a much more expensive Olympus OM 35/2 lens for my OM4T. Unfortunately, the Olympus lens turned out to be defective, so I returned it, and used some of the money to buy the Canon lens.<br>

The glass in the old FD 35/2 is definitely different than that used in other FD lenses. There is a distinct yellowish cast when looking through the viewfinder of my F1, though the glass in the lens looks clear enough. I've been setting the lens out in the sun with another old thorium lens I have (Olympus Zuiko 55/1.2) to get rid of whatever yellowing remains.<br>

The old FD 35/2 chrome nose lens is a jewel in terms of quality. On the other hand, it is quite large and heavy (like the F1 it is mounted to), but it takes wonderful pictures, and it is one of the best lenses I have ever used.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Jeff, there is a slightly later, SSC version of the concave/thorium FD 35/2. I know this because I had one, and sold it due to concerns about the thorium, and also because I don't do any black and white photography.<br />I have kept my FDn 35/2, however, since it is almost as good as the earlier lens, and is also very compact.</p>

<p>You might want to consider all the other excellent advice you've received before deciding whether it's worthwhile for you to "upgrade." Over in the EOS realm, there is a huge difference between the EF 35/1.4 L and any other EF lens with that focal length (prime or zoom), but I doubt that the FDn 35/2 is <em>that much better </em>than the FDn 35/2.8, especially when stopped down a bit.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>I don't know of any second or later version of the 35/2 FD SSC with the concave front element. There was a later 35/2 FD SSC with a convex front element. That lens has a different optical formula, does not contain thorium, was not made for more than a few years and is not seen very often. I nearly bought one from another photo.netter within the last year. </p>

[jtk]

<p> 35mm lenses are, like 28mm, a big argument for rangefinder cameras. My Hexar AF, a fixed lens neo-rangefinder, is incredible...one reason to reserve F1 for 24mm/wider and 50mm/longer (nothing normal beats FD 50/1.4 SSC)/</p>

[rick_janes]

<p>In the original breech-lock mount Canon produced no less than FIVE versions of 35mm f/2. The first three are non-SSC concave-front thoriums, fourth is the concave thorium SSC-coated (also first to feature their new Floating System), and number five has a convex front element with SSC.<br>

They can be hard to distinguish in pictures! In all cases the presence of an f/16 minimum aperture means a concave thorium type, as does anything with a chrome filter ring.</p>

[jim_blackie]

<p>This last post was the most helpful. I odered one from KEH with my fingers crossed that I would get an early lens. Rick's description of which have the concave front element has eased my mind. I DID order the correct one. It arrives tomorrow!</p>