Thrift Shop Find - not spectacular but hey... its a lens.

[gnashings]

<p>I was in a Value Village (a chain of thrift stores selling second hand goods, kind of like a Salvation Army Store), and amidst several Super 8 cameras priced accordingly to their "antique- eeness", were some lenses. Most were cheap third party K-mount lenses etc., (oddly, Kmount is just about the only majour type of camera I don't own... I think I should do something about that! That's just not right!), was this absolutely pristine Canon FD 135mm f3.5 SC. It has the awesome, old school Canon lens cap that I just love the look of, and a genuine BT-55 lens hood. Mounted - nay, FUZED onto the front was a Black's UV filter (more on this later), and the only sign that this lens was not brand new was some dust on the back element due to a lack of back-cap.</p>

<p>Now, I know that this was Canon's absolutely bottom of the line bargain portrait lens, but for $15 colourful, Canadian dollars (that's a blue one with kids playing hockey, a fuscia pinkish purple one and a looney to cover the taxe:) ), I thought why not? Sure, they can be had on eBay for the price of shipping - nobody wants them... and I certainly don't need one... but... Well, on this forum, I think I hardly have to explain myself (Hi, my name is Peter, I am addicted to old cameras, lenses, doo-dads and whatchamacallits)...</p>

<p>Personally, I don't see why this lens should not perform just fine within its intended parameters, and while it is of a slower aperture, it is built like a tank. Its only malfunctions stem from a lack of use - the UV filter had to be destroyed to be removed (I suspected cross threading, but no - it was just in there for so long it wouldn't budge!), and it won't stop down - I suspect that its an oil on the blades issue and feeling all cocky from my recent 100mm f2.8 "repair" adventure, I intend to crack it open as soon as I gets me some lighter fluid (my Zippo ate the last of it...).</p>

<p>I will probably post any experiences from fixing it in the FD forum, where I am sure I will be told its a waste of time as it is not a 135 f2 or an 85 1.2L ... ;) But for the sheer thrill of the find, I think I can't find a more sympathetic bunch of souls than the CMC gang...</p>

<p>Yeah, that's right - da CMC. Classic Manual Cameras... gotta problem with dat? You down with CMC? Ya, you know me...</p>

<p>OK... I promise I am sober. Seriously, we are gonna sound really bad-ass if we refer to ourselves with an acronym, its really street-cred and all that... Try it out... Will make you feel all gangsta ;)</p><div></div>

[gnashings]

<p>The pitchers are from a that gosh darn tiny little spy cambra in the take along telephone:)</p><div></div>

[Rob_the_waste]

<p>One thing that I've found about filters... sometimes it feels like you need a pair of vice grips to unscrew filters. Maybe it's in how some of them are machined or the alloy used in the filter rings, but by just pressing in with the palm of your hand releases them and then they can be unscrewed without any trouble whatsoever. As far as the limitations of the lens, I have two 3.5/135 lenses. One is a Super Tak, and the other is a Jupiter 37A, both in M42 screwmount. I had a 2.8/135 that I gave my neighbour. I kept the good ones.</p>

[jodys]

<p>The first lens I ever bought new with my own money, for a trip to Africa. I didn't find the 'slow' f3.5 maximum aperture to be a hindrance in the blazing sun at the equator. I did wish I'd paid a few $ more for a polarizer, but hey, I was 16. A fine, fine lens. Mine has been sitting in one case or another pretty much since that trip though, perhaps it's time I dug it out again.</p>

[gnashings]

<p>Rob - I nearly had a fit with that filter - too bad too, because it was pristine like the rest of the lens, I should have snapped a picture of the carnage after I removed it... I tried rubber non slip matt and steady pressure with the palm, alas to no avail in this case. I had to remove the glass (the retaining ring came out nice and smooth - go figger...) and just collapsed the filter ring inwards with pliers. I now have a neat little circle of UV blocking glass that looks suspiciouly like window glass... to use as a coaster for shot glasses or maybe small espresso cups...(as opposed to the common giant gulp espresso cups I guess) Pity that I don't really use either... :) <br>

I should compare it to a 3rd party m42 135 that I got for $5, I can't even recall what "gor" or "tar" name it bears, but I suspect that hand held in normal use, I will be hard pressed to find the limitations of either, especially at normal 8x10 print sizes. I find that to be true with most of my lenses - either my ability or the method of use provides a wall long before the lens quality does:)</p>

 

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>I'm a Nikon guy, but I'd be lying if I said that I haven't been tempted by some of the Canon gear I see from time to time. I almost puled the trigger on an AE1 with 50/1.8 someone had on ebay for $20 a while back. The only reason I didn't was because I didn't want to buy into another system with a bunch more lenses like yours that I could spend more money on. Anyway, that's neither here nor there. Congrats on your find. I have a 135/3.5 AI that is one of the sharpest lenses I own. And it has the built-in sliding lens hood so I can't lose it.</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Having several times resorted to side cutters and other serious machinery to remove stuck filters I went and had a look on The Bay and found a guy in the UK who sells nylon "filter spanners" in a couple of sizes, dirt cheap. They're basically a narrow circular device with tiny inner teeth and a couple of grips. They come in pairs; you tighten one around the lens to stop the front portion revolving (if necessary) and tighten the other around the offending filter. And apply force...It's a bit of a fiddle, but it works.</p>

<p>Good purchase, <strong>Peter</strong>, and good luck with the repairs. I won't mention your fall from grace, over in the FD forum, but I'd like to see some pics from the lens when you've got it sorted.</p>

[winfried_buechsenschuetz1]

<p>The problem is that aluminium cold-welds quite easily. If a filter in an aluminium mount (the great majority) is screwed into an aluminium filter thread it may easily become stuck over time.<br>

To avoid this, you should<br>

a) use filters in a brass mount (there ARE manufacturers)<br>

b) never screw them in tightly<br>

c) spread (very, very little) vaseline or silicone grease on the filter thread. (If silicone grease gets on the lens surface it is impossible to remove with lens cleaners or solvents - but a cheap microfiber cloth will do the trick, of course you should not use that cloth on other lenses after that!)</p>

 

[gnashings]

<p>Winfried - very true, I usually go very easy on screwing in filters for that very reason, but I am far too much of a klutz to put anything even remotely "smeary" anywhere near a lens :)</p>

<p>Rick - thank you for hiding my shame from the FD guys, they already think I am a couple f-stops short of a proper exposure;) I think I saw something like the gadget you describe at an auto parts store - it would have made far less mess than I did, for sure:) I am now going to attempt the repair, after a couple more coffees so I am nice and shaky ;)</p>

<p>Jody - I am glad to hear you found your example to confirm what I suspect, and a cool story to boot, I doubt mine will ever see any place quite that exotic!</p>

<p>Cory - I have been a "Canon guy" for that exact reason...until I got an FG for $5... and a couple of Nikon lenses... and of course I no longer kid myself, if its old and has a lens I am inclined to hug it and name it and write into my will... ;) For a Canon guy I have to say I like Nikons far too much - especially the FM's... there is just something so "right" about those cameras. I think the Canon EF is the closest FD camera to that kind of "feel", even though with a much different set of guts of course... Speaking of which, one sold on eBay for $9.99 and I am still steaming because the guy would absotively posilutely not have any of this Canadian shipping business... someone got a beauty of a camera for the price of a fancy coffee:)</p>

<p>Thanks for chiming in everyone! :) CMC4life!</p>

[gnashings]

<p>By the by, I did post some trial pics from that 100mm f2.8 in the FD forum - the lens is back to fine working order, which is more than I can say for the state of today's 1 hour photo services... Not the staple of professionalism they once were! ;)</p>

[gnashings]

<p>UPDATE: Yey me, I fixed it:) It was just oil on the blades, now it works like a charm.</p>

[cj8281]

<p>I recently repaired my 50mm ƒ1.4 lens. It also would not stop down. When I got it apart I discovered that there was NO oil on the blades. There was nothing that I could see that was a problem. I reassembled the lens and mounted it on the AE1 and it works. The only thing I can think of is the linkage in the back end of the lens came out of whack so to speak.<br>

Glad you got your lens back together. I also have a 135mm ƒ3.5 lens, it is the bayonet style one, not the breech lock type.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I would love to have the lens. Being from the old times, I always think of 135mm as the "default" focal length of a telephoto (when I'm not buying more mirror lenses, that is). The hood may be rarer than the lens.<br>

But CMC? , maybe. How about cmc (lower case).</p>

<p>Surely what we really need, seriously need, are more acronyms to confuse the newbies. ;)</p>

[ridinhome]

<p>c-MC? (think "Can't Touch This")</p>

[gnashings]

<p>Clay - I think that sometimes the amounts gumming up the works are small enough that all you need is a little "persuasion" to get things going</p>

<p>JDM - funny thing is, I bet the lens hood would fetch more on eBay too:) But I expect that it will be a fine performer, who knows, I might even get to like it a lot. I poked around the house looking through it, I kind of like the way 135mm sees the world )</p>

<p>And Kayam, JDM, as to the acronyms... I have to come clean, I just wanted to be one of the cool kids... ;) In my case its not so much "can't touch this" but rather no one seems to want to :p</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>Peter,</p>

<p>Nice find. I try to get 28mm, 50mm, and 135mm lens sets for my various SLRs. It is a combination I like and the prices aren't bad.</p>

<p>I am surprised at the different dimensions for the various 135mm lenses that I have. Some are compact cuties and some look like howitzers.</p>

<p>I was looking at the various Canon 135s prior to purchase and decided to spend a little more for a New FD 135mm f/2.8. It is about the same size as your lens and comes with a built-in hood.</p>

<p>For some other brands the 135mm f/3.5 has only a small penalty in fstop but gives you a smaller size and some money left over for film.</p>

[gnashings]

<p>Marc, I have to admit I have limited experience with 135's, and this was completely a typical thrift shop find - a lens that fits one of my cameras in an unlikely place:) I actually look forward to getting some pics with it though - I think the spread of focal lengths you mention is a very intelligent and efficient way to have a good all around kit. Mind you, with the quality of some of the zooms (especially from Canon) I found a good 70-210 or my fave, the 80-200 f4L (mainly for the macro capability across the zoom range) is a nice alternative on the longer end of things.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Marc,<br>

Hmm, I thought I was the only crazy one looking to get a "kit" where possible (in my case mostly 35mm, 50mm, and 135mm). 28mm can be hard for the older cameras.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>JDM,</p>

<p>I know what you mean about getting a 28mm for older cameras. Even if available they didn't seem that popular. Most of the cameras I buy today are 1966 and newer so the 28mm are available and inexpensive.</p>

<p>When I first bought my Canon FTb in 1972 most people would buy a 35mm as a wide angle. I got the 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, and 135mm f/2.5. Now I just substitute a 28mm for the 35mm.</p>

<p> </p>

[chuck_foreman1]

Wow I like your humorous style .. we are all suckers for a another lens.. Seems like you got it sorted out.. so where are the pictures ...??

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>a guy in the UK who sells nylon "filter spanners"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I just use a section of power cord. :-)</p>

[gnashings]

<p>Chuck - I will put a roll through it as soon as the monsoon season is over... uhm... wait - I live in Ontario, Canada... we don't have a monsoon season... but it sure seems that way, it has been pouring out of the skies for days on end here. Somehow I just can't find the motivation to use it indoors:) Thanks for the kind words.</p>

<p>Karim - another great idea! Thanks!</p>