FD 135/2 vs EF 135L
/forum/topic/775750/0

1
       2       end

AlexTokyo
Registered: Jun 10, 2008
Total Posts: 231
Country: Japan

The FD 135/2 is an interesting proposition since they can be bought for next to nothing. Conversion is easy (not rear element to play with), no mirror issue whatsoever on EOS. Only trick is to link the aperture mechanism, just like any other FD. Integrated hood is handy, and IQ is OK as far I can tell. I miss the EF 135/2 for a genuine comparison. This copy was made in 1989 BTW.

On 5DMkII






Taken with the lens at f/2. Focusing is tricky ...






First pic, just to see how smooth the bokeh was.






Sharpness "test", original pic, probably at f/5.6 or f/8.






100% crop (21MP)









ovredal73
Registered: Jun 21, 2005
Total Posts: 2484
Country: Norway

Thanks for posting, Alex, I have been wondering about this lens for some time. Good to know it is "easy" to convert - also seems like it is worth the effort. Nice job



Empire
Registered: Aug 02, 2008
Total Posts: 741
Country: Australia

Saw this on your flickr earlier and was impressed.

It would be a handy ceremony lens for my since i no longer have anything fast with that field of view since going full frame.

Im off to check my list of gear sources



AlexTokyo
Registered: Jun 10, 2008
Total Posts: 231
Country: Japan

Another pic, around Mini focus distance, f/2. OK Bokeh.






ehor
Registered: Jan 02, 2009
Total Posts: 92
Country: Australia

wow nice. any write-ups you followed for the conversion?



MajinHurricane
Registered: Jan 07, 2009
Total Posts: 677
Country: Canada

your an orthodox christian living in japan?

cool!

Curious to know though... how much money are you essentially saving by going the MF route when you can buy the 135L?



AlexTokyo
Registered: Jun 10, 2008
Total Posts: 231
Country: Japan

ehor wrote:
wow nice. any write-ups you followed for the conversion?


Sorry no write-up to share (yet). FD conversion's trick (for simple lenses) relates to linking the aperture mechanism. Here is how I do it, with small aluminum plate & 1 screw:






Pic was taken while training on a basic 35-70 for the 85L, which is a different ball game with its rear element.

Hope that helps.




AlexTokyo
Registered: Jun 10, 2008
Total Posts: 231
Country: Japan

MajinHurricane wrote:
your an orthodox christian living in japan?

Not really, French-born catholic. This was a gift for my son's first communion.

Curious to know though... how much money are you essentially saving by going the MF route when you can buy the 135L?

2nd hand 135L runs for $700. Got the FD for $150. Work took around 4h, so you do the maths to see if it's worth it. I had good fun doing it. Bottom line: I will likely sell the FD and buy a 135L because what I shoot requires AF (young kids)



JimBuchanan
Registered: Jan 11, 2006
Total Posts: 1448
Country: United States

AlexTokyo wrote:
Sorry no write-up to share (yet). FD conversion's trick (for simple lenses) relates to linking the aperture mechanism. Here is how I do it, with small aluminum plate & 1 screw:

Pic was taken when training on a basic 35-70 for the 85L, which is a different ball game with its rear element.


Yes, that and the non-standard screws that hold the body to the mount frame. You can't find flathead thread forming screws, not to mention longer ones.



AlexTokyo
Registered: Jun 10, 2008
Total Posts: 231
Country: Japan

Just for fun, I tried to compare FD 135/2 and EF 135L/2. These pics are directly out of the camera, 21MP res. (no USM, no NR, just bicubic re-size for the non-crops).
To make a long story short, FD Bokeh is really nice (not sure you can tell from these), and obviously the 135L has been corrected for CA, which is the reason the FD was not L I guess.

FD






EF






FD 100% Crop (see the CA)






EF 100% Crop (no CA!)







Dim.ka_
Registered: Apr 30, 2008
Total Posts: 389
Country: Latvia

Here is mine short comparison between them and C/Y zeiss sonnar MMJ 135 f2.8

Focusing point is a bit different in some shots, but i just want to find out how is the defocus rendered - so ef a bit more creamy.









AlexTokyo
Registered: Jun 10, 2008
Total Posts: 231
Country: Japan

Dim.ka_ wrote:
Here is mine short comparison between them and C/Y zeiss sonnar MMJ 135 f2.8

Focusing point is a bit different in some shots, but i just want to find out how is the defocus rendered - so ef a bit more creamy.


Very interesting Dim.ka. Thx for posting.
I found the EF to have a bit more contrast, which might explain the not so FD creamy (to my eyes) effect at times, like in your red flowers set.



wayne seltzer
Registered: Dec 22, 2007
Total Posts: 4134
Country: United States

Dmitry,
Interesting comparison but you need to try the lens I reallly love right
now, the Sony-Zeiss ZA 135 1.8. It is sharper than the EF 180 wide open at f1.8 then the Zeiss a f2.0 and has an extra 1/3 of a stop of nice creamy bokeh.
I am loving it on my 1ds3. Photozone shows it to have less CA than the EF 135 and have less LoCA too

Alex,
Thanks for posting the shot about linking the aperture ring. I need to do something like this still for my ZA 135 1.8 lens.
If you could post some more shots which show all angles that would be helpful for me to see how you did it. TIA.



Dim.ka_
Registered: Apr 30, 2008
Total Posts: 389
Country: Latvia

Wayne thanks for your tip, if i have an oportunity to try 135 f1.8 i will do - i remember there was a chance to buy minolta 135 stf lens last summer with not working diapraghm blades (only wideopen) - only for 480 EUR so it was a real chance to convert it to eos.



wayne seltzer
Registered: Dec 22, 2007
Total Posts: 4134
Country: United States

Minolta STF is a different animal not for low light, T 4.5, outdoor single flower and portrait use.Would be curious to see what you could do with it.



wayne seltzer
Registered: Dec 22, 2007
Total Posts: 4134
Country: United States

Dmitry,

In your test shots the EF 135L looks like it has less CA, slightly sharper and better bokeh than the FD version. I like the Zeiss 135 2.8 for sharpness and color but the bokeh is no where close to as good as the other two, IMHO.



Kyle Yates
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Total Posts: 5798
Country: United Kingdom

HI there
Great thread this one

I'm not surprised with the quality of FD lenses - especially the better one's like the 135 F2.

The Old fashioned "Leaded Glass" (Today the Green Party and Planet Earth Mothers would have a fit) process enabled Very high quality glass to be made albeit a bit heavy and of course not "environmentally friendly" manufacturing processes.

To achieve the same high quality glass using non toxic materials has been a significant (and on going) process .

Thanks for a great tip.

For longer Tele's I've been using the old Official FD==>EOS adapter but these only work with the longer 'L' FD teles -- due to the long "snout" in the converter

but I'm really interested in trying the 135 conversion -- you can pick these lenses up for a song.

Cheers

-K



Marcel VanEerd
Registered: Mar 02, 2007
Total Posts: 1855
Country: Canada

For the price and effort, I'd much rather use the CZJ 135mm f3.5. Yes, it's slower, but I'm sure it stacks up against this lens.



Kyle Yates
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Total Posts: 5798
Country: United Kingdom

Hi there
a Valid point -- but if you want to use F2 then there's no argument here.

Cheers
-K



pengland
Registered: Aug 21, 2008
Total Posts: 540
Country: Canada

Do you have infinity focus with the 135mm Alex? Direct mount following removal of the old mount and intermediate ring usually results in focusing way beyond infinity on nFD lenses unless a custom spacer is used under the EOS mount.




1
       2       end