I'd like to start this thread for any and all who already own this lens or are interested in knowing more about it. I look forward to hearing others' experiences with it! I'll also likely comment on the conversion, once I get around to it.

My copy of this lens arrived today, earlier than expected!

I have confirmed that it indeed does have a concave front element and quite intense radioactive yellowing (probably enough to affect the t-stop).

Otherwise it is in quite nice condition and extremely clean inside. Methinks it has been serviced. It is marked "SSC" and the coatings look to be in excellent shape.

So (of course) I have immediately taken some test shots with it held up to my 5D. All wide open since the blades stay that way by default on an unmounted FD.

I think I have found a nice thirty-five here, especially for the money I paid

Looks like a winner . Sharpness (considering WO) is impressive and bokeh is quite pleasant for such exotic design. If I'm not mistaken it was compared favourably with the legendary 35 summicron, quite a feat.

I can't wait to convert mine, but I need more parts/time.

Paul,

Looks very good - I've always been curious of that lens - sharp, decent bokeh for a 35/2 - the compositions are even better. Great shots for a "hand held" (literally) lens.

Interesting comment on the yellowing. I have a 55/1.2 aspherical - it has darkened (yellowed) quite a bit - I had not heard of other comments on the FD's yellowing. I have several other FD's of the same generation that are very clear.

Leon Noel wrote:
Looks like a winner . Sharpness (considering WO) is impressive and bokeh is quite pleasant for such exotic design. If I'm not mistaken it was compared favourably with the legendary 35 summicron, quite a feat.

I can't wait to convert mine, but I need more parts/time.

I hear you. It'll be a while before I get to the conversion because I'm shooting another wedding this weekend and I didn't have the brains to order an 42m-EOS adapter for the conversion weeks ago, as I should have.

I hope to do it before my vacation in a few weeks.

mMontag wrote:
Paul,

Looks very good - I've always been curious of that lens - sharp, decent bokeh for a 35/2 - the compositions are even better. Great shots for a "hand held" (literally) lens.

Interesting comment on the yellowing. I have a 55/1.2 aspherical - it has darkened (yellowed) quite a bit - I had not heard of other comments on the FD's yellowing. I have several other FD's of the same generation that are very clear.

Thanks for the comments and compliments. I'm not sure which of the FDs are known to have rare earth elements. While researching this lens, I read about 5 (or is it 6?) different versions being produced, the first 4 of which use rare earth and a concave front element. Only the fourth version employed this complex design and was also SSC coated, which is the reason I selected this specific one. Being an owner of a radioactive Rokkor, I am convinced that these special elements have more than a subtle effect on the performance of the lens.

I was not, however, aware that the 55/1.2 SSC Aspherical uses rare earth. I'm not saying it doesn't, rather just that I haven't researched that lens at all, so it is interesting to me. Very much so, in fact.

From the Canon lens museum:

"This was the first Canon wide angle interchangeable lens for SLR camera that had the floating mechanism in its optical system. The floating mechanism moves a part of the optical system separated from the focusing lens group to minimize fluctuation of aberrations caused by focusing distance change. A inverted telephoto lens type wide angle lens like this lens, having negative power like a concave lens for front lens group and positive power like a convex lens for rear lens group, tends to have more astigmatism at shorter focusing distance with more extension. The floating mechanism corrects this astigmatism well. This mechanism is named "floating", because an optical part moves like a float, not in union with the rest of the focusing group. S.S.C., an abbreviation of Super Spectra Coating, is a coating technology developed by Canon to achieve harmonized color balance for all lenses."

I wonder how this lens compares with the EF 35/2 version? I had one. Its was a pretty good performer but the build quality seemed cheap and the AF was slow.

Years ago I was shooting in a modern convention center stairwell. I was trying to get an artsy photo looking down all the flights of stairs. While pointing my camera straight down I suddenly felt my 35/2 fall out of my shirt pocket. Like an idiot I was too lazy to drop the lens in my camera bag at my feet. Anyway I got the thrill/anguish of watching my 35mm lens fall from the top floor all the way down the ground floor stairs area, about four or five stories I think. It was like a slow motion effect, watching it on its one way journey to the cement floor down below. I remember it kicking up a surprising amount of dust as it simultaneously exploded and bounced like ten feet into the air. I then spent several minutes scooping up all the pieces.

Not a good day...

Max

Thrill/anguish indeed!

I have the EF 35/2 (not a huge fan of it) and I plan to compare them.

Thanks Paul for starting this thread.

Does the SSC coating have more function than to harmonize color balance? E.g. reduction of flare, ghost, etc.?

hdan wrote:
Thanks Paul for starting this thread.

Does the SSC coating have more function than to harmonize color balance? E.g. reduction of flare, ghost, etc.?

Yes, I think coatings in general will reduce flare, ghosting, etc. and subsequently optimize contrast. I think Canon just wanted to emphasize that the SSC coatings were also designed and applied on a per lens basis in order to keep colour balance consistent across the lens line. I have heard the same said about the Minolta MC and MD lens lines.

Interesting trivia:

In 1973, the list price of this lens was 32,500 JPY.

Let's call that $325 USD.

In today's dollars, that's $1336.93 USD.

Back then the exchange rate wasn't 100:1 though. I think the Dollar (fixed) had better value against the Yen.

I guess you can ask your wife.

My 57/1.2 was heavily yellowed, and about 3 days with my 51 LED UV flashlight and 3 sets of batteries completely cleared it. That lens renders very nicely.

Leon Noel wrote:
Back then the exchange rate wasn't 100:1 though. I think the Dollar (fixed) had better value against the Yen.

I guess you can ask your wife.

Yeah, I thought of this, but my wife was only 1 year old in 1973, so...

Either way, the value of this lens in 1973 was far, far higher than the value of the EF 35/2 today. I think that indicates something significant.

Time will tell, I suppose. I began the conversion last night and it seems like it is going to be dead simple (relatively speaking).

TWoK wrote:
My 57/1.2 was heavily yellowed, and about 3 days with my 51 LED UV flashlight and 3 sets of batteries completely cleared it. That lens renders very nicely.

I used this method with my Rokkor 58/1.2. My UV flashlight has fewer LEDs, so it took about a week. Maybe I ought to start that process now, while I wait for the new mount to arrive.

cogitech wrote:
So (of course) I have immediately taken some test shots with it held up to my 5D. All wide open since the blades stay that way by default on an unmounted FD.

Nice shots! Not that it's really important, but not all FD's stay wide open when unmounted. I only have one FD atm, but my nFD 50/3.5 macro stays at an aperture somewhere between 6.3 and 8 when unmounted. Maybe all the nFD's do that?

Trying to construct the history it seems to me that the FD 35/2 was Canon's top of the line 35mm lens and is actually at least as much of a forebear to the EF 35L as the EF 35 f/2. It especially looks like that when you look at the elements and the blades in the lenses. The FD SSC II (which is the one I think you have Paul) had 9 elements, eight groups, and eight blades; the nFD 35mm f/2 had 10 element, eight groups, and 8 blades; the EF 35L has 11 elements, 9 groups and 8 blades. In contrast the EF 35mm f/2 has 7 elements, 5 groups, and 5 blades. So it seems to me that there is an evolution (or perhaps devolution) from the FD 35mm f/2 to the EF 35L, and that the EF 35 f/2 was a different and more basic design, perhaps harkening back to the FD 35mm f/3.5 that had 6 elements, 6 groups, and 5 blades, and the nFD 35mm f/2.8 that had 6 elements, 5 groups, and 5 blades.

Similar thoughts occurred to me too, Steve.

Mine is the FD SSC version I, not II. The smallest aperture on the version II is f22, whereas the version one (mine) only goes down to f16.

More info here: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/fd/17-35.html

The version II, from what I have read, does not have the concave front element or rare earth, and does not perform as well. You can see the version II has a convex front element in the photo here http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/fd/data/17-35/fd_35_2_sscv2.html which means that it is a completely different optical design, despite having 9 elements in 8 groups as the version I does.

From all the research I did, the version I is the only one with the winning combination of concave front element, rare earth and SSC coatings.

The three non-SSC versions use the same concave front element and rare earth, but no SSC, AFAIK.

The SSC ver. II is a new optical formula due to rare earth being phased out (removing the high refractive index rare earth glass required an attempt to compensate somewhere else).

The nFDs were yet again a newer (cheaper?) design. I have heard they are pretty damn good, though.

It does seem the transition to EF, and the introduction of the 35L, resulted in the EF 35/2 being downgraded.

AhamB wrote:
cogitech wrote:
So (of course) I have immediately taken some test shots with it held up to my 5D. All wide open since the blades stay that way by default on an unmounted FD.

Nice shots! Not that it's really important, but not all FD's stay wide open when unmounted. I only have one FD atm, but my nFD 50/3.5 macro stays at an aperture somewhere between 6.3 and 8 when unmounted. Maybe all the nFD's do that?


Thanks! Yeah, it may be that nFDs and BL FDs behave differently in this regard. I much prefer to work with BL FDs.

Really? I think the breech lock mount is really fiddly. I rarely manage to mount a BL lens smoothly - too easy to put the lens on with a slight angle, getting the lens sort of stuck. And with my FD-EOS adapter I always need to set the aperture pin to open, then mount and then close again to actuate the aperture, which is also a PITA.

Anyway, I might try this lens. On my 40D it will be equivalent to 56mm, a Rokkor kind of focal length.