I've got one. Really nice lens. No, Canon has never re-branded other makers lenses or gear.
This is an outstanding lens for the time. Basically a professional lens with fixed aperture. Very good image quality and useful image range. Still takes good pictures.
Consider also the Minolta 35-70 f3.5 macro. Not quite the same range as the Canon but much smaller. 55 mm versus 72 mm filter and similar size to a 100 mm prime rather than a soup can. It's IQ matches today's better zooms and the primes of its era.
Well, call it GAS but I have an FD 28-85 f/4 and FD 35-105 f/3.5 winging their way here soon. Both were quite cheap - so no real loss if they're dogs. I adore my Vario-Sonnar 35-70 but want a little greater range in a one lens take anywhere system.
The other candidates seem to be the Olympus 35-80 2.8ED (a little spendy) and Vario-Sonnar N 24-85 (have to manual focus as I am not gonna shell out $680 for the fully electronic compatible adapter). There are mixed but generally favorable reviews of the VS 24-85. Since I really want wider rather than longer it is, for now, my most hopeful candidate, but I have to find one first...
I am swamped with harvest and travel after that, but hope to get around to posting test shots or at least quasi-valid conclusions after I've had time with the lenses!
The only two FD lenses I kept were the 28-85 and 80-200/L. Very useful little pair for daytime family events. I've owned the Minolta, Leica, and C/Y 35-70's. The Canon's better than any of them at 35, keeps up at 50 and 70, but then is also usable at 28 (its weak spot) and excellent at 85. The built in flare stopper does its job fairly well and helps keep a nice shape to the bokeh even when stopped down. I think you'll like it, Benjamin.
Benjamin -- I think you will be very surprised by the quality of both those lenses. In my film days, I shot mostly 4x5, supplying detail shots and people/events coverage using Canon bodies with FD 20-35/3.5L, 35/2.8 TS, and 35-105/3.5. I was very happy with that set up and it pretty much "did it all", excepting a Nikon FE2 with 28/3.5 PC lens. My 4x5 set-up only included 4 lenses: 65mm, 90mm, 135mm and 250mm, so the 35mm zooms seemed quite flexible in their coverage, while nearly matching the extremes of AOV for the 4x5.
I've owned the 24-85/4 only in the last few years, as I bought a few FD lenses with an eye toward M4/3 use (didn't pan out very well for me, the M4/3, that is!). One of the reasons I keep an eye on the Sony a7-series is possible use of these lenses on that system -- curious how the 24-85 will perform, but I suspect pretty fair, except the far corners.
Looking forward to your update and thoughts in comparison with the Zeiss Contax 35-70 (by all accounts, still a top performer).
arduluth wrote:
OK not familiar with this lens... Is there reason to believe that the Canon FD 28-85/4 is a rebadge of the Tokina?
They are of the same vintage, I think. I haven't heard that, but I haven't really paid much attention to FD. I've seen Nikon that certainly looked rebranded, and Sigma and Minolta made some Leica lenses.
Even if it wasn't rebranded, it wouldn't surprise me if a Canon and Tokina of the same vintage had similar performance. If nothing else, wouldn't think Canon would want to be beat by Tokina.
Your post reminded me of the Tokina, and when nobody else posted, I thought I would mention it.
