JPY->USD rates at the time were about 280-300:1, so the list price of this lens (not street price) was about $110-135 give or take. I can look up the B H prices from back then (1973-76). Safe to say it's on par with the EF 35/2 of today, price-wise, though the EF 35/2 is a lesser-caliber lens. At the time the FD 35/2s were in the same price range as other manufacturers 35/2s and such (oly, Minolta, nikon, etc.). The 35/2's from the FD line weren't L-caliber - since they had L lenses then, it's telling that these were not Ls. Certainly not bad lenses but don't read more into it than is there. There's evidence that some pre-SSC marked lenses were in fact SSC (multi) coated. the nFD was hardly cheaper, given that it had more elements than the first versions. The main goal was to make it smaller. There's no real hard evidence that one was better than another, version-wise, most of it is anecdotal evidence and/or subjective opinion, however clearly the last 3 versions of the 6 should be the best. (SSC I, SSC2, nFD).
the real tragedy is that the EF 35/2 is so lame in comparison to what they had done previously.
will be interesting to see how it turns out (35 FD conversion) and how it compares vs. others of the same speed/focal length.
AhamB wrote:
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.
No, I was speaking of conversions. I much prefer to convert BL FDs to EF mount, than nFDs.
cogitech wrote:
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.
Alright guys, so you could use LED lights to remove the yellow. First off, why would you need to? and second, any links or resources to outline this process
patrickphoto wrote:
Alright guys, so you could use LED lights to remove the yellow. First off, why would you need to? and second, any links or resources to outline this process
Well, if you're shooting film like I am you can see a yellow tinge in the shots and the finder. It probably also lowers the light throughput of the lens too, it's t-stop. I bought a 51 UV LED 3AA flashlight off of eBay for $15 and turned it on and placed it over the front element with the rear of the lens capped. It fit perfectly like it was made for that lens. After about 72 hours or so the lens went from being very, very yellow to looking as crystal clear as new.
Found this article on this lens, and it actually convinced me to look for a version of this lens without thoriated glass, if I'm going to try to find one. Call me crazy, but I must say I agree with the ALARA principle.
I think its OK to use this lens. I mean, has anyone ever heard of a rare earth photography lens actually harming anyone? In this era of crazy lawsuits etc has there every been a case where someone tried to prove that he/she was harmed by one of these lenses? Its been decades since they were manufactured and Canon, Pentax, Minolta, etc would have been moving targets for someone attempting to make some money from this theory/issue.
I should point out that I have no idea if this has ever happened, just that I do not recall anything. There are a zillion things in this world that can get you in life. But I think the risks from a rare earth element in an old wide angle lens is very, very low. Of course it makes sense not to sleep with one of these lenses tucked into your undies every night...
TWoK wrote:
Well, if you're shooting film like I am you can see a yellow tinge in the shots and the finder. It probably also lowers the light throughput of the lens too, it's t-stop. I bought a 51 UV LED 3AA flashlight off of eBay for $15 and turned it on and placed it over the front element with the rear of the lens capped. It fit perfectly like it was made for that lens. After about 72 hours or so the lens went from being very, very yellow to looking as crystal clear as new.
My method is slightly different, but basically the same. I set the FD 35/2 down front-first onto one of my wife's compact mirrors, then stuck my 11-LED UV flashlight on top of the rear element, which has an identical diameter. Been through two sets of batteries so far and the yellowing has already begun to clear. I have discovered that alkalines perform better than NiMH for continuous draw like this.
I think its OK to use this lens. I mean, has anyone ever heard of a rare earth photography lens actually harming anyone? In this era of crazy lawsuits etc has there every been a case where someone tried to prove that he/she was harmed by one of these lenses? Its been decades since they were manufactured and Canon, Pentax, Minolta, etc would have been moving targets for someone attempting to make some money from this theory/issue.
I should point out that I have no idea if this has ever happened, just that I do not recall anything. There are a zillion things in this world that can get you in life. But I think the risks from a rare earth element in an old wide angle lens is very, very low. Of course it makes sense not to sleep with one of these lenses tucked into your undies every night......Show more →
I imagine that it's either the risk to the assemblers working with these materials every day, or the waste byproducts of the manufacturing process, more than the likelyhood of end-users grinding their lenses up and eating the glass :-)
johntodd wrote:
I imagine that it's either the risk to the assemblers working with these materials every day, or the waste byproducts of the manufacturing process, more than the likelyhood of end-users grinding their lenses up and eating the glass :-)
I agree. This reminds me of something very ironic that I encountered when first reading about these rare earth lenses. There is a web-page out there somewhere that shows how to remove the yellowing from the Super-Takumar 50/1.4. The guy proceeds to smash it with a sledge hammer in his back yard. While everyone seems to get a good chuckle out of it, I immediately considered how the guy took a basically harmless radioactive item and blasted it into infinite microscopic bits that may make it into the feet and/or lungs of any life form which might inhabit his back yard, including his children and pets. Darwin award pending?
I remember that page! The guy made a ridiculous point out of using his photos of smashing a lens to bits.
I have the Super Takumar 50/1.4 and it was very yellow when I got it. We named it "Taki" and moved it around a sunny window ledge for a couple of weeks. I wrapped the sides and back of the lens in aluminum foil to reduce the heat and reflect the sunlight inside the elements: worked very nicely.
I paid about $50 for that lens and it has the smoothest focus action of any lens I own. My 58/1.2 Rokkor also sent some time in the sun to remove some minor yellowing. The Rokkor is sharper wide open but the Pentax focuses closer and has a wonderful charm wide open and stopped down a bit. Really like both of my "radio active darlings", but I don't sleep with them...
My conversion on the way, waiting on the new mount arrival. Aperture linkage done, so I could shoot at f2-f16 now, here's a few test shots holding the lens to camera:
The lens is very sharp, from f2. The yellowing will affect color fidelity, I had to tweak a little in ACR to reproduce the scene, but contrast is very good, even with backlit (last shot), seems flare resistant. Barrel distortion is pronounced.
Oh, I like its bokeh, there's the circle outline for background highlights but not harsh or bright.
The 35mm is a nice focal length. Some consider it the "normal lens" over the 50mm. The fixed 35mm used to be quite popular. Its a natural but very versatile lens that gives a wide or longer look depending on how you use it.
Lots of folks have the 16-35 but with these zooms a lot of people tend to zoom wider than they should. It just happens somehow; its like "hey, I can zoom wider." A fixed 35mm fixes that and yields images free of distortion etc, etc...
On my 40D it will be equivalent to 56mm, a Rokkor kind of focal length.
