Canon FD 135 2.5 vs New FD 135 2.8

[gone]

Here's one for the FD shooters out there. Are these comparably the same lenses? I looked at the Canon Museum and they both have 6 elements in 5 groups. Minimum focus difference was slightly different, but is there anything else? Thanks.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I believe the coating was more advanced (pls note I did not say "better" for B&W work I often find lenses with less advanced coatings better, just saying...), and there's something on this site that discusses a spherical aberration correction in the newer 2.8:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/135mm.htm

 

[gone]

Thanks Richard. I've never actually seen a New FD 2.8 version, but Igor has one at a somewhat reasonable price point. And I concur, newer coatings on a lens do not necessarily make for better B&W shots (rarely, if ever, in my experience). I can always add contrast in the developing or printing stages, it's a bit trickier to lessen it. The prices on the FD S.C. 135 2.5 lenses on fleabay are ridiculous, so I was wondering about the 2.8 version.

If anyone is shopping for FD glass, I might mention that if you can find one of the older R 100 2 lenses, they're superb. Absolutely tack sharp even wide open, w/ a real, old time Leica look to the images. Unfortunately, not so good for portraits because of this. I had one on a F1 camera that I used in stop down metering mode, and it was quite a setup.

 

[benjiboy]

The newer FDn lenses are SSC multi-coated the FD 135 2.5 is SC single coated, the new type take 52 mm filters not 55 mm the old ones use, and because they have polymer barrels are considerably lighter in weight which is something I appreciate when carrying a bag full of them.
I have heard people say and write that because the older breech lock lenses have metal barrels they are better and more robust, but I've been using my new type FD lenses for more than 25 years years and never had any problem with any of them although the majority of them I bought second hand

 

[Jeff Kubach]

The newer FDn lenses are SSC multi-coated the FD 135 2.5 is SC single coated, the new type take 52 mm filters not 55 mm the old ones use, and because they have polymer barrels are considerably lighter in weight which is something I appreciate when carrying a bag full of them.
I have heard people say and write that because the older breech lock lenses have metal barrels they are better and more robust, but I've been using my new type FD lenses for more than 25 years years and never had any problem with any of them although the majority of them I bought second hand

I never any problems with the new type FD lenses either.

Jeff

 

[Mackinaw]

Here's one for the FD shooters out there. Are these comparably the same lenses? I looked at the Canon Museum and they both have 6 elements in 5 groups. Minimum focus difference was slightly different, but is there anything else? Thanks.

They may have the same number of elements and groups, but the optics are arranged differently. Probably different optical glass is used too. No idea as to the performance of either lens. I don't use the focal length.

Jim B.

 

[Xmas]

But 135 is getting long enough that you need a monster heavy tripod to get to the lenses performance limited as well as high resolution film.

So no practical detectable difference unless one lens is damaged.

Weight might be more important. If it us too heavy to pack its performance no good.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

They may have the same number of elements and groups, but the optics are arranged differently. Probably different optical glass is used too. No idea as to the performance of either lens. I don't use the focal length.

Jim B.

Jim, do have a source that shows any of that? I'm curious and would like to see it. Thanks.

 

[Mackinaw]

Jim, do have a source that shows any of that? I'm curious and would like to see it. Thanks.

I have several old Canon FD and F-1 books from the 1970's and 80's. They show optical diagrams of the-then current FD lenses. The diagrams for the 135/2.5 and 135/2.8 are different.

Jim B.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I have several old Canon FD and F-1 books from the 1970's and 80's. They show optical diagrams of the-then current FD lenses. The diagrams for the 135/2.5 and 135/2.8 are different.

Jim B.

Thanks much Jim appreciate the detail. If you ever had a chance to maybe take a photograph of those diagrams and post them or scan them and post them that would be great. I have a 135 NIkkor Q that I use in Leica screw mount and also a 135 2.8 Sonnar that I use for my Contax SLR's and I really enjoy that focal length lately for head and shoulders and random candid portraits of my kids. I am considering picking one of the FD up for my Canon F1, I enjoy comparing lens formulas, thanks.

 

[dynachrome]

I have one of the f/2.8 lenses and three of the f/2.5 lenses. Both are good. The out of focus rendition of the f/2.5 lens seems nicer to me. Although not all 135s focus very close I still like using the Canon FD SC 135/2.5 and Nikkor 135/2.8 Q/QC/'K' models for portraits when I don't have to crop too tightly. The f/2.5 is marked SC. This does not stand for "single coated" but for Spectra Coated. Lenses from the early 1970s had different and sometimes less effective coating but it is very unlikely that the f/2.5 was actually single coated. One of my favorite Canon lenses is the 28/2.8 FD SC. The original model has a lock for the aperture ring at the rear and is heavier. The later version is lighter and does not have the switch. The change to the 28/2.8 New FD was not an improvement. I have three of the New FDs and six of the FD SCs so I have some basis for comparison. The FD SC is very nearly as good as the 28/2 FD SSC when comparing available aperture settings. When you are shooting distant subjects with a 135, out of focus rendition is not an important consideration. When you are shooting portraits, it is. The f/2.5s appear regularly on eBay so if you are patient you should be able to find one at a reasonable price.

 

[AgX]

The f/2.5 is marked SC. This does not stand for "single coated" but for Spectra Coated. Lenses from the early 1970s had different and sometimes less effective coating but it is very unlikely that the f/2.5 was actually single coated.

It does not say so but actually SC is a single-coating.

(Source: Canon approved literature)

 

[Mackinaw]

It does not say so but actually SC is a single-coating.

(Source: Canon approved literature)

Not true. SC does stand from “Spectra Coating.” SSC stands for “Super Spectra Coating” (Canon’s version of multi-coating). This is directly out of a December, 1973 Canon publication “FD Lenses: Doors to Perfection in Photography.” Read all about it on page 50.

Jim B.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Per Wikipedia, if that means anything:

"...these used two new proprietary lens coatings, designated "S.C." (Spectra Coating) and "S.S.C." (Super Spectra Coating), but neither coating was signified on the front of the lens. These were both multi-coatings, but indicated two quality grades."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_FD_lens_mount

 

[dynachrome]

I think the Wikipedia information refers to something else. The first series of FD lenses was just marked FD. These are from the 1971 to 1972 time period. In about 1973 the lenses changed from chrome front to black front. At that point some were marked SC and some were marked SSC. The 50/1.8, 28/2.8 and 135/2.5 were marked SC. The 50/1.4, 100/2.8, 24/2.8 and 200/4, to name a few, were marked SSC. There was an earlier black front 200/4 which was just marked FD and I have a 24/2.8 FD SSC with the chrome front. In 1979 Canon switched most of its FD lenses to the New FD mount and that's when the SC and SSC markings disappeared. If you look at at 50/1.8 SC and compare it to a 50/1.4 FD (1971-1972 breech lock without the SSC marking) you will see that the 50/1.8 has a newer coating. From what I have read Canon considered the SC coating adequate for certain lenses based on the number of elements and other considerations. The 50/1.8 SC does not look like it has a single coating. I don't think the early 50/1.4 FD was single coated either. It just didn't have a an many coating layers and the same coating materials as the later lenses.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

In the end I don't think it really matters much and unless you shoot color chromes and you want the absolute ultimate in contrast I don't think there's going to be much of a difference from single coated, double coated, triple coated, whatever. Some of my most incredibly sharp and contrasty lenses are single-coated large-format lenses from Fuji. And if you use a hood it will matter even less.

 

[benjiboy]

In the end I don't think it really matters much and unless you shoot color chromes and you want the absolute ultimate in contrast I don't think there's going to be much of a difference from single coated, double coated, triple coated, whatever. Some of my most incredibly sharp and contrasty lenses are single-coated large-format lenses from Fuji. And if you use a hood it will matter even less.

Multi-coating greatly effects the percentage of image forming light rays the strike the optics front element that hit the film by reducing the amount of image forming light rays that bounce about in the lens barrel, a hood or multi coated filter won't cure this due to the laws of physics, which is why I would go for the new FD 135mm f2.8 one, which is Super Spectra Coated to increase the light transmission.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Multi-coating greatly effects the percentage of image forming light rays the strike the optics front element that hit the film by reducing the amount of image forming light rays that bounce about in the lens barrel, a hood or multi coated filter won't cure this due to the laws of physics, which is why I would go for the new FD 135mm f2.8 one, which is Super Spectra Coated to increase the light transmission.

Sounds great. In theory.

 

[flavio81]

Here's one for the FD shooters out there. Are these comparably the same lenses? I looked at the Canon Museum and they both have 6 elements in 5 groups. Minimum focus difference was slightly different, but is there anything else? Thanks.

Hi,

They are different optically.

I owned the New FD 135/2.8 and used it a lot. It is tack sharp and compact, an excellent lens.

The 135/2.5 SC also has a very good reputation.

Regarding coatings, you should not worry about coatings when the lens has only 5 or 4 optical groups. Multicoatings are critical for zoom lenses or lenses with a big amount of optical groups. Coatings on this lens are just fine, and Canon was at the top of the camera optics world from 1971 onwards. They started an ambitious optical program in late 1960s specifically aimed to beat Nikon, something they achieved around 1971 with the introduction of the Canon F-1 system and its FD lenses. Of course, Nikon counteratacked and so on and so on.

Those FD lenses were as good (or better) than their Nikkor counterparts. There are some people who think that even some of the more modern EF fixed-focal-length lenses are not good as their FD predecessors. And there may be some truth to that.

By the way, "FD" means "Fairly Decent"

SC, "Spectra Coating" is Canon's method of coating which not only is for increasing transmission but it also takes into account the resulting color balance. I have read that SC lenses have up to 2 coatings per surface.

SSC, "Super Spectra Coating" is Canon's multicoating.

I get excellent results with my Mamiya and Schneider single-coated medium format lenses all the time. The Canon New FD 50/1.8 is also single coated and it's performance is excellent. Marco Cavina compared the performance of this lens in his website and at f4 it perfectly matched a Leitz Summicron 50/2.0 (!), color rendition was just fine.

So don't worry about coatings, just shoot and enjoy the 135/2.8.

 

[benjiboy]

Sounds great. In theory.

Not "theory", scientific fact in the physics of lens design and manufacture
http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-166.html

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Not "theory", scientific fact in the physics of lens design and manufacture
http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-166.html

Yes, all of that is indeed fact. I meant that it sounds good in theory. It implies that those scientific facts result in a better lens. Personally, as mentioned, I often prefer the results I get from a single or uncoated lens. So you might say I prefer less transmission of light to my film sometimes...

 

[benjiboy]

Hi,

They are different optically.

I owned the New FD 135/2.8 and used it a lot. It is tack sharp and compact, an excellent lens.

The 135/2.5 SC also has a very good reputation.

Regarding coatings, you should not worry about coatings when the lens has only 5 or 4 optical groups. Multicoatings are critical for zoom lenses or lenses with a big amount of optical groups. Coatings on this lens are just fine, and Canon was at the top of the camera optics world from 1971 onwards. They started an ambitious optical program in late 1960s specifically aimed to beat Nikon, something they achieved around 1971 with the introduction of the Canon F-1 system and its FD lenses. Of course, Nikon counteratacked and so on and so on.

Those FD lenses were as good (or better) than their Nikkor counterparts. There are some people who think that even some of the more modern EF fixed-focal-length lenses are not good as their FD predecessors. And there may be some truth to that.

By the way, "FD" means "Fairly Decent"

SC, "Spectra Coating" is Canon's method of coating which not only is for increasing transmission but it also takes into account the resulting color balance. I have read that SC lenses have up to 2 coatings per surface.

SSC, "Super Spectra Coating" is Canon's multicoating.

I get excellent results with my Mamiya and Schneider single-coated medium format lenses all the time. The Canon New FD 50/1.8 is also single coated and it's performance is excellent. Marco Cavina compared the performance of this lens in his website and at f4 it perfectly matched a Leitz Summicron 50/2.0 (!), color rendition was just fine.

So don't worry about coatings, just shoot and enjoy the 135/2.8.

I have the FD 50mm f1.8 and the FD f1.4 and the latter is a 7 element multi-coated double Gauss design a much better lens than the former, I only keep the 1.8 as a backup

 

[benjiboy]

It does not say so but actually SC is a single-coating.

(Source: Canon approved literature)

That's what I meant, SC ( Spectra Coated) is single coated.

 

[benjiboy]

The only Canon FD 50mm lenses that were not multi coated were the f1.8 ones.

 

[gone]

Wow, I'd forgotten about this post....after 8 years. I ended up buying both lenses, and the 135 2.5 was pretty much as good as a Leica lens. Not so the 3.5, but it's OK. Not a bad lens, much lighter and smaller than the 2.5.

I also tried a FL 135 3.5 which was neat, gave an old timey look to the photos. But truly, buy the 135 2.5, it's an amazingly good lens w/ beautiful soft bokeh. Perfect for portraits wide open, I swear it looks like a Leica stopped down a little.

It's not called the beer can for nothing though.