The nFD 2.0/35 shows significant vignetting wide open, which is reduced a lot by stopping down once. Winner: 2.8/35 2nd/ 3rd : 2.0/35 (play in the focusing ring) / TS 2.8/35 (size and weight)
#Canon objektiv preise full#
This is a matter of taste – for me, full stops are enough. The aperture ring of the 2.8/35 and the 2.0/35 has half stops while the aperture ring of the 2.8/35 TS has only full stops. The high weight could be an issue with the plastic bayonet A7/A7R but it didn’t impress the A7II. Mounting the 2.8/35 TS takes more time (like with all the FD lenses with breechlock) and the lens is much heavier so you think twice about taking it with you.
The Handling of the 2.8/35 and the 2.0/35 is very pleasant due to the light weight and the easy unlock mechanism. The aperture ring feels very well defined and the focusing ring has zero play. Mechanically, it is one step ahead of the other two 35mm lenses. Both copies of the 2.0/35 have play in the focus ring.Īpart from the focus-play-issue, the 2.0/35 feels just like the 2.8/35. I had I have the impression, that the issue affects. I have owned copies of the 2.0/28 and the 4/200 Macro and the corner performance was horrible on both of them. Many FD lenses with floating Elements (2.0/24, 2.0/28, 2.0/35, nFD 4/200 Macro) are concerned by this phenomenon. It is possible that the performance can be further improved if the bearings get renewed although this means a lot of work. Therefore, I am convinced that the result shows what can be expected when the lens is bought today. The rubber finish around the bearings is dissolving over the years which leads to varying lens performance and also to degradation in image qualiy. To double-check the results, I bought two samples of the 2.0/35 which showed virtually identical performance. The nFD 2.0/35 is known for having problems with the bearings. The positive aspect of that is the very low weight of the nFD lenses. Nothing to worry about, but the aperture ring feels a little dull and the used materials are less worthy. Compared to Contax or Olympus lenses, the build quality is one or two steps behind.
The nFD 2.8/35 shows the normal nFD-build quality. The tilt-shift lens is by far the largest and heaviest lens, the difference between the 2.8/35 and the 2.0/35 is not that that big, although apparent. The difference in size and weight between the lenses shows dramatically on the spec sheet. I treat the FD TS 35mm f/2.8 S.S.C as a normal lens and do not analyze it’s tilt-shift functionality. This comparison is about the new FD 35mm f/2.8 ( In-depth review), new FD 35mm f/2.0 and the FD TS 35mm f/2.8 S.S.C. Canon FD 35mm f/2.8 TS (Tilt-Shift): Avialable in FD and new FD mount.
Canon nFD 35mm f/2.8: Only avialable in new FD mount.Canon nFD 35mm f/2.0: much smaller and lighter than the FD 35mm lenses.
#Canon objektiv preise serial number#
Optical Design II: Doesn’t use thoriated elements, convex front element, Serial number >100000 Optical Design I: Uses radioactive thoriated elements and has a concave front element. There are at least six different 35mm lenses for Canon FD: I’ll start that comparison with a closer look at the FD 35mm lens family because otherwise this can be a bit confusing. Since I was wondering, which of the nFD versions is optically the best I ran an extensive comparison and compared them in the most relevant categories. Out there in the web, there is little information about the performance of the different Canon FD 35mm lenses and that is of varying quality.
0 kommentar(er)
