Canon FD vs K-35 Glass - Can you tell the differences between $1k and $15k glass?

[Ed_David]

I heard that the Canon K35 glass, some of the most desirably vintage cinema glass in the world was based off the Canon FD L series glass.

 

I heard that the Canon K35 glass, some of the most desirably vintage cinema glass in the world was based off the Canon FD L series glass. I couldn't find anything on the web that showed these comparisons so I made the test myself. Results of what lenses are what are below. 

Results of what lenses are what will be answered soon!!!!

[BTM_Pix]

Unless you are deliberately throwing in red herrings, you might want to check 1:03 and 2:59 mate  

[Ed_David]

34 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Unless you are deliberately throwing in red herrings, you might want to check 1:03 and 2:59 mate  

oh shoot thanks man!  updated!

[majoraxis]

Thanks Ed!

I think with this particular focal length and aperture the difference in price is not worth it, though there is a difference and I believe more money in the instance equals better flares / less flaring which I like better.

[Ed_David]

11 minutes ago, majoraxis said:

Thanks Ed!

I think with this particular focal length and aperture the difference in price is not worth it, though there is a difference and I believe more money in the instance equals better flares / less flaring which I like better.

the question is now, can you get to the same level of contrast/flar using an ultracon or low con filter on the fd glass?

[mercer]

Great test, thanks! I recently learned the same thing about these lenses, which led me to buy an FD 50mm 1.2 L. Of course, the K-35 version is a 55mm and most likely based off the FL/FD SSC version since the 50mm wasn’t even released when the K-35s were released... but I prefer the 50mm focal length over the 55mm, especially since it’s supposed to be closer to a 45mm.

I’d love the 24mm, but it seems the prices on that lens have went up almost a grand in the past year or two. 

To add, I’m on the fence and almost prefer the FD version due to the extra bump in contrast. They both flared fairly dramatically so for the difference in price... the FDs are a great substitute. 

I look forward to your real world test. 

Also, the old FL 55mm is a nice little, low con lens that has a really smooth look. It can be had for peanuts. Edmika does a mount conversion to EF through Simmod.

[Laurier]

I think the 24-55-85 K35 are based on the FD but the versions before the L line was introduced.

I did read that the Aspherical elements were hand polished, I guess the L version industrialized the process more and got more consistent.

But then the K35 are a full and fast super 35 set, the 18mm 1.4  don t have a FD close equivalent.

I don t know how much better the mechanics are on the original K35, compared to a FD, and I wonder what the initial cost of a set was,  but I think the cost is over inflated today for what they are.
I considered getting the 24-55-85 FD and convert them to e-mount but after watching a lot comparison I found them barely more interesting than a set of samyang .

There is a lot of marketing BS for this kind of things, when the K35 are warm, low contrast and soft it s cool and fancy, but when you get the same thing with a cheaper option is a defect and its not desirable anymore.

[HockeyFan12]

3 hours ago, Laurier said:

I think the 24-55-85 K35 are based on the FD but the versions before the L line was introduced.

I did read that the Aspherical elements were hand polished, I guess the L version industrialized the process more and got more consistent.

But then the K35 are a full and fast super 35 set, the 18mm 1.4  don t have a FD close equivalent.

I don t know how much better the mechanics are on the original K35, compared to a FD, and I wonder what the initial cost of a set was,  but I think the cost is over inflated today for what they are.
I considered getting the 24-55-85 FD and convert them to e-mount but after watching a lot comparison I found them barely more interesting than a set of samyang .

There is a lot of marketing BS for this kind of things, when the K35 are warm, low contrast and soft it s cool and fancy, but when you get the same thing with a cheaper option is a defect and its not desirable anymore.

I agree that the K35s are overpriced, but I think they look great. Manchester by the Sea looks really good to me. The flares/coatings/onion bokeh etc. has a texture to it that I think the Samyangs lack.

But I do think the Samyangs are just fine, excepting I had bad luck with the 24mm. It is funny how some "character lenses" are fetishized and others are hated on based on extremely similar characteristics, but I often find myself liking the look of movies shot on K35s. 

[Ed_David]

2 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

I agree that the K35s are overpriced, but I think they look great. Manchester by the Sea looks really good to me. The flares/coatings/onion bokeh etc. has a texture to it that I think the Samyangs lack.

But I do think the Samyangs are just fine, excepting I had bad luck with the 24mm. It is funny how some "character lenses" are fetishized and others are hated on based on extremely similar characteristics, but I often find myself liking the look of movies shot on K35s. 

do you have any links to anything that compares the samyang xeens to k35?

 

I know matt duclos had something about this:

https://thecinelens.com/2017/03/16/how-do-we-decide-the-value-of-a-lens/

super interesting - thanks guys!

[HockeyFan12]

23 minutes ago, Ed_David said:

do you have any links to anything that compares the samyang xeens to k35?

 

I know matt duclos had something about this:

https://thecinelens.com/2017/03/16/how-do-we-decide-the-value-of-a-lens/

super interesting - thanks guys!

Not directly! I just remember finding the Samyangs clinical and having a bit of the character I didn't like in the RPP and CP2s. Nothing terrible. It also might just be that Manchester by the Sea is shot really well, but I also like the look in your video and others.

It would be interesting to see. I'm sure the Xeens have the better performance for the money.

There are still probably steals out there. The Leonetti Super Speeds and Sony PLs seem like killer deals, but they lack the brand recognition. I wish there were an old 18mm f2 or f1.4 from Nikon or Canon and I could just put together a stills lens set. Nikons were used a lot for Vista Vision, they aren't bad. The Olympus 21mm f2 is pretty intriguing.

[Ed_David]

the only comparison I could find is Gekko Cam which seem to be rehoused Xeen lenses vs k35 - and that doesn't really seem that good - warmth vs green

 

 

[HockeyFan12]

https://vimeo.com/oldfastglass

Interesting link but I'm sure you've seen it.

[noone]

9 hours ago, mercer said:

Great test, thanks! I recently learned the same thing about these lenses, which led me to buy an FD 50mm 1.2 L. Of course, the K-35 version is a 55mm and most likely based off the FL/FD SSC version since the 50mm wasn’t even released when the K-35s were released... but I prefer the 50mm focal length over the 55mm, especially since it’s supposed to be closer to a 45mm.

I’d love the 24mm, but it seems the prices on that lens have went up almost a grand in the past year or two. 

To add, I’m on the fence and almost prefer the FD version due to the extra bump in contrast. They both flared fairly dramatically so for the difference in price... the FDs are a great substitute. 

I look forward to your real world test. 

Also, the old FL 55mm is a nice little, low con lens that has a really smooth look. It can be had for peanuts. Edmika does a mount conversion to EF through Simmod.

The FD 50 1.2 L has an aspheric hand ground element.   I don't think the 55 FL/FD does (the older aspheric lens is a 50 1.2  as well).    That makes me think the K35 55 might be a little bit of an odd man out compared to the others (if they are based on FD L's) since both the 24 1.4 and 85 1.2 have hand ground front aspheric elements as well.    Just seems a bit strange to me that they would do that.      I sold my 50 1.2 L FD (wish I hadn't) but still have the 24 1.4 L and 85 1.2 L  and all three (along with the 80-200 f4 L also sold) were/are some of the nicest old lenses I have used.     I really should get my 24 1.4 converted to EF.     My 85 1.2 still needs fixing as it has the dreaded dissolving bearings issue that certain FD lenses can get (very loose focus throw now) but I can not use them at present.       Still keeping them for when I CAN use them again.

[mercer]

19 hours ago, noone said:

The FD 50 1.2 L has an aspheric hand ground element.   I don't think the 55 FL/FD does (the older aspheric lens is a 50 1.2  as well).    That makes me think the K35 55 might be a little bit of an odd man out compared to the others (if they are based on FD L's) since both the 24 1.4 and 85 1.2 have hand ground front aspheric elements as well.    Just seems a bit strange to me that they would do that.      I sold my 50 1.2 L FD (wish I hadn't) but still have the 24 1.4 L and 85 1.2 L  and all three (along with the 80-200 f4 L also sold) were/are some of the nicest old lenses I have used.     I really should get my 24 1.4 converted to EF.     My 85 1.2 still needs fixing as it has the dreaded dissolving bearings issue that certain FD lenses can get (very loose focus throw now) but I can not use them at present.       Still keeping them for when I CAN use them again.

I’m going to try out ML Raw on the EOS-M just so I can test the 50mm 1.2 out before I send it to get converted. It’s one of the cleanest used lenses I’ve ever bought, so I cannot imagine I won’t like it. I’m hoping it will scratch my itch for a couple other 50mm lenses I either have or am interested in. 

I just looked a few days ago for the 24mm and the cheapest one I could find was nearly $1200 and it wasn’t in that great of shape. Good copies were listed for $1600... I don’t think I’ve seen a lens raise in price so quickly. 

I saw another FD-K35 lens comparison on IG last week but I can’t seem to find it now.

[tweak]

You should do a test after this on the L versus the peasant models ? . From my tests the L simply aren't worth the extra over the slightly slower models, most the time the Ls aren't really sharp enough to use wide open anyway and at the same apertures both lenses are so close it's hard to pick them apart, sometimes the slower is even better ? . I have a set of nFD, I really like them.

[mercer]

13 minutes ago, tweak said:

You should do a test after this on the L versus the peasant models ? .

Will do, I have a nFD 50mm 1.4 that was modified to Nikon F so I will make sure the 1.2 L is worth the extra money. Of course, everything I’ve read and have been told claims that it is. But if it isn’t, I’ll surely sell it and make almost double what I paid for it.

It doesn’t really have to be that sharp wide open, 1.2 or faster lenses are really only useful for extremely low light or for that dreamy effect. So the question will be how sharp it is at 1.4 and f/2 compared to the 1.4 version...

Hopefully it’s noticeably sharper because the red band makes me feel cool.

[tweak]

3 minutes ago, mercer said:

Will do, I have a nFD 50mm 1.4 that was modified to Nikon F so I will make sure the 1.2 L is worth the extra money. Of course, everything I’ve read and have been told claims that it is. But if it isn’t, I’ll surely sell it and make almost double what I paid for it.

It doesn’t really have to be that sharp wide open, 1.2 or faster lenses are really only useful for extremely low light or for that dreamy effect. So the question will be how sharp it is at 1.4 and f/2 compared to the 1.4 version...

Hopefully it’s noticeably sharper because the red band makes me feel cool.

Well yeah, my other thoughts are that I never shoot video at 1.2 let alone 1.4 anyway, so I don't see the point of carrying the extra weight and cost around with me when I believe they look very similar. 

[mercer]

29 minutes ago, tweak said:

Well yeah, my other thoughts are that I never shoot video at 1.2 let alone 1.4 anyway, so I don't see the point of carrying the extra weight and cost around with me when I believe they look very similar. 

That’s true, but the FD 50mm 1.2 isn’t THAT much bigger. I already have a 1.4 Zeiss ZF that has that quintessential “vintage” look wide open but sharpens up nicely by f/2, 2.8 so my hope is the 1.2 FD will sharpen up at 1.4 and be razor sharp by 2.8 so I can sell the 1.4 FD and the Zeiss.

With that being said, the FD 1.4 is surprisingly sharp wide open.

[tweak]

9 minutes ago, mercer said:

That’s true, but the FD 50mm 1.2 isn’t THAT much bigger. I already have a 1.4 Zeiss ZF that has that quintessential “vintage” look wide open but sharpens up nicely by f/2, 2.8 so my hope is the 1.2 FD will sharpen up at 1.4 and be razor sharp by 2.8 so I can sell the 1.4 FD and the Zeiss.

With that being said, the FD 1.4 is surprisingly sharp wide open.

Honestly I drew the same conclusions as this person - https://lensqaworks.com/2018/09/12/lenswars-canon-fdn-50mm-f-1-2-vs-canon-fdn-50mm-f-1-4/

I just can't justify the price or weight when I'm carrying this stuff around 80% of my life, especially if there's no perceivable advantage to me. Who knows, maybe there's some super copies out there that tip the scales, but I'm sure it still wouldn't be enough for anyone but yourself to notice.

[thebrothersthre3]

B looked sharper at least in the color graded close up.