farlymac
PF McFarland
I had forgotten I loaded my Canon FT with some Ilford HP-5 and a new Wein cell a couple of months ago to check out all my FL lenses, but then a change of weather made me set the outfit aside until recently. The battery was still good, and the metering system works perfectly. The camera however is capping at the higher speeds, so it will need to be adjusted before I use it again.
I took to the back roads of Roanoke and Montgomery, VA counties to find some suitable test subjects. Quite a few of these have been corrected for the capping, and a couple of times to bring out sky detail, but exposures were spot on.
FL 28/3.5
Road to The Sky by P F McFarland, on Flickr
Diagonal Demise by P F McFarland, on Flickr
Mirror Pond by P F McFarland, on Flickr
FL 50/1.4
TA Stump Test by P F McFarland, on Flickr
Floaters by P F McFarland, on Flickr
Late Lunch by P F McFarland, on Flickr
FL 135/3.5 and 135/2.8
135 Comparison by P F McFarland, on Flickr
See all twenty-two photos with explanations at https://flic.kr/s/aHskpjKgGt
PF
I took to the back roads of Roanoke and Montgomery, VA counties to find some suitable test subjects. Quite a few of these have been corrected for the capping, and a couple of times to bring out sky detail, but exposures were spot on.
FL 28/3.5
Road to The Sky by P F McFarland, on Flickr
Diagonal Demise by P F McFarland, on Flickr
Mirror Pond by P F McFarland, on Flickr
FL 50/1.4
TA Stump Test by P F McFarland, on Flickr
Floaters by P F McFarland, on Flickr
Late Lunch by P F McFarland, on Flickr
FL 135/3.5 and 135/2.8
135 Comparison by P F McFarland, on Flickr
See all twenty-two photos with explanations at https://flic.kr/s/aHskpjKgGt
PF
David Murphy
Veteran
Very nice. Those FL lenses are not only superbly made, they have excellent optics (and are even reasonably priced these days).
gb hill
Veteran
Nice shots Phil. I can't decide which 135 image I like the most. I'm kinda leaning toward the 3.5. I like the darker tonality. Are these two examples straight out of camera or did you edit a smidgen?
Mackinaw
Think Different
Speaking Canon FL optics, this is a Canon 500mm FL-F on a Leica M-240. Wide-open at F5.6. Heavily cropped.
Jim B.
Jim B.
farlymac
PF McFarland
I did a little work dodging the right edge due to capping, but otherwise nothing else, Greg. The difference in exposures is because I didn't take care to check that the camera and lens were set the same after I changed lenses. I should have also fixed the horizon of the 2.8 version, but then that would have led to a different crop than the 3.5 version had, so I left that alone.
PF
mcfingon
Western Australia
I have recently been given an FT and 50/1.8 FL II lens, and have been surprised what a good quality outfit it is. The lens is not perfectly clean inside, but still does very crisp pictures.
farlymac
PF McFarland
I have the 50/1.8, and it is a very nice lens. The only reason I have the 1.4 is it came on a Pellix.
PF
PF
peterm1
Veteran
I have found most FL mount elnses to be excellent. The 50mm f1.8 is crisp and sharp. Like most modest focal length modest aperture lenses I suppose. They got very good at making prime lenses like this back in the day. Other great lenses I have in FL mount include 58mm f1.2, 35mm f2.5, 28mm f3.5, 85mm f1.8, 135mm f3.5, 135mm f2.8 and 200mm f4? (or is it 3.5? I cant recall as I have not used it for a while). Most are very good optically. All are excellent nechanically.
David Murphy
Veteran
It is well to keep in mind that the FL lenses came along towards the end of the Canon LTM rangefinder era, and most of us here know how excellent some of the Canon LTM lenses are. My point is that Canon had already learned how to make commercially viable and very fine 35mm lenses by 1964 and that engineering capability clearly benefited the FL system.