Canon FTb - building a kit - suggested lenses ?

[Luddite Frank]

I just picked-up a nice Canon FTb s/n 126xxx.

I would like to begin building a kit around it, ideally beginning with period lenses... 35mm, 50mm, 85/90mm 135...

Would like some suggestions as to decent lenses or not-so-greats to avoid ?

Is there a lens list by serial # / date for Canon FL / FD lenses ?

 

[grapejohnson]

The FD 50 1.4s are fantastic, from the "new" version, to the bayonet mount without the SSC. I have the latter and it's one of my best lenses, period. The 50 1.8s are supposed to be much crappier than the 1.4s and considering how cheap the 1.4 lenses are I'd recommend them. They all have 8 blades as opposed to 5 or 6 on the 1.8 lenses.
The 28 2 is also incredible considering its price if you're into wides. I have a Vivitar 17mm 3.5 which is also awesome and was also very cheap. The FD system is great because the glass is so inexpensive for such good quality.

 

[Mackinaw]

The Canon FD lenses that have a good reputation are the concave-front element 35/2.0 (the one with thorium), the FD 50/1.4, the Canon 85/1.8 and the FD 135/2.0.

No serial number list that I know of though all Canon cameras and lenses of this era have a date code on the back of the lens or inside the film chamber of the camera that can be used to determine build date. Look for a "sticky" in the Canon rangefinder sub-forum for an explanation how to use.

Jim B.

 

[kossi008]

I don't think it's by S/N, but at least by date:
Try googling "Canon Camera Museum"

 

[BW400CN]

I only have nFD lenses on my A Bodies (A-1, AE-1P, AV-1) and some Tokinas which I realy love.

My list:
Tokina
RMC 3,5 17mm, RMC 2,8 24mm, RMC 2,8 28mm, 2,8 35mm Pre RMC looks like an old Nikkor, RMC 2,8 135mm, RMC 4,0 28-85mm, RMC 4,0 70-210mm
Canon
nFD 1,4 50mm, nFD 1,8 50mm, nFD 3,5-4,5 35-70mm Macro, nFD 3,5 50mm Macro, nFD 5,6 100-300mm
SPECIAL: nFD AF 4,0 35-70mm

I can recommend all these lenses only the 100-300 is a bit weak on the long end full open.

 

[kermaier]

The FD 50/1.4 SSC is a classic. So is the FD 50/1.2L for 5x the money. The 50/1.8 isn't worth bothering with, given how cheap the f/1.4 lenses have become.
If you can scare up a 24/2 you won't go wrong. And the 24/1.4L was a favorite of mine when I still had film in my F-1N bodies.
The FD 135/2 is fantastic -- grab one if you can. The 135/2.8 is crap, in my experience.
The FD 85/1.2 was amazing, but I never liked the 85/1.8 (though many swear by it).

::Ari

 

[kermaier]

Oh yeah - if you want a general-purpose zoom, the 35-105mm f/3.5 two-touch is amazingly good for the vintage. Stay away from the 70-210mm f/4 and the 35-105mm one-touch zooms.
::Ari

 

[crawdiddy]

Surprised noone has mentioned it. The 55mm f1.2 FD is beautiful. There are some variations on it-- there's a 50mm version, and maybe some are marked as 58mm. Great glass. Excellent bokeh.

 

[SteveM]

Oh yeah - if you want a general-purpose zoom, the 35-105mm f/3.5 two-touch is amazingly good for the vintage. Stay away from the 70-210mm f/4 and the 35-105mm one-touch zooms.
::Ari

I had a 35-105mm f/3.5 zoom for many years glued to an A-1. For travel it covers the most useful range and I was very happy with the results (exclusively slides). At the wide end I added an FD 28mm f2.8 that I liked, but I have no experience with other wides for comparison. These two covered everything. I also had an FD 50/1.8, but the zoom was so good that I never used it.

Steve

 

[peterm1]

Dont be afraid to use FL lenses either. They work fine on the later camera bodies are cheap, built like tanks and many have superb optical qualities. The more common of these - the 35mm f2.8, 28mm f3.5, 50mm f1.8, 135mm f3.5 (and 2.8) and the 200mm f3.5 can all be picked up almost for pennies and are good lenses. This is helped by the fact t6hat more people prefer to buy FD lenses. (I actually prefer the FL lenses as the build quality is even better than the FD ones). A few of the less common ones can cost more to buy (e.g. the 58mm f1.2, the 85mm f1.8) and are also excellent but in the overall scheme of things are still pretty inexpensive. Having said that they are not quite as inexpensive today as they were a few years ago. The register distance on Canon lenses is such that they only work on a limited range of digital cameras (such as mini four thirds) now at least some digital users have a need for them and this has driven the price up a little. There are one or two really rare ones (like the 19mm f3.5 which tends to be pretty expensive) but this is uncommon with these FL and FD lenses.

 

[raid]

The 19/3.5 is awesome as an FL lens. The 17/4 is rectlinear and is fun to use.
A sleeper lens is the 28-50/2.8-3.5 macro lens.
The 80-200/4 is an incredibly good zoom.
The 50/1.4 in all versions is a best buy. SSC is applied on all later lenses, but older lenses had SSC on the front rim engraved.
If you have money to spend, get the 85/1.2L. No other short tele is as good of a lens.

I sold my SSC 55/1.2 many years ago, and I got the small sized 50/1.2L.
Canon did not have good 35mm lenses, but many users like the chrome rimmed concave version for B&W film.

The 500/4.5L is unsurpassed.

 

[KoNickon]

A caution about the 50/1.4 SSC -- I have found them to be prone to sticky aperture blades. That is, the blades are stuck at maximum aperture. Given the complexity of the FD mount, these are tough to work on. I haven't seen this problem with the 50/1.8, which I find to be an excellent lens in its own right.

 

[Frontman]

The 35mm f/2 concave lens is the best of the FD lenses I have used. If I could have only one lens in my FD kit, this would be it.

 

[peterm1]

The following web site has some info about canon FL and FD mount lenses. Not a lot unfortunately as MIR concentrates mainly on Nikon kit.

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

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fllenses/

 

[nikon_sam]

I was given a Canon A-1 recently and have picked up the 50mm 1.4 FD and the 100mm 3.5 FL lenses...so far I like them both and didn't pay too much for either...
I like the FOV of the 100mm

 

[wakarimasen]

I just sold a 50mm F1.4 SSC lens - but only because I have the later (FDn) version and didn't want the duplication. A nice place to get information is this website

 

[Photo_Smith]

Quite a few good lenses have been mentioned already, I'd like to add the very cheap but incredible 100mm ƒ2,8.
Think Nikon 105mm but smaller and just as good performance wise. I has the old breechlock version, that with a 50mm ƒ1,4 and 28mm and you'll be set–I also liked the 85mm ƒ1,8 also.

But the 100mm seems to me to have just the right distance–subject and is very sharp.

Canon F1 100mm ƒ2,8 Tri-x in Rodinal.

 

[wakarimasen]

Quite a few good lenses have been mentioned already, I'd like to add the very cheap but incredible 100mm ƒ2,8.
Think Nikon 105mm but smaller and just as good performance wise. I has the old breechlock version, that with a 50mm ƒ1,4 and 28mm and you'll be set–I also liked the 85mm ƒ1,8 also.

But the 100mm seems to me to have just the right distance–subject and is very sharp.

This lens is on my 'to buy' list 😉

 

[grdglass]

Frank, just sent you a PM.

 

[Luddite Frank]

Frank, just sent you a PM.

PM received, sent you a reply.

🙂