I bought the Canon 35 f2 concave, black nose, last year. I compared it to two versions of Leica R 35 summicrons, and my conclusion was that the Canon lens was one level above the Leica R in terms of contrast and sharpness, and that was true for aperatures from 2 to 5.6 (the range I tested). The difference was striking. Due to the thorium content of the Canon lens, a heavy wight balance correction is needed (difference ca 1000 K against the Leica R lenses).
So the concave version was basically a taste of the future, a glimpse into what was was to come quality-wise but ultimately too pricey to keep as a feature in every other fd and nfd lens that followed.
In the close-up test shots, it looks to me that the convex version has more spherical aberration, not chromatic aberration. Spherical aberration didn't matter as much on film as it does on modern high-resolution digital sensors. It's the "glowy" look that happens right at the focus plane.
Close up test shots can also greatly magnify aberrations for non-macro lenses. At normal (further) differences both lenses seemed to perform very similar, at least when viewed at 100%. I'm sure the pixel peeper could pick the two apart, but given how these lenses degrade over the years due to their construction, comparison tests might not be entirely representative of their true potential.
I have both and bought the concave only a couple of months ago, after owning the convex for almost a decade. I'm glad I bought it as it is my favourite 35mm SLR lens.
I have a couple of lenses with a concave front element, the canon m 22mm and the zeiss milvus 50mm ze. They are both excellent and sharp lenses. Also the famous zeiss ultron 50mm has a concave front element. I think the concave front element can suck in flares, but I'm not sure.
I agree. I have both and they are virtually impossible to tell apart. The 28mm f2 ssc is just the same, and identical close-focus though the lens mafia in Japan is as always pumping up the price on this wider version of the 35mm. Anyone want an FD 24mm 1.4 asph? Will list on ebay shortly... Great vid as always...H
I posted a lengthy reply to you about the Japanese- parts/lens switching crooks but youtube censored it. Lol. Wtf. I'll reply again later lol; did you get the actual reply?
Thanks for making this Mathieu, I own both and I agree. There's very similar and the Convex is good enough for me. I have a concave for sale on ebay if anything is after one!
I bought my convex for $20 2 years ago, a bit ugly looking but I cleaned it up and removed a stuck filter and now it is my favorite lens I think, at f2 it has a kind of built-in Black Pro Mist xD
The concave (some folks in Japan call it the "Type O") has been priced at about 3X the price of the convex for many months already. The convex has a mystique and some of that might be due simply to the uncommon-ness of the design.
After watching the video I am still wondering which is convex and which is concave???? Clearly there’s a difference in images but what about aesthetically?? Thanks
Very informative video! I have Canon nFD 28mm f/2.8, which works out as a very nice 40mm on M43 with a speedbooster, but I'm annoyed by the amount of chromatic aberration of this lens produces when shooting at night. How good 35mm f/2 in that regard?
I think the Convex nFD lens looks better overall and it's not because of the glass - it's the coating. The coatings on the nFD series have a more modern, high-contrast punch and I find that this is true over the entire line of FD lenses. There are definitely older bayonet-mount lens designs and builds which contain better elements, but the coatings are much of what determine the color reproduction of a lens. The nFD L lenses no doubt have the best coatings.
@@MathieuStern merci beaucoup de ta réponse. Je tenais à te féliciter pour ton travail. C'est un contenu relativement rare. On peut sentir ta passion pour la photographie... "Ressusciter" des optiques anciennes, c'est un peu comme remonter le temps avec toute la poésie présente à chaque époque. Ce sont plus que des objets. Je les perçois plus comme des témoins d'un temps dont chaque parti pris est un révélateur de l'état d'esprit de la société qui les a fait naître.
![KSI - Dirty [Official Visualiser]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VoDh1h1dPUE/mqdefault.jpg)
I bought the Canon 35 f2 concave, black nose, last year. I compared it to two versions of Leica R 35 summicrons, and my conclusion was that the Canon lens was one level above the Leica R in terms of contrast and sharpness, and that was true for aperatures from 2 to 5.6 (the range I tested). The difference was striking. Due to the thorium content of the Canon lens, a heavy wight balance correction is needed (difference ca 1000 K against the Leica R lenses).
So the concave version was basically a taste of the future, a glimpse into what was was to come quality-wise but ultimately too pricey to keep as a feature in every other fd and nfd lens that followed.
In the close-up test shots, it looks to me that the convex version has more spherical aberration, not chromatic aberration. Spherical aberration didn't matter as much on film as it does on modern high-resolution digital sensors. It's the "glowy" look that happens right at the focus plane.
yeah not a fan of that glowy look...
Close up test shots can also greatly magnify aberrations for non-macro lenses. At normal (further) differences both lenses seemed to perform very similar, at least when viewed at 100%. I'm sure the pixel peeper could pick the two apart, but given how these lenses degrade over the years due to their construction, comparison tests might not be entirely representative of their true potential.
I have both and bought the concave only a couple of months ago, after owning the convex for almost a decade. I'm glad I bought it as it is my favourite 35mm SLR lens.
I bought a canon concave lens ysterday for 30 bucks from a thrift store and tried to find a video like this.
Thaaaaank you i love you
Wow!
now THAT is a bargain, well done!
As always, informative and fun! Thanks Mathieu!
one does not buy a vintage lens and care about sharpness, we want "that feel" in the image.:)
Except that the price for the concaves has shot up dramatically...
i have a nikkor s 35mm f2.8
still sharp until now.
please try to compare this to canon fd 35mm concave lens. let's see the difference.
how does it compare to the EF 35 F/2? the old one. that lens is on my wish list
Glad you liked my lens!
Yes
Thanks a lot San for your help !
I have a couple of lenses with a concave front element, the canon m 22mm and the zeiss milvus 50mm ze. They are both excellent and sharp lenses. Also the famous zeiss ultron 50mm has a concave front element. I think the concave front element can suck in flares, but I'm not sure.
I agree. I have both and they are virtually impossible to tell apart. The 28mm f2 ssc is just the same, and identical close-focus though the lens mafia in Japan is as always pumping up the price on this wider version of the 35mm. Anyone want an FD 24mm 1.4 asph? Will list on ebay shortly...
Great vid as always...H
I posted a lengthy reply to you about the Japanese- parts/lens switching crooks but youtube censored it. Lol. Wtf. I'll reply again later lol; did you get the actual reply?
Both lenses are nice looking for cinematic use. But for stills I personally would go for sharper one, as 35mm would be mostly for landscapes ;)
Very curious. I was talking to someone else with these exact same copies and he said his SSC F/22 was sharper wide open...
Great video!
It would be interesting to see the difference to th two newer 35mm 1.4 versions.
Good to have you, Dear Mathieu. VERY VERY GOOD.🙏👌
Beautiful lenses. Great video as usual. Media Division are fantastic too. Love gheir videos
I have this lens. I use it with my nex-6 sony. I have sold most all my equipment and bought other camera stuff but will never let this lens go.
Thanks for making this Mathieu, I own both and I agree. There's very similar and the Convex is good enough for me. I have a concave for sale on ebay if anything is after one!
I bought my convex for $20 2 years ago, a bit ugly looking but I cleaned it up and removed a stuck filter and now it is my favorite lens I think, at f2 it has a kind of built-in Black Pro Mist xD
huh??
Sensacional…excelente vídeo
I'm sorry,, which one is the concave vs the convex. How do you tell?
Excelente video 👍
Pretty soon theses lenses are going up in prices. For example, the FD 28mm F2 SSC is going for HUGE money now!
The concave (some folks in Japan call it the "Type O") has been priced at about 3X the price of the convex for many months already. The convex has a mystique and some of that might be due simply to the uncommon-ness of the design.
thx for the explanation :)
After watching the video I am still wondering which is convex and which is concave???? Clearly there’s a difference in images but what about aesthetically?? Thanks
Very informative video! I have Canon nFD 28mm f/2.8, which works out as a very nice 40mm on M43 with a speedbooster, but I'm annoyed by the amount of chromatic aberration of this lens produces when shooting at night. How good 35mm f/2 in that regard?
Just get the 35f2 already....
So amazing and such an amazing lens! I have a G9 and still struggle lol trying to get that cinematic look
I think the Convex nFD lens looks better overall and it's not because of the glass - it's the coating. The coatings on the nFD series have a more modern, high-contrast punch and I find that this is true over the entire line of FD lenses. There are definitely older bayonet-mount lens designs and builds which contain better elements, but the coatings are much of what determine the color reproduction of a lens. The nFD L lenses no doubt have the best coatings.
The NFD and the FD s.s.c. have the exact same coating.
thats what ive heard too..
How does this compare to the Konica 35 f2 Mathieu? Thank you
the Konica is a lil less sharp wide open, the Concave FD is sharper for sure
@@MathieuStern thank you so much!
May be the legend is about the imperfections and as a result the old cinematic look ?
I already have a chrome nose - watched this just to feel better about my choice 😂 Got my eyes on a 20mm 2.8 next.. (both mainly for film photo use!)
Bonjour Mathieu,
Si j'ai bien compris la version concave est aussi nommée " Chrome nose " ?
Oui c’est bien ça mais surtout il faut vérifier si c’est un f16 maximum
@@MathieuStern merci beaucoup de ta réponse.
Je tenais à te féliciter pour ton travail. C'est un contenu relativement rare. On peut sentir ta passion pour la photographie...
"Ressusciter" des optiques anciennes, c'est un peu comme remonter le temps avec toute la poésie présente à chaque époque. Ce sont plus que des objets. Je les perçois plus comme des témoins d'un temps dont chaque parti pris est un révélateur de l'état d'esprit de la société qui les a fait naître.
The lenses and your grades remind me of the old 35mm slides, beautifully unsharp and colored.
What do you think about the biotar 75mm f1.5?
both are a bit "glowy" right? not that I am against it, it gives an organic character to the image
Yes for 99% will be no difference but you know it and that orange color on the front element is going to make you take better picture for sure.
Love canon FD, I have one FD 28 2.8
Hey, I'm here early. Lol.
I love the Canon FD lenses, I've always wanted a good one but I'm broke.
XD
Aaand prices skyrocket again
Starting to smell like price fixing tbh
You can still get the optically identical chrome nose version at good prices.
c'est un mythe et improuvable mon ami 😁👍
Concave is sharper, but convex has a smoother bokeh.
La netteté est un concept bourgeois quand même 😉
Remarkable bokeh for a 35mm focal length lens.
Nice :)
I like cheese
उततम
Yesterday at a thrift store, I found a Canon FD 35mm f2.0 SSC (1973) for $10 US. Really looking forward to it, and it's worrying radiation. 🥲