This lens shoots some great video. The photos are nice, but when they become moving, it's quite pleasant. Especially with this sharpness. That's what's great about these old lenses, you never know where they really shine till you run them through various use cases.
Once more proving that even cheaper gear can pack a punch! I am looking around for a Canon film camera to use my FDs on film; I had one, but it was broken...
Thanks for your review Marco, I got the 300mm after watching your review and I was not disappointed at all! So it's time to start looking for the 135mm one...
Minus Canon's famous CA that this lens actually produces less than other FD/FL of the era, this looks like one very impressive small, light lens for walk-around shooting. Not sure if the CA is worse on the earlier versions (That probably should be), I actually like the chrome front of the much earlier versions.
They are quite different, mostly in size. The Canon is overall sharper and way smaller and lighter. In terms of colors and contrast they both look the same as their 50mm relatives, so you can refer to the "battle of the 50s" video. I am working on a comparison between the Canon and the Asahi Pentax 3.5, as they are a closer match, but I'm also considering doing a "135mm : 3.5 vs 2.5/2.8" video, so I'll snuck a Konica/Canon comparison in it ;)
The quality of the footage is beautiful. I have this lens do you think it is necessary to look for an 135mm f2.8 or do you feel the f3.5 is enough to give that cinematic look.
Hi Ana, are you using it on an analog camera or on a digital? What brand and model? If you are using it on digital, in this video I show hot to mount Canon FD lenses to the adapter: th-cam.com/video/MoYz7Y65sLo/w-d-xo.html
I still have this lens that I bought for my AE-1P in 1984. Works well adapted to my M50 and EOS R.
Just like they say: cameras come and go, but lenses are forever!
This lens shoots some great video. The photos are nice, but when they become moving, it's quite pleasant. Especially with this sharpness. That's what's great about these old lenses, you never know where they really shine till you run them through various use cases.
True!
I have the older model, and although I think it's pretty good for the price, it looks like they made some welcome improvements on the nFD version.
Yeah, nFDs might feel a bit plastic-y compared to older versions, but optics seem to be a little sharper and more consistent
One of the cheepest nFD lenses, got mine early 80's and got some great images with it especially on possitive film, wonderful lens.
Once more proving that even cheaper gear can pack a punch! I am looking around for a Canon film camera to use my FDs on film; I had one, but it was broken...
@@MarcoAries that would be the nF1 completely different camera then A series, my other choice would be the A1 just stay away from AE1.
I'll keep that in mind, thanks!
@@MarcoAries nF-1, AE-1 Program and A-1 are all excellent choices. A matter of taste, mostly.
Thanks for your review Marco, I got the 300mm after watching your review and I was not disappointed at all! So it's time to start looking for the 135mm one...
Glad you like the 300, it is such an underrated lens!
There is an f2.8 version of the 135mm, but I haven't tried it...
I did a review of the old FD version of that lens on my channel, the FL 135mm F3.5. Love mine too.
Yeah, I've watched it ;)
Minus Canon's famous CA that this lens actually produces less than other FD/FL of the era, this looks like one very impressive small, light lens for walk-around shooting. Not sure if the CA is worse on the earlier versions (That probably should be), I actually like the chrome front of the much earlier versions.
Indeed, just as I like them: small, light and with good image quality!
nice vid. hopefully you mention the difference between the canon and the konica 135mm f2.5 . thanks!
They are quite different, mostly in size. The Canon is overall sharper and way smaller and lighter. In terms of colors and contrast they both look the same as their 50mm relatives, so you can refer to the "battle of the 50s" video. I am working on a comparison between the Canon and the Asahi Pentax 3.5, as they are a closer match, but I'm also considering doing a "135mm : 3.5 vs 2.5/2.8" video, so I'll snuck a Konica/Canon comparison in it ;)
@@MarcoAries sounds ambitious! thanks for the consideration!
😉
The quality of the footage is beautiful. I have this lens do you think it is necessary to look for an 135mm f2.8 or do you feel the f3.5 is enough to give that cinematic look.
I believe 3.5 is enough, in fact, I preferred them as they are smaller and lighter than the 2.8s 😉
@@MarcoAries thank you for the advice really appreciated 🙂
No worries!
Hi I still cannot work with this lens.... can you demonstrate de focus, opening etc? thanks
Hi Ana, are you using it on an analog camera or on a digital? What brand and model?
If you are using it on digital, in this video I show hot to mount Canon FD lenses to the adapter: th-cam.com/video/MoYz7Y65sLo/w-d-xo.html