Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Canon FD 4.5/400mm vs Novoflex 5.6/400mm T
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 6:16 pm    Post subject: Canon FD 4.5/400mm vs Novoflex 5.6/400mm T Reply with quote
A few years ago i was searching for a lightweight 400mm lens suitable for occasional hiking into the Swiss Alps, mainly for taking images of the Steinbock (alpine ibex). A Canon FD 4.5/400mm was found and bought, and not much later i took it with me on a short trip in the Gotthard region. About 4000 altitude meter were made within 28 hours, in a pretty rocky area between 2000 m and 3000 m above sea level. Even thought the trip had been fun, I was not that happy with the newly acquired tele lens. Focusing was sloppy, lateral CAs were disturbing, and border / corner resolution was decreasing when stopping down. It was the only time ever I took the FD 4.5/400mm with me.

Some months ago I became aware of a Novoflex "PiGriff" (the focusing grip without lens) which was auctioned off a local website, starting at CHF 1.--. Funny enough, in a second auction the same seller was offering the T-Noflexar 400mm 1:5.6 belonging to the PiGriff, also starting at CHF 1.--. I did enter a low sum, not really eager to have another useless 400mm collecting dust. Then I forgot about it. A few days later it was clear that i had won both auctions (= one entire Novoflex Triplet 5.6/400mm) for the starting price. I went to pick up the lens and the PiGriff, paid what I originally had been willing to pay (i. e. a bit more than the CHF 2.-- requested), and returned home. The first trials immediately made it clear that the Noflexar Triplet 1) did have a very good color correction and 2) was suffering from pronounced field curvature (typical for Triplets).

To be honest - up to date I've never been using the Novoflex for shooting ibices, since its weight and size seem a bit bothersome, especially when walking/climbing in rocky terrain. Usually i take a superwide with me, and either an 2.8/200 APO or an 2.8/300 APO.

But for those interested: here are a few 100% crops from the border of both lenses. First the overview with the crop area in yellow color.




Now the Canon FD 4.5/400mm wide open:

Quite a bit of lateral CAs, but relatively sharp and good detail resolution (not comparable to the nFD 2.8/400mm L, though).

Next the FD at f11:

Even more CAs, and - surprisingly - an inferior sharpness. I can't explain it, I know it's real, and I certainly don't like it. The same effect can be seen with other vintage IF tele lenses such as the Canon nFD 2.8/400mm L, the Minolta MD-II/MD-III 4.5/300mm and the Nikkor Ai 4.5/300mm IF-ED.

Now to the Novoflex! The lens is from the newest generation of 400mm Novoflex triplets, thus these results may be better than with older samples from the 1960s/19070s!! Contrary to my usual lens testing (where I focus always to the image center) i did focus to a point in between center and border. This ensures that the field curvature is less disturbing.

Surprisingly little CAs, certainly less than with the Canon nFD 2.8/400mm L!! Detail resolution on the border isn't excellent, but the overall impression certainly quite OK. The center of the image looks about the same since i did focus neither on the center nor on the border.


Now the Novoflex at f11:

Very good detail resolution, no visible CAs - certainly much better than the Canon FD 4.5/400mm @ f11!! This was quite a surprise to me, and that's why I share this images.

The Novoflex is easily overlooked, and at least its last/newest triplet version ("T-Noflexar") is a cheap APO-like long lens suitable for wild animals and - stopped down to f11 - also for landscape.

Stephan

Last edited by stevemark on Sat Aug 03, 2019 7:37 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 9:05 pm    Post subject: Re: Canon FD 5.6/400mm vs Novoflex 5.6/400mm T Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:

Even more CAs, and - surprisingly - an inferior sharpness. I can't explain it, I know it's real, and I certainly don't like it. The same effect can be seen with other vintage IF tele lenses such as the Canon nFD 2.8/400mm L, the Minolta MD-II/MD-III 4.5/300mm and the Nikkor Ai 4.5/300mm IF-ED.

I'm no optical expert, but some time ago I've been interested why camera body aperture is not a thing, and where one should place and aperture anyway.

By looking at the lens traces I've got more answers than I bargained for.
The most important takeaway was: lens must be designed for aperture.
You can't just go and figure out how to slap one on the existing piece of glass.

At least if you expect it to behave.
Here are the things that are not granted with stopping down: vignetting reduction, sharpness increase, CA reduction.
In fact, you absolutely can put an aperture in such a way it'll do the exact opposite.

This is, of course, not a simple binary good/bad situation.
In most cases postmarket aperture most likely just won't work nearly as good.
The longer the lens are, the more forgiving I would expect it to be for an aperture placement.

So while both in theory and in practice it can be done, I refuse to believe someone actually went with "yeah, whatever" at Canon.


My second revelation is concerning projection lenses.
If we have these magnificent super-fast bastards, where are the photographic versions?
Why a fairly low element design can sometimes beat photo lens so soundly?
They wasn't designed for an aperture, that's a big part of the reason why.


The third one: "yeah, whatever" approach was actually used in consumer photo equipment.
Pentax-110 was not a clever design after all. 110 lenses were not magically optimised for inbody aperture, because you simply can't do that.
Not unless we are talking about actual photo equipment.

Inbody aperture didn't caught on, because it's a really bad idea, even if we are to solve problems with accurate F-stops for different lenses.


P.S. Don't believe me though, since it's just a personal understanding of a person, who just wanted to slap an aperture on a lens.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very interesting results Steve. It hadn't occcurred to me that there might be inferior results in this manner. I have both these optics as well, but not a full frame camera to see this. I have been putting together a "400mm mega test" including the novoflex, but since I have been primarily using the K3 it has been difficult to include the canon. anyway thanks for posting.

PS should your title be "canon FD f4.5/400mm..."?


PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aidaho wrote:
...
By looking at the lens traces I've got more answers than I bargained for.
The most important takeaway was: lens must be designed for aperture.
You can't just go and figure out how to slap one on the existing piece of glass.

At least if you expect it to behave.
Here are the things that are not granted with stopping down: vignetting reduction, sharpness increase, CA reduction.
In fact, you absolutely can put an aperture in such a way it'll do the exact opposite.

That's something I didn't know at all. Hopefully we can discuss this a bit more in depth!

marcusBMG wrote:
Very interesting results Steve. It hadn't occcurred to me that there might be inferior results in this manner. I have both these optics as well, but not a full frame camera to see this. I have been putting together a "400mm mega test" including the novoflex, but since I have been primarily using the K3 it has been difficult to include the canon. anyway thanks for posting.

Real world tests above f=200mm are notoriously difficult here in Switzerland (and probably elsewhere too) because of air movements, local heating, winds, moisture and the like. I have done a lot of 300mm and 400mm tests, but whenever I did them, the meteorological conditions were changing quickly enough to distort the results. From these tests i know pretty well the properties of any 300mm / 400mm / 500mm / 600mm lens i own, but i never managed to cover them in one test series.

marcusBMG wrote:
PS should your title be "canon FD f4.5/400mm..."?

Of course!! Thank you - I already asked Klaus for help ... Wink


PostPosted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I used to own a FD 400mm f/5.6, until it was stolen. I used mine mostly for outdoor work, down here in Houston, Texas, and most of it was during summer time, so it was hot and humid. I used it both with some film Canons and with my APS-C Canon DSLR using a glassless adapter. It's infinity focus extended well beyond the mark, though, so even though infinity focus couldn't be reached, I was able to focus out to about 30 meters with the lens. So it became practical and usable for closer in subjects.

My lens was a great performer, though. It never exhibited any of the bad manners that yours does. I suspect the IF mechanicals in yours might have gone wonky. From what I've been told, the IF mechanism in these Canons is very complex and requires special tools to make any necessary adjustments. Ken Oikawa is one tech that I know can handle this job.

As a way to show the performance of my Canon 400mm, I've selected a few photos taken with my crop-body Canon. I don't have any of the negatives digitized, so I can't include any of them. The first three photos were taken with a stout tripod. The last photo was shot hand-held, and it shows. The Canon was set to ISO 100 and the lens was set to wide open for all shots.






PostPosted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:21 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
At 2-3000m elevation I think uv/haze filter would have helped with clarity but not with ca. Of course aps-c crops out the edge ca, but maybe not in those negatives.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 12:05 am    Post subject: Re: Canon FD 4.5/400mm vs Novoflex 5.6/400mm T Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:


Now the Canon FD 4.5/400mm wide open:

Quite a bit of lateral CAs, but relatively sharp and good detail resolution (not comparable to the nFD 2.8/400mm L, though).

Next the FD at f11:

Even more CAs, and - surprisingly - an inferior sharpness. I can't explain it, I know it's real, and I certainly don't like it. The same effect can be seen with other vintage IF tele lenses such as the Canon nFD 2.8/400mm L, the Minolta MD-II/MD-III 4.5/300mm and the Nikkor Ai 4.5/300mm IF-ED.

Stephan



Maybe the decrease of sharpness for small apertures is caused by focus shift. However, the increase of lateral CA is "normal" for most lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 10:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
I used to own a FD 400mm f/5.6, until it was stolen.
...
My lens was a great performer, though. It never exhibited any of the bad manners that yours does. I suspect the IF mechanicals in yours might have gone wonky. From what I've been told, the IF mechanism in these Canons is very complex and requires special tools to make any necessary adjustments.
...
As a way to show the performance of my Canon 400mm, I've selected a few photos taken with my crop-body Canon. I don't have any of the negatives digitized, so I can't include any of them.


Using my Canon FD 4.5/400mm in similar manner as you did, it delivers - even on 24 MP FF - similar results. Central resolution wide open remains very good when shooting small animals in the 5-10m distance range, and if there is a green background, no CAs will be visible, of course.

Stephan


PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've had only one IF Canon (200/4), so I don't really have much experience.
I actually did notice pretty mild reaction to aperture in the past, but did not think twice about it.
Still can't believe they rushed IF and consciously let aperture in non-ideal position.

Barring a defective unit and/or damage, the most logical thing I can come up with: the IF Canon in question does not reach infinity on digital sensor.
The second most logical reason: used adapter has wrong length, and floating designs are known to be sensitive to that.

I've heard about IF Canons not reaching true infinity on digital before, and I had to readjust mine.
You don't need anything special for this, just a lot of patience in taking off the hard rubber from focus ring.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Michael - i've been looking a bit closer at your images, and i can't really see any difference between your sample of the FD 4.5/400mm and mine. Let me explain this in detail.

1) I've been repeating your first image, shown below, with a sunflower image of mine. To match your APS-C Canon (crop factor 1.6x) i've been using the A7II in crop mode (crop factor 1.5x). My sunflower image, a JPG from the A7II, then was re.sized to 1600px, to match your photo of the rose - first your image:



Now my image:


I think we both agree that there's not much difference, performance-wise, to be seen on these re-sized images from the APS-C sensor.


2) Now i did loook a bit closer at your only image where CAs actually can manifest (we need some white or whitish structures to see them clearly). First i did re-size your APS-C image to match my FF image:



Then i chose a crop from your image and a second crop from my image, both in the same distance from the image center, to compare the CAs:



It now becomes obvious that, again, there's not much difference between my lens and your lens when it comes to CAs.

Let me summarize ... If we use comparable subjects, and if we compensate for

1) APS-C (your images) vs FF (my images)
2) resolution (1600 px on your APS-C vs 6000px on my FF), which means i had to upsize your 1600px image 2.34fold:
6000 / [1.6*1600] = 2.34

... your FD 4.5/400mm seems to have as much CAs as mine Wink

Of course, my 100% crops shown at the beginning of the thread are from the FF borders, and therefore about twice a far from the image center as the crops shown above. This causes CAs to be much more pronounced.

Stephan


PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Steve, that's an interesting analysis you've conducted. Of course, as I'm sure you know, it is common for CAs to show up on a digital sensor, when they often don't show on film. But that is largely beside the point of your analysis.

It is widely believed that the nFD 400/4.5 has one low dispersion glass element, although I've never seen anywhere where Canon has admitted to this. Nonetheless, it does tend to behave better than other fast IF nFD telephotos I've owned, namely the 200mm f/2.8 and (non L) 300mm f/4. These two lenses exhibit very large amounts of CA if used in bright, high contrast conditions. It would appear that the 400/4.5 is somewhat better behaved in this respect, so maybe the widely believed rumor is true. Often, strong CAs indicate a reduction in sharpness, since they're indicating where light rays are not coinciding in a single focal point. But this doesn't really seem to be the case with the two aforementioned telephotos, since from personal experience, I can attest to their sharpness. Perhaps if they were APO lenses, their sharpness would be extraordinary instead of simply excellent.

I would also submit that the CAs you've indicated are very minor. You had to subject my photo to rather large magnifications before they even became evident. And of course, the CAs can often be entirely gotten rid of when using good image processing software. Case in point. The photo of the ring-necked dove in the tree. This photo actually had some noticeable red and green fringing along the bird's shoulder and head. Predictably, sharp edges against a bright background -- where CAs will tend to show. I successfully removed it during the modest amount of processing I did on this image. Here's a tight, 100% crop of the bird's head to show the CA that I removed:



So the way I see it, as long as sharpness isn't affected, then I'll do my best to remove the CA in the digital image, and call my task done.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for responding in detail! ... here's some additional information from my side!

cooltouch wrote:
Steve, that's an interesting analysis you've conducted. Of course, as I'm sure you know, it is common for CAs to show up on a digital sensor, when they often don't show on film. But that is largely beside the point of your analysis.

Yes - i agree on that. But since we both use digital cameras, that isn't relevant here indeed.

cooltouch wrote:
It is widely believed that the nFD 400/4.5 has one low dispersion glass element, although I've never seen anywhere where Canon has admitted to this.

The FD/nFD 4.5/400mm was Canons first IF lens ever, and it does contain two large LD lenses (nd=1.48; v=70.1) in the front group. The middle (negative) lens in the front group is made from expensive high refractive glass (nD 1.80, v=40). This information is taken directly from the original Canon project description.

The FD 4.5/400mm does NOT contain ULD/ED (v=80) glass though, let alone Fluorite (v=94)! Therefore it was not considered an "L" lens by Canon. Please not that between 1975 and 1985 the use of two LD lenses (v=70) in the front group was pretty much standard for any "ordinary" tele lens in the 300mm - 400mm range: The Canon nFD 4/300mm (non-L) did have two LD lenses, the nFD 4/300mm L did have two ULD (v=80) lenses. Furthermore, lenses such as the nFD 4/200mm IF and the 4/200mm IF Macro also have two LD lenses (but no ULD / Fluorite lenses, of course). Especially the latter has pretty hefty CAs, depending the circumstances.

The Canon FL/FD 2.8/300 Fluorite has on Fluorite (v=94) and one LD (v=70) lens, and the nFD 2.8/300 as well as the nFD 4.5/500 L have on fluorite (v=94) and and ULD (v=80) lens each. The latter are known for superior correction of CAs, as is the Canon FL 5.6/300mm with two (!) fluorite lenses. Apart from the FD 4.5/500 L i have personally used and compared all these lenses on 24 MP FF.


I have been using other vintage 400mm lenses such as the Minolta MC 5.6/400 APO (one fluorite lens, one LD lens) or the Canon nFD 2.8/400mm L (two large ULD lenses). The Minolta, at f11, has no visible CAs and is - in this regard - superior to the Canon 2.8/400mm L. The canon, however, wide open has much better detail resolution than the Minolta at f5.6.


cooltouch wrote:

Nonetheless, it does tend to behave better than other fast IF nFD telephotos I've owned, namely the 200mm f/2.8 and (non L) 300mm f/4. These two lenses exhibit very large amounts of CA if used in bright, high contrast conditions.


I own all these lenses myself as well. I am pretty sure that , comparing them side by side,you would see more (=broader) lateral CAs from your nFD4.5/400 IF than from your nFD 4/300 IF or nFD 2.8/200mm IF, since all these lenses share the basic construction of the front element. Maybe the (relatively) faster speed of the "shorter" teles has it own problems, though. I can check that tomorrow with all the three lenses mentioned, and the nFD 2.8/400mm L.


cooltouch wrote:
It would appear that the 400/4.5 is somewhat better behaved in this respect, so maybe the widely believed rumor is true.

As I've told before - the FD 4.5/400 does not have ULD or Fluorite glass. And my experience shows that it has as much CAs as other non-ED/non-ULD/non-AD 400mm lenses.


cooltouch wrote:
Often, strong CAs indicate a reduction in sharpness, since they're indicating where light rays are not coinciding in a single focal point. But this doesn't really seem to be the case with the two aforementioned telephotos, since from personal experience, I can attest to their sharpness.


Heres the nFD (CAs corrected in Photoshop RAW conversion) versus the Novoflex (CAs NOT corrected). Both 100% crops from the 24MP FF image border, same images as in my first posting:


cooltouch wrote:
Perhaps if they were APO lenses, their sharpness would be extraordinary instead of simply excellent.

I'll try to post two images from the FD 4.5/400 IF and the nFD 2.8/400 L tomorrow. The latter is NOT apochromatic at all, but it has a much better overall correction than the FD 4.5/400mm.

cooltouch wrote:

I would also submit that the CAs you've indicated are very minor. You had to subject my photo to rather large magnifications before they even became evident.

Obviously your images
1) were re-sized to a rather modest 1.7 MP
2) and you did remove CAs with post-processing

Then you did claim, that your FD 4.5/400mm has less CAs than mine, and mine seems to be defective.

Of course, to make a (more or less) realistic comparison, i had to re-enlarge your image to (24 MP / [1.6*1.6]) = 9.4 MP. Comparing your 1.7 MP image directly with my 24 MP image would be fanboyism Wink

cooltouch wrote:
And of course, the CAs can often be entirely gotten rid of when using good image processing software. Case in point. The photo of the ring-necked dove in the tree. This photo actually had some noticeable red and green fringing along the bird's shoulder and head. Predictably, sharp edges against a bright background -- where CAs will tend to show. I successfully removed it during the modest amount of processing I did on this image. Here's a tight, 100% crop of the bird's head to show the CA that I removed:


Ah, now that's what i would expect from my FD 4.5/400mm as well! Obviously, when looking at your actual 100% crops, we can conclude that yout FD 4.5/400m has as much CAs as mine ...

It was actually not entirely fair to post resized AND software-enhanced images without telling us that you had removed the CAs and - in addition - even to claim that my FD 4.5/400 must be defective ... Wink !!

cooltouch wrote:

So the way I see it, as long as sharpness isn't affected, then I'll do my best to remove the CA in the digital image, and call my task done.

I agree on that - my original posting was simply to share my astonishment about how well the Noflexar T 4.5/400 is corrected for CAs. And to create some awareness that it might be a valuable alternative to more expensive vintage glass ...

Stephan


PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
marcusBMG wrote:
Very interesting results Steve. It hadn't occcurred to me that there might be inferior results in this manner. I have both these optics as well, but not a full frame camera to see this. I have been putting together a "400mm mega test" including the novoflex, but since I have been primarily using the K3 it has been difficult to include the canon. anyway thanks for posting.

PS should your title be "canon FD f4.5/400mm..."?


It would be great to see, and I have an A7RII if you want help.

Also some very useful information through the whole thread.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:23 pm    Post subject: 400mm megatest Reply with quote




  1. Ensinor (generic) 400mm f6.3. The smaller 67mm filter variant of the generic 400mm f6.3's.
  2. Tamron 400mm f7.2. t-mount original 1960's.
  3. Tamron "nestar" 400mm f6.9. Preset, t-mount original 1960's.
  4. Soligor "chrome eared" (9xxxxx) 400mm f6.3. 1969-71.
  5. Hanimex (Tokyo Koki) 400mm f6.3. Tokina made, 1960's.
  6. Optomax (Tokina RMC) 400mm f6.3. Rebadged tokina, fixed mount, 1970's.
  7. Soligor (tokina) 400mm f6.3. Tokina made, similar #4.
  8. Panagor 400mm f5.6 - attributed to komine.
  9. Vivitar TX 400mm f5.6. Swappable tx mount, tokina made version 1.
  10. Vivitar TX 400mm f5.6. Swappable tx mount, tokina made. version 2.
  11. Sigma MC 400mm f5.6. The non -apo sigma.
  12. Tokina SD 400mm f5.6. The top of the line tokina MF 400mm.
  13. Hoya (=tokina RMC) 400mm f5.6.
  14. Sigma "apo" 400mm f5.6. The 2nd gen "apo" 400mm, 1988 to 1995.
  15. Novoflex T-noflexar 400mm f5.6 "pigriff B" trigger follow focus + bellows.


As you can see I've accumulated a goodly assortment to work with, it would be great to get some full frame results but Stourbridge is a bit of a way from Conwy...

ps anyone know how tables are implemented in bbcode here...

Last edited by marcusBMG on Wed Aug 07, 2019 4:26 pm; edited 4 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Steve, thanks once again for your thorough analysis. I must set matters straight, however. Of all the photos I posted from my Canon 400/4.5, the only one in which CAs were removed was that one photo of the ring-necked dove. I didn't do anything with the others.

When I first examined the photos you presented from your 400/4.5, they just seemed wrong to me. I did not attempt to subject them to any sort of analysis. I just wasn't used to seeing the same level of CAs with my 400/4.5 as yours exhibited. But obviously I can't take mine out and give it another workout, since mine was stolen. I've thought often about replacing it, but I can't justify the expense, not when I can attach a 1.4x TC to my Tamron 300/2.8 LD IF and have what would probably be a better lens.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I can meet you anywhere en Route and bring a telephoto or two mostly AF or Mirror.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 2:06 pm    Post subject: Re: 400mm megatest Reply with quote
marcusBMG wrote:

ps anyone know how tables are implemented in bbcode here...


I found a bunch of stuff when I did a search. Given that this bbs is powered by phpBB, you might want to try starting here:

https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=2417786

And a site with more general information:

https://www.bbcode.org/examples/?id=14

If you need additional information, just type "tables" and "bbcode" into your favorite search engine.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Test using bbcode copied from https://www.bbcode.org/examples/?id=14

[table]
[tr]
[th]Name[/th]
[th]Age[/th]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]John[/td]
[td]65[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Gitte[/td]
[td]40[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Sussie[/td]
[td]19[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

Edit: doesn't work here.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 5:27 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Blazer0ne wrote:

I think the problem with allowing table formatting in forums is that if someone decides to quote you and include that table code they can mess it up and make the response look like a garbage pile. Code is one step closer but can still suffer from grapevine issues. Screen shots would be better in this domain.


Well I can see that might happen if the quote was a selection of only part of the table.
In any case my post was really just a list and there is a list tag.. update figured out the list. List item is square bracket asterisk squarebracket.

In the meantime, an opportunity to repeat my pet peeve: everyone lazily clicking quote and duplicating/triplicating etc sets of pics. Only takes a mo to select and delete the pics.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 4:46 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Screen shot not usually searchable...


PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 4:46 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Steve, thanks once again for your thorough analysis. I must set matters straight, however. Of all the photos I posted from my Canon 400/4.5, the only one in which CAs were removed was that one photo of the ring-necked dove. I didn't do anything with the others.


Thank you for this clarification! Please don't get me wrong - i always appreciate to read your postings, often containing interesting information i see for the first time. And usually very reliable information Wink.


cooltouch wrote:

When I first examined the photos you presented from your 400/4.5, they just seemed wrong to me.

Did you ever use your FD 4.5/400 mm on 24MP full frame? I have checked it in the mean time, using the "APS-C crop mode" of my A7II. Lateral CAs seem much less pronounced on 12 MP APS-C.

cooltouch wrote:
I've thought often about replacing it, but I can't justify the expense, not when I can attach a 1.4x TC to my Tamron 300/2.8 LD IF and have what would probably be a better lens.

That's something i can understand. I would recommend other lenses, such as the Canon EF 5.6/400mm L which is perfect even at f5.6.

Stephan

EDIT: Today, I compared the the FD 4.5/400, the Novoflex 5.6/400, the Canon nFD 2.8/400 L, the Hexanon ARM 4.5/400 with both the Minolta 8/500 and Nikkor 8/500 (second version, released 1984) mirror lenses. Interesting results!! To be published soon Wink
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2