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 nFD 70 210 f4, 70 150 f4,5 and 75 200 f4,5
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2022 11:42 am    Post subject: Canon nFD 70 210 f4, 70 150 f4,5 and 75 200 f4,5 Reply with quote
For whatever reason my 70 150 has brutally developed a huge amount of fungus while it was store in a plastic box and exposed to light. Hope its neighbours will not reach the same fate.

I bought for a nice price its replacement and I am very happy with it. Perhaps an even better copy than the previous one.

In the course of surfing the web for the replacement I came along with a few offers for the 70 210 f4 or 75 200 f4,5, although at a higher price.

This lens has good reputation : http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-fd-70-210mm-f-4-t39782.html

But I have considered the 70 150 to be really close to the 80 200 f4 L and I am wondering whether there is an interest in buying the 70 210 F4 or he 75 200 f4,5. I am in love with cheap lenses. It is not a rational attitude since I have so many cheap lenses that I could certainly sell them all for a few expensive ones and save some money.

But I am glad when a cheap lens comes close or beats a more expensive one. Kind of David against Goliath reminiscence.

So any information about the 70 210 or the 75 200 in comparison with the 70 150 and 80 200 L might help me spend a little bit more money.


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2022 4:29 pm    Post subject: Re: Canon nFD 70 210 f4, 70 150 f4,5 and 75 200 f4,5 Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
For whatever reason my 70 150 has brutally developed a huge amount of fungus while it was store in a plastic box and exposed to light. Hope its neighbours will not reach the same fate.

I bought for a nice price its replacement and I am very happy with it. Perhaps an even better copy than the previous one.

In the course of surfing the web for the replacement I came along with a few offers for the 70 210 f4 or 75 200 f4,5, although at a higher price.

This lens has good reputation : http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-fd-70-210mm-f-4-t39782.html

But I have considered the 70 150 to be really close to the 80 200 f4 L and I am wondering whether there is an interest in buying the 70 210 F4 or he 75 200 f4,5. I am in love with cheap lenses. It is not a rational attitude since I have so many cheap lenses that I could certainly sell them all for a few expensive ones and save some money.

But I am glad when a cheap lens comes close or beats a more expensive one. Kind of David against Goliath reminiscence.

So any information about the 70 210 or the 75 200 in comparison with the 70 150 and 80 200 L might help me spend a little bit more money.


Unless you want to start a collection of Canon FD lenses, I wouldn't see a lot of sense in adding the 70-210 f/4 and/or the 75-200 mm f/4,5 to your existing 80-200 f/4 L since both of them are a little bit inferior to the L lens in terms of resolution and contrast, especially at the longer focal lengths. Nethertheless, both are solid lenses which can defend themselves against similar contemporary lenses.






The 75-200 mm f/4,5 is a budget lens so the exterior is fully clad in high quality plastics. I quite like it because it is very light and short/ Both lenses have a macro setting at the shortest focal length but the 70-210 mm is much more convenient to use since the MFD is 1,2 instead of 1,8 m for the 75-200 mm f/4,5. If you want to have an alternative tele zoom for your 80-200 mm L, I would suggest you looking for a 80-200 f/4 non L - while IQ wise it is very similar to the 70-210 mm f/4, it offers a beautiful built quality, separate ajustments for the focus and the focal length and a MFD of only 1 m, great for close-ups.

Bien cordialement

Volker
[/img]


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2022 5:13 pm    Post subject: Re: Canon nFD 70 210 f4, 70 150 f4,5 and 75 200 f4,5 Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
For whatever reason my 70 150 has brutally developed a huge amount of fungus while it was store in a plastic box and exposed to light. Hope its neighbours will not reach the same fate....


Need airtight container with humidity & temperature control to prevent fungal growth. Light exposure that doesn't raise temperature of container contents is probably okay but not essential -- my lenses stored in darkness for years haven't developed fungus. I use Pelican cases, renewable Silica Gel, & inexpensive temperature/humidity meter.


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2022 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It really depends on where you live. Humidity plays a large part in it. A closed box will actually benefit fungi, as does darkness.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3864060/


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2022 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If my instrument is correct there is 40% humidity in my house. I guess that is not scary and nevertheless...


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2022 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have not had much luck with FD zooms.
The reasonably priced ones that I could find suffered quite badly from slowly opening, or frozen aperture blades.
This was really disappointing after the high quality of the FD 135 2.8...

-D.S.


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2022 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
If my instrument is correct there is 40% humidity in my house. I guess that is not scary and nevertheless...


Perhaps temperature drops to Dew Point or below, where moisture condenses on surfaces and surface contaminants, promoting fungal growth.


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2022 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
If my instrument is correct there is 40% humidity in my house. I guess that is not scary and nevertheless...


A sealed box can be very problematic when the temperature drops; whilst the RH outside of the box may remain within safe limits, if the box is hermetically sealed the drop in temperature can increase the RH inside the box very quickly to "danger" levels, i.e. RH of 65%-70% or higher.

Particularly problematic is a box that is opened during the summer period (lots of water vapour in the warm air), gets closed during the autumn period (still warm + very high RH during autumn showers) and then left to cool down in a closed state during the winter months (lots of water vapour inside the sealed box that has nowhere to go as the temperature drops -> very high RH.) My apologies for the northern hemisphere perspective here Wink

That is why, when storing lenses in a sealed box, the use of a desiccant such as a rechargeable silica-gel pouch is essential. This needs to be checked regularly for exhaustion and then either recharged (dried) or replaced with fresh desiccant. If you don't use a desiccant inside the box, it is better to leave to box a bit open so it can equalise the RH inside the box against that of the outside air (assuming the RH in the room where the box is kept stays within acceptable levels).

The same problem applies to the air inside sealed air-spaced lenses/optics; hence in more expensive optics susceptible to rapid temperature changes and high RH environments these air spaces are sometimes charged with dry nitrogen and then sealed in the factory (e.g. marine binoculars).


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2022 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
lumens pixel wrote:
If my instrument is correct there is 40% humidity in my house. I guess that is not scary and nevertheless...


Perhaps temperature drops to Dew Point or below, where moisture condenses on surfaces and surface contaminants, promoting fungal growth.


You don't need to get to the dew point for fungus to start growing. Two weeks of sustained RH levels above 65-70% is enough for viable spores to germinate or for dormant fungus to continue growing.

Below 50% RH already growing fungus goes dormant, so bringing RH levels below 50% for a few days and then maintaining RH levels below 60% going forward should prevent further fungal damage. If fungus was already growing then metabolic by-products such as acids should be removed where possible.

Glass and coatings aren't a food-source for fungi, but dust and oil residues are, so keeping the glass clean is also an effective preventative measure.


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2022 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Our house is very old, very poorly insulated and very damp. I run two dehumidifiers constantly and moniter the humidity, I manage to keep it in the low - mid 40% range. All my keeper lenses are in glass fronted book cases, sellers in semi clear, non airtight, plastic boxes. No front caps, just back caps. None of my lenses have developed fungus, and those that have a bit haven't got any worse.

A few years ago, before I got the dehumidifiers, I stored some lenses in an industrial steel cabinet under the stairs, obviously in the dark. Within 7 or 8 months all the lenses were ruined, so severely fungused they were etched. The cabinet sweated and condensation ran down the inside. I had no need at that time to go in the cabinet and didn't realise what was happening, thankfully they weren't 'good' lenses that I wanted to keep.

The Canon Zooms...I had the FD 80-200 / 4 many years ago which I used on my Canon A1. I wish I still had that lens, it was superb.


PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2022 7:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:


The Canon Zooms...I had the FD 80-200 / 4 many years ago which I used on my Canon A1. I wish I still had that lens, it was superb.


Thanks for puttting the thread back on track. What I sometimes deplore with you guys is that you're able to ruin a thread by hijacking the original topic Wink


PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2022 7:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well I expressed too quickly my satisfaction about my recent 70 150. The lens is wobbling. The mount is perfectly stiff but the connection between the mount and the barrel is not tight. Means I have to open the rear part of the lens which is always dreadful with an nFD zoom. Will have to find what screws are involved and how far I would need to go or just let it go. And then mess up with the aperture system.


PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2022 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well. With Canon you can!


PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2022 10:08 am    Post subject: Re: Canon nFD 70 210 f4, 70 150 f4,5 and 75 200 f4,5 Reply with quote
Alsatian2017 wrote:
lumens pixel wrote:
For whatever reason my 70 150 has brutally developed a huge amount of fungus while it was store in a plastic box and exposed to light. Hope its neighbours will not reach the same fate.

I bought for a nice price its replacement and I am very happy with it. Perhaps an even better copy than the previous one.

In the course of surfing the web for the replacement I came along with a few offers for the 70 210 f4 or 75 200 f4,5, although at a higher price.

This lens has good reputation : http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-fd-70-210mm-f-4-t39782.html

But I have considered the 70 150 to be really close to the 80 200 f4 L and I am wondering whether there is an interest in buying the 70 210 F4 or he 75 200 f4,5. I am in love with cheap lenses. It is not a rational attitude since I have so many cheap lenses that I could certainly sell them all for a few expensive ones and save some money.

But I am glad when a cheap lens comes close or beats a more expensive one. Kind of David against Goliath reminiscence.

So any information about the 70 210 or the 75 200 in comparison with the 70 150 and 80 200 L might help me spend a little bit more money.


Unless you want to start a collection of Canon FD lenses, I wouldn't see a lot of sense in adding the 70-210 f/4 and/or the 75-200 mm f/4,5 to your existing 80-200 f/4 L since both of them are a little bit inferior to the L lens in terms of resolution and contrast, especially at the longer focal lengths. Nethertheless, both are solid lenses which can defend themselves against similar contemporary lenses.






The 75-200 mm f/4,5 is a budget lens so the exterior is fully clad in high quality plastics. I quite like it because it is very light and short/ Both lenses have a macro setting at the shortest focal length but the 70-210 mm is much more convenient to use since the MFD is 1,2 instead of 1,8 m for the 75-200 mm f/4,5. If you want to have an alternative tele zoom for your 80-200 mm L, I would suggest you looking for a 80-200 f/4 non L - while IQ wise it is very similar to the 70-210 mm f/4, it offers a beautiful built quality, separate ajustments for the focus and the focal length and a MFD of only 1 m, great for close-ups.

Bien cordialement

Volker
[/img]


Merci Volker.

Said differently I am wondering which of the cheap 70 200 approx. zooms is closest in quality to the non ruined 70 150. So I can live with moderate CA, not asking for the apochromatic quality of the L but still retaining sharpness and contrast of the cheap 70 150. The lighter the better so my interest in your opinion about the 75 200, 70 210 and 80 200 non L which is a tad on the heavy side. Yes the MFD of the 75 200 is somewhat disapointing.


PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2022 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have not tried the 7o-15o, but the other three, some in several copies. The L and 7o-21o are nearly identical, with no clear winner, except of course in focal length range. At least the 7o-21o is also very rugged and very consistent across samples.
The 75-2oo is visibly less sharp than either - so much so that you can see it in the viewfinder already. And its optimal aperture is 11 IIRC, slower than the 8 of the others. I much appreciate low weight for hiking, but in spite of its advantage, I went back to the 7o-21o.
More information may be found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XHrXeijkKB_ULZxcgJK_v4iPBbxAfOuuo-VuP5ESDvA/edit?usp=drive_web&ouid=108628632450090560676


PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2022 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kathala wrote:
I have not tried the 7o-15o, but the other three, some in several copies. The L and 7o-21o are nearly identical, with no clear winner, except of course in focal length range. At least the 7o-21o is also very rugged and very consistent across samples.
The 75-2oo is visibly less sharp than either - so much so that you can see it in the viewfinder already. And its optimal aperture is 11 IIRC, slower than the 8 of the others. I much appreciate low weight for hiking, but in spite of its advantage, I went back to the 7o-21o.
More information may be found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XHrXeijkKB_ULZxcgJK_v4iPBbxAfOuuo-VuP5ESDvA/edit?usp=drive_web&ouid=108628632450090560676


Many thanks. That is a huge amount of helpful information.


PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2022 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You're very welcome!
It would be cynical to add: in case you chose the 75-2oo, I'd have one for sale... Wink


PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2022 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kathala wrote:
I have not tried the 7o-15o, but the other three, some in several copies. The L and 7o-21o are nearly identical, with no clear winner, except of course in focal length range. At least the 7o-21o is also very rugged and very consistent across samples.
The 75-2oo is visibly less sharp than either - so much so that you can see it in the viewfinder already. And its optimal aperture is 11 IIRC, slower than the 8 of the others. I much appreciate low weight for hiking, but in spite of its advantage, I went back to the 7o-21o.
More information may be found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XHrXeijkKB_ULZxcgJK_v4iPBbxAfOuuo-VuP5ESDvA/edit?usp=drive_web&ouid=108628632450090560676



I wouldn't go as far as you in claiming that the IQ of the 70-210 mm is similar to that of the 80-200 L since in my opinion, the 80-200 f/4 "old" and the 70-210 mm are about equal while the 80-200 L is clearly better beyond 135 mm with more contrast and less (that is no) color fringing. Nethertheless, the 70-210 mm would be a good choice, better than the 75-200, because of the MFD of 1,2 m and the better build quality.


PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2022 6:40 pm    Post subject: Re: Canon nFD 70 210 f4, 70 150 f4,5 and 75 200 f4,5 Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:



Said differently I am wondering which of the cheap 70 200 approx. zooms is closest in quality to the non ruined 70 150. So I can live with moderate CA, not asking for the apochromatic quality of the L but still retaining sharpness and contrast of the cheap 70 150. The lighter the better so my interest in your opinion about the 75 200, 70 210 and 80 200 non L which is a tad on the heavy side. Yes the MFD of the 75 200 is somewhat disapointing.


In that case, the 70-210 mm f/4 might be the best choice. Nethertheless, you might be slightly disappointed by the IQ of the lens (and that of most contemporary 70/80-200/210 mm lenses..) since the 70-150 is only matched by the Minolta MD 70-150 when it comes to resolution, contrast and lack of chromatic aberration. At that time, zoom lenses with a zoom factor of 2 were the sweet spot (35-70, 75-150) while zoom lenses with a zoom factor approaching 3 were subject to optical compromises without having special glass and/or aspherical surfaces.


PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2022 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Food or thought. So I need a fourth 70 150.... Since I might well fail repairing this one.


PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2022 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
So I bought another lens. Here are the results. Would you tell which lens is which from the ones listed in the title of the thread (including for the sake of completeness the 80 200 L)

All pics cooked to taste in Rawtherapee. I do not save jpegs on my SD Card. All pics displaying much higher clarity on the software editor.


Pic taken and the longer range of the zoom:

#1


Middle crop of same:

#2


Pic taken at the middle range of the zoom:

#3


Extreme right bottom crop of same:

#4


Pic taken at the longer range of the zoom:

#5


Crop at the line of thirds:

#6


Last edited by lumens pixel on Mon May 23, 2022 3:19 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2022 6:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've always been bad in the guessing game and furthermore, most lenses are just lacking specific traits making it nearly impossible to distinguish them in images made with them Wink

But since I'm seeing octogonal circles of confusion, you might have used the FD 70-210 mm f/4.


PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2022 7:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alsatian2017 wrote:
I've always been bad in the guessing game and furthermore, most lenses are just lacking specific traits making it nearly impossible to distinguish them in images made with them Wink

But since I'm seeing octogonal circles of confusion, you might have used the FD 70-210 mm f/4.


So you are excellent at the guessing game....!

Thank you all for the good advice. I think I am going to like it.


PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2022 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't have any experience of these Canon Fd zooms but I can recommend the ubiquitous Vivitar Series 1 70-210, it's a bit of a heavy beast, but performs very well for a vintage zoom. Best of all, it's dirt cheap and easy to find. The first two versions are probably the best, I have three or four of them, acquired when buying job lots and they are well worth keeping and using.


PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2022 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I don't have any experience of these Canon Fd zooms but I can recommend the ubiquitous Vivitar Series 1 70-210, it's a bit of a heavy beast, but performs very well for a vintage zoom. Best of all, it's dirt cheap and easy to find. The first two versions are probably the best, I have three or four of them, acquired when buying job lots and they are well worth keeping and using.


I have never owned one of these but I have red that the third version was the best (the 2,8-4,0). You should try this FD. I have paid mine 55 euros.

The 80 200 L is not better up to 135/150mm provided you add a tad of micro-contrast in post; and if you close to 6,7 they are comparable at the longest range in the center and on the whole frame at f8. In some cases you must correct a limited amount of CA.

So considering the few seconds needed to deal with micro-contrast and CA, it is quite a good lens.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2