FD 300/2.8 L versus SSC Fluorite

Langstrum · Joined: 16 Feb 2014 Posts: 351

It's a rare chance to get either L or SSC Fluorite version of FD 300/2.8, even you cannot find a Fluorite version sold on the Internet recently. It has been a myth that the older version, the Fluorite, is a better lens, but no one can really say. It was lucky for me since I can find both in Korea with reasonably cheap price. I don't want to keep them both because they're both heavy to transport, I can bring only one home, so I want to figure out which one is a better lens.

Physical size, ergonomic: (from aflenses.net database)

FD 300/2.8 SSC Fluorite (1975): 6 elements in 5 groups (1 FL), 9 aperture blades, MFD: 3.5 m or 11.5 ft, weight: 1900 g, length: 230 mm, breech-lock mount
FD 300/2.8 L (1981-1984): 9 elements in 7 groups (1 FL, 1 UD), 9 aperture blades, MFD: 3 m or 9.8 ft, weight: 2310 g, length: 245 mm, new FD mount

In fact, black SSC Fluorite is a bit longer than the white L lens and they both have a non-detachable hood that can be extended and retracted. The one I show here is when the hoods were fully retracted. Even though the L lens is heavier, it's not much difference to feel in practice since they're both heavy and need support from monopod/tripod.

FD 300/2.8 Fluorite vs FD 300/2.8 L

In term of image quality, I did two comparison tests at wide open (since I care about wide open performance the most):

First test, I used M mode with fixed shutter speed, ISO, f/2.8, AWB, at the same distance. In this test, image of the Fluorite lens appeared to be darker and more contrast, and it's like a 320mm lens rather than 300mm, as it reached further than L lens. With less elements, however, Fluorite lens has weaker light transmission, and chromatic aberration, if any, is very well controlled and almost the same as L lens. Wide open center sharpness of two lenses is very similar, the L lens is a hair better but I doubt that since the shallow DOF can produces different results depending on my focus ability.

FD 300mm f/2.8 battle 2

Second test, I used Aperture priority mode, fixed ISO, f/2.8, AWB, at different distance (because I found that the Fluorite reached further than the L version). Using Spot metering, shutter speed of Fluorite lens was 1/250 while it was 1/500 with L lens. I increased 20% the exposure of photo from L lens to make them even closer, so I guess T stop of Fluorite lens is about 4/5 stop weaker than L lens. At the same exposure, it's clearly that Fluorite lens produced more contrast and saturated photo, and again, they're almost the same in term of sharpness. In this test, the focus point of L lens was slightly different from focus point when I used Fluorite lens.

FD 300mm f/2.8 battle 3

It's interesting to know the different of these lenses and what Canon did to improve an older version to newer version. It was some sacrifice (contrast, saturation) in quality but better in ergonomic. I found it's easier to handle L lens due to more proper position of the tripod collar, and the focus ring is more smooth while I had to support the front part of Fluorite lens with two fingers to make it easier to turn the focus ring. 0.5 m closer MFD of L lens is quite valuable here since you can achieve more shallow DOF and higher magnification.

I will keep L lens and sell Fluorite lens because the advantage of Fluorite lens can be easily compensated with post processing. However, they will stay with me for a while since I want to know more about them.

uhoh7 · Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA

The elephant in the Canon design room between these two designs:

300/2.8 ais by unoh7, Nikkor 300/2.8 AIS ED

In 1977 that Nikkor was a total revelation and made a serious statement among the pros. At 1500USD (near 6K in todays money) it was seldom bought by individuals but became a mainstay in the press corp. I've never seen a better Nikkor lens. Certainly there have been many nice sharp nikkors, but the combination of great sharpness and a bokeh which must have impressed even Walter Mandler (no Leica lens has better Bokeh), was and is just incredible.

They still often bring over 1k USD. I don't think there has ever been a better 300, but AF makes things a lot easier at F/2.8 LOL

That was the first Nikkor "ED" Smile

Langstrum · Joined: 16 Feb 2014 Posts: 351

@uhoh7: Nikkor 300/2.8 AiS ED is a respectable lens. The main reason I got the FDs is because I've almost finished with my FD collection and they're shorter, lighter, if not mention the FD L shares the drop-in filter with my EF 200/1.8 L. I don't have any chance to try the Nikkor but as far as I found, they're equally sharp, but it seems like Nikkor lens is prone to get a bit more chromatic aberration.

In South Korea, it's easier to get the Nikkor, they're being sold for about $800 to $1200 depending on the conditions, and that's about 50% cheaper than FD counterparts.

I was not much interested in 300mm-ish MF lenses but recently there was a guy reporting that he can do autofocus using Techart Pro adapter with his FD 500/4.5 L. My adapter is on the way coming to me so I really want to try out these lenses with AF capability. If it can work, many people like you can me can get more keepers with these beasts.

Abbazz · Joined: 23 Jun 2007 Posts: 1098 Location: Jakarta

uhoh7 · Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA

Great history!

The FD L lens seems to go for around 750:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-New-FD-300mm-f-2-8-L-Manual-Focus-Lens-/222102473810?hash=item33b656cc52:g:87IAAOSw2GlXJCxF

A bit cheaper than similar nikkors. I wonder how many of each were made?

It appears there may have been 28,000 AIS EDIF lenses made, going by serial numbers. That seems high.

eugene1979 · Joined: 05 Nov 2014 Posts: 25

Lightshow · Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3669 Location: Calgary

I would pick the SSC Fluorite version, because it would fit in my SSC collection.