View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
nathanbarlow
Joined: 01 Dec 2012 Posts: 12
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2023 3:47 am Post subject: FD or M42: 300mm? suggestions on next glass? |
|
|
nathanbarlow wrote:
Hiya,
been lurking far too long , used to be on here loads back in my under-employed student days before it all got serious and adult-like.
Basically, now that I have a Proper Job(TM) and getting some financial stability behind me.... it has come with some G.A.S as a side dish, and some reminders to make a .... nay not a reckless spend, ...an "investment"
So looking for advice on a big fat tele.
lol love a good tele. or open to suggestions or advice on where to expand my glass into (or replace?)
Got my eye on Canon 300mm FD SSC f2.8 which is like eyepopping amazing
Howver there is also a Canon 300mm FD f/4 , and we are talking like a fifth of the price.
Like the f/4 is like a day or two's wage lol.....the f/2.8 is a proper chunk of change (seen one decent used for a reasonable price, seen 4 other examples for ludicrious prices from Japan, mint condition tho, but thats wasted on me, im a user and abuser on the ole camera system)
Wanted to ask is ....at 300mm is it really that big a deal with the 2.8? I know its the fluorite magical "pre-L" lens tech and well a little bit of the rarity of the FD and that its a very highly rated lens for its era.
Love me fast glass and my FD 200mm f/2.8 L changed my entire photography style when i got it (about 8 years ago now)
Im aware when i adapt FD to EOS i lose 2/3 stop, so an F4 becomes pretty slow indeed. Thats why the f/2.8 appeals here.
Also thinking future proof, as its likely my next camera will be mirrorless when mirrorless is 5-10years older than it is now, as currently FD glass wont need an optical element in the adapter to mirrorless is my understanding (i.e once i move off EOS in into M or R when its not current flagship tech)
I'm into landscape slash action shots, timelapses, ND filters, long exposures kinda stuff....maybe more acurrate to say "travel photog" ...im into hiking and traveling etc outside of photography so i pair those interests up
My Samyang is my "poor lens" of the bunch as i can only shoot wide open f4 on it (needs a different M42 adapter which ive never actually got around to ordering) but its just so versatile as a wide zoom, mind you it got dropped off the top of a tripod ontop of a tour bus and survived, just needs a little lovetap now and then to move back from 28mm
Could be wide angle where I look to spend on my glass?
open to suggestions on glass - or even going something standard length and going past f16 f22 ...like lenses with f32? multi-bladed iris? something with snazzy unique image quality?
chuck me your favorite m42/FD suggestions ?
Cheers
-------------------------------------
Canon D60 (2002 model) (APS-C sensor)
------------------------------------
200mm Canon FD f2.8 (L)
135mm Helios M42 f2.8
50mm Helios M42 f1.8
18-28mm Samyang M42 f4-4.5
------------------------
24-85mm Canon EF (USM) - an AF lens (travel zoom lens)
50mm Canon EF f1.8 (AF nifty fifity lightweight for travelling) _________________ M42, FD on EOS D60 : flickr
Canon D60 (2002 model) (APS-C sensor)
200mm Canon FD f2.8 (L)
135mm Helios M42 f2.8
50mm Helios M42 f1.8
18-28mm Samyang M42 f4-4.5
24-85mm Canon EF (USM)
50mm Canon EF f1.8
yes thats 1970s glass on a Noughties 2nd gen dSLR. Just keeping it funky |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6000 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2023 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
The Canon FD 300mm f5.6 is even better value and is very sharp.
Given that your styles of photography don't demand speed, it could suit you quite nicely.
Also it is dirt cheap
Tom |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 875
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2023 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
Oldhand wrote: |
The Canon FD 300mm f5.6 is even better value and is very sharp.
Given that your styles of photography don't demand speed, it could suit you quite nicely.
Also it is dirt cheap
Tom |
+1 _________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
philslizzy
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4744 Location: Cheshire, England
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2023 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
philslizzy wrote:
This* came up today along with your post. A Canon FD lens catalogue, browse through it and check out on ebay any that you may be interested in.
Though to be honest if you are using it on a Canon FD or EOS body then M42, Nikon, Exakta and PK lenses can be adapted perfectly. Why not broaden your search?
* http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-new-fd-lens-book-and-canon-new-fd-lens-poster-t84863.html _________________ Hero in the 'messin-with-cameras-for-the-hell-of-it department'. Official. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Alsatian2017
Joined: 05 Mar 2018 Posts: 239
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2023 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Alsatian2017 wrote:
I've been using the nFD 300 mm f/5,6 and 300 mm f/4 lenses and both are really nice in terms of ergonomics (thanks to the Rear focusing manual focusing is quick, easy and smooth) and image quality (apart from the lateral and longitudinal chromatic aberrations which clean up quite well in Camera Raw or Lightroom). I've since sold the 300 mm f/5,6 since I'm using a tripod quite often for my landscape photography and the faster variant accepts a tripod adapter while being as sharp at f/4 as the slower one at f/5,6.
If you have more money to spend, consider the 300 mm f/4 L which is every bit as good as the much costlier 300 mm f/2,8 L. Note that the older FL and FD SSC variants of the 300 mm f/2,8 dont have IF or RF - focusing will be much slower and less confortable. _________________ Personal website : https://volkergilbertphoto.com
Classic lenses : https://volkergilbertphoto.com/objektive/
Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/volker.gilbert/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Alsatian2017
Joined: 05 Mar 2018 Posts: 239
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2023 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Alsatian2017 wrote:
Alsatian2017 wrote: |
I've been using the nFD 300 mm f/5,6 and 300 mm f/4 lenses and both are really nice in terms of ergonomics (thanks to the Rear focusing manual focusing is quick, easy and smooth) and image quality (apart from the lateral and longitudinal chromatic aberrations which clean up quite well in Camera Raw or Lightroom). I've since sold the 300 mm f/5,6 since I'm using a tripod quite often for my landscape photography and the faster variant accepts a tripod adapter while being as sharp at f/4 as the slower one at f/5,6.
If you have more money to spend, consider the 300 mm f/4 L which is every bit as good as the much costlier 300 mm f/2,8 L. Note that the older FL and FD SSC variants of the 300 mm f/2,8 dont have IF or RF - focusing will be much slower and less confortable. |
I just discovered that you're using and old and trusty Canon D60. How are you adapting the FD 200 mm f/2,8 (BTW, no such thing as a "L" lens with these specifications in the FD line...), with a glassless (no infinity) or a glass adapter (nort recommended for good IQ) ? I would then exclude Canon FD, Minolta MC/MD and Konica AR lenses and rather opt for Nikon Nikkor, Contax/Yashica, Pentax K, Olympus OM or M42 lenses which you'll be able to adapt without the hassle of losing the infinity focusing or the image quality. Among those, the Nikkor 300 mm f/4 in AI-version is cheap and good, the Nikkor ED variant even better. The Olympus Zuiko OM 300 mm f/4,5 might be a worthwhile alternative. Other lenses like the Pentax PK and Pentacon 300 mm f/4 as well as the Tair 300 mm f/4,5 are just too bulky and heavy while the Zeiss/Contax and Pentax M-Star 300 mm f/4 can be rather expensive. _________________ Personal website : https://volkergilbertphoto.com
Classic lenses : https://volkergilbertphoto.com/objektive/
Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/volker.gilbert/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3169 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2023 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
If you're willing to look beyond FD/M42 I can recommend the Mamiya Sekor 300mm f/5.6 for the M645 system.
It's quite lightweight, and the best lens you're gonna find for the money. Don't go for the ULD version, as it is more expensive, and not better than the regular version.
MamiyaSekorC30056_9 by devoscasper, on Flickr
MamiyaSekorC30056_7 by devoscasper, on Flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RokkorDoctor
Joined: 27 Nov 2021 Posts: 1415 Location: Kent, UK
Expire: 2025-05-01
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2023 12:19 pm Post subject: Re: FD or M42: 300mm? suggestions on next glass? |
|
|
RokkorDoctor wrote:
nathanbarlow wrote: |
Hiya,
been lurking far too long , used to be on here loads back in my under-employed student days before it all got serious and adult-like.
Basically, now that I have a Proper Job(TM) and getting some financial stability behind me.... it has come with some G.A.S as a side dish, and some reminders to make a .... nay not a reckless spend, ...an "investment"
So looking for advice on a big fat tele.
lol love a good tele. or open to suggestions or advice on where to expand my glass into (or replace?)
Got my eye on Canon 300mm FD SSC f2.8 which is like eyepopping amazing
Howver there is also a Canon 300mm FD f/4 , and we are talking like a fifth of the price.
Like the f/4 is like a day or two's wage lol.....the f/2.8 is a proper chunk of change (seen one decent used for a reasonable price, seen 4 other examples for ludicrious prices from Japan, mint condition tho, but thats wasted on me, im a user and abuser on the ole camera system)
Wanted to ask is ....at 300mm is it really that big a deal with the 2.8? I know its the fluorite magical "pre-L" lens tech and well a little bit of the rarity of the FD and that its a very highly rated lens for its era.
Love me fast glass and my FD 200mm f/2.8 L changed my entire photography style when i got it (about 8 years ago now)
Im aware when i adapt FD to EOS i lose 2/3 stop, so an F4 becomes pretty slow indeed. Thats why the f/2.8 appeals here.
Also thinking future proof, as its likely my next camera will be mirrorless when mirrorless is 5-10years older than it is now, as currently FD glass wont need an optical element in the adapter to mirrorless is my understanding (i.e once i move off EOS in into M or R when its not current flagship tech)
I'm into landscape slash action shots, timelapses, ND filters, long exposures kinda stuff....maybe more acurrate to say "travel photog" ...im into hiking and traveling etc outside of photography so i pair those interests up
My Samyang is my "poor lens" of the bunch as i can only shoot wide open f4 on it (needs a different M42 adapter which ive never actually got around to ordering) but its just so versatile as a wide zoom, mind you it got dropped off the top of a tripod ontop of a tour bus and survived, just needs a little lovetap now and then to move back from 28mm
Could be wide angle where I look to spend on my glass?
open to suggestions on glass - or even going something standard length and going past f16 f22 ...like lenses with f32? multi-bladed iris? something with snazzy unique image quality?
chuck me your favorite m42/FD suggestions ?
Cheers
-------------------------------------
Canon D60 (2002 model) (APS-C sensor)
------------------------------------
200mm Canon FD f2.8 (L)
135mm Helios M42 f2.8
50mm Helios M42 f1.8
18-28mm Samyang M42 f4-4.5
------------------------
24-85mm Canon EF (USM) - an AF lens (travel zoom lens)
50mm Canon EF f1.8 (AF nifty fifity lightweight for travelling) |
A few observations:
You suggest you do a lot of travel photography. Whilst you are familiar with the 200/2.8 lens, you would be surprised at how much bigger a 300/2.8 is and how much heavier it feels when you have to carry it around all day.
You are also (maybe jokingly) talking about an "investment". The 300/2.8 you are looking at has a fluorite (= calcium fluoride) element. They were very expensive when new, and probably have already lost a lot of their "fluorite" exclusivity premium. I would expect their value to remain relatively constant, but probably still fall in context of inflation. They are a relatively affordable way to get your hands on what when new would have been unaffordable fluorite lenses. But be aware that fluorite lenses are really a ground & polished salt crystal, and are chemically more sensitive, soft, and more easily damaged than optical glass; exposure to humidity is their enemy, as well as mechanical shocks. _________________ Mark
SONY A7S, A7RII + dust-sealed modded Novoflex/Fotodiox/Rayqual MD-NEX adapters
Minolta SR-1, SRT-101/303, XD7/XD11, XGM, X700
Bronica SQAi
Ricoh GX100
Minolta majority of all Rokkor SR/AR/MC/MD models made
Sigma 14mm/3.5 for SR mount
Tamron SP 60B 300mm/2.8 (Adaptall)
Samyang T-S 24mm/3.5 (Nikon mount, DIY converted to SR mount)
Schneider-Kreuznach PC-Super-Angulon 28mm/2.8 (SR mount)
Bronica PS 35/40/50/65/80/110/135/150/180/200/250mm |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Crazy Leica Fox
Joined: 29 Apr 2017 Posts: 73
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2023 2:53 am Post subject: Re: FD or M42: 300mm? suggestions on next glass? |
|
|
Crazy Leica Fox wrote:
nathanbarlow wrote: |
Im aware when i adapt FD to EOS i lose 2/3 stop, so an F4 becomes pretty slow indeed. Thats why the f/2.8 appeals here. |
There's some great Canon FD/FL glass and I enjoy using it on mirrorless. But if you're adapting it to EF mount, I agree with posters above who say you should look to other lens systems that can be adapted without penalty. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gatorengineer64
Joined: 26 Oct 2017 Posts: 283
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2023 3:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gatorengineer64 wrote:
Will be contrarian here. A Nikon 300 2.8 ED is a better hunk of glass (unless you are talking L) that can be had for nothing. _________________ A7R4, GFX50R and a bucket of mflenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3953 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2023 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
I own quite a few of those lenses mentioned before, and since others not limited to Canon FD or M42 will read here as well, I'll add a few remarks based on my personal experience with these lenses on 24MP or 43 MP FF.
Canon FL 5.6/300mm SSC Fluorite: first fluorite lens ever (1968), very good CA correction, very good general correction, MFD 4m
Canon FL/FD 2.8/300mm SSC Fluorite: second fluorite lens ever (1968), very good CA correction, very good general correction, MFD 3.5m
Canon new FD 2.8/300mm L: perfect CA correction, excellent detail resolution, IF, beware of degraded/decayed plastic element in the focusing mechanism!!
Canon new FD 4/300mm L: very good CA correction, very good detail resolution, IF, MFD 3m
Canon new FD 4/300mm: mediocre CA correction, very good detail resolution, IF, lightweight, MFD 3m
Canon new FD 5.6/300mm: mediocre CA correction, very good detail resolution, IF, lightweight, MFD 3m
Konica AR 4.5/300mm: mediocre CA correction, good detail resolution, MFD 4m
Minolta MC 4.5/300mm mediocre CA correction, good detail resolution, MFD 4.5m
Minolta MD 4.5/300mm IF: mediocre CA correction, very good detail resolution, IF, MFD 3m
Minolta AF 2.8/300mm APO G: very good CA correction, very good detail resolution, MFD 2.5m (performance identical to Canon FL/FD 2.8/300 Fluorite)
Minolta (Sony) AF 2.8/300mm APO G SSM: perfect CA correction, near perfect detail resolution.
Mamiya Sekor CS and E 4/300mm: bad-mediocre CA correction, good detail resolution, well built AND lightweight, MFD 5m (!)
Mamiya Sekor C 5.6/300mm (ULD): near perfect CA correction, near perfect detail resolution, MFD 4m
Nikkor Ai 4.5/300mm: mediocre CA correction, good detail resolution, MFD 4m
Nikkor Ai 4.5/300mm ED: near perfect CA correction (400nm to 1000nm!), very good detail resolution, MFD 4m
Nikkor AiS 4.5/300mm ED-IF: mediocre-good CA correction, very good detail resolution, IF, MFD 2.5m
Olympus Zuiko OM 4.5/300mm: mediocre-good CA correction, very good detail resolution, MFD 3.5m
Pentax M* 4/300mm ED: mediocre-good CA correction, very good detail resolution, MFD
Pentax F 4.5/300mm IF-ED: very good CA correction, very good detail resolution, IF, MFD 2m (!)
Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 4/300mm (historical 1955 lens): bad CA correction, bad resolution, low contrast
Zeiss CY Sonnar 4/300mm: mediocre CA correction, very good detail resolution
several third party 4/300mm and 4.5/300mm lenses: Crap. very bad CAs and low corner resolution.
My two favourites from the above list are:
FAST: Canon new FD 2.8/300mm L
SLOW: Mamiya Sekor C 5.6/300mm (ULD)
Very good as well:
Canon FL 5.6/300mm Fluorite
Canon FL/FD 2.8/300mm Fluorite
Canon new FD 4/300mm L
Minolta AF 2.8/300mm APO G HS
Nikkor Ai 4.5/300mm ED "non-IF" (!)
Pentax F 4.5/300mm IF-ED
I have tested most of those lenses side-by-side, and the differences between an excellent 300mm lens (Mamiya Sekor C / Canon nFD) and the worst 3rd party lenses are just STUNNING. You'll never see such differences in the 28mm to 200mm range of vintage primes.
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3953 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2023 3:35 am Post subject: Re: FD or M42: 300mm? suggestions on next glass? |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
RokkorDoctor wrote: |
You suggest you do a lot of travel photography. Whilst you are familiar with the 200/2.8 lens, you would be surprised at how much bigger a 300/2.8 is and how much heavier it feels when you have to carry it around all day. |
True - but you can get results that you wouldn't have with a 5.6/300mm.
All images below with 2.8/300mm lenses.
For landscapes alone, I would recommend the Mamiya 5.6/300mm ULD of course.
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Alun Thomas
Joined: 20 Aug 2018 Posts: 655 Location: New Zealand
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2023 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Alun Thomas wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
Canon FL 5.6/300mm SSC Fluorite: first fluorite lens ever (1968), very good CA correction, very good general correction, MFD 4m
S |
Not directly related to the topic, but I had read that the Sonnar 30cm F/4 lens from 1938/40 used low dispersion glass made with fluorides. Would it be fair to say that lens was the first to use that technology, or are they different things?
By the way, a very good essay on the histroy of that lens (and others) can be found here (translation may be needed): https://www.nocsensei.com/camera/tecnica/marco-cavina/marcocavina/levoluzione-del-carl-zeiss-jena-sonnar-300mm-14/
Edit - the answer seems to be that Zeiss used a glass with fluorite in the glass composition, Canons lens element is made entirely from fluorite crystal with no glass in it. Interesting. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 2531
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2023 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
Hahahaa very funny
_________________ pentaxian |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sergun
Joined: 01 Jun 2017 Posts: 291 Location: наша раша
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2023 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sergun wrote:
I once had a Canon 300/5.6 on the first A7R. Recently, there has been a Mamiya Sekor C 300/5.6. This is heaven and earth. Firstly, the canon resolution does not even reach the level of the Mamiya Sekor 300/5.6, and secondly, chromatics and color.
mamiya300 https://photos.app.goo.gl/3pNkhsJ6MRqcr2EV7 _________________ https://www.flickr.com/photos/105161078@N06/
https://fotoload.ru/fotosets/6661/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3953 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2023 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Alun Thomas wrote: |
stevemark wrote: |
Canon FL 5.6/300mm SSC Fluorite: first fluorite lens ever (1968), very good CA correction, very good general correction, MFD 4m
S |
Not directly related to the topic, but I had read that the Sonnar 30cm F/4 lens from 1938/40 used low dispersion glass made with fluorides. Would it be fair to say that lens was the first to use that technology, or are they different things?
...
Edit - the answer seems to be that Zeiss used a glass with fluorite in the glass composition, Canons lens element is made entirely from fluorite crystal with no glass in it. Interesting. |
The early Sonnar 4/300mm did have glass with a relatively low dispersion (v=64 as far as I remember*) which was state of the art back then. I wouldn't consider it as LD (which usually is v=70), let alone as ULD/ED/AD (usually v=80, but Minolta AD glass up to 82). Fluorite crystals (not a glass!) are v>90.
Fluorite crystals (as first used in the Canon FL 5.6/300mm around 1968) have to be "grown" from oversaturated solutions. It's a painfully slow process which needs completely calm surroundings (earthquakes!). Once you have successfully grown the fluorite crystals (which may take years) they are very difficult to grind and polish since they easily cleave. In addidtion they are much softer than glass, and very easy to scratch. Very different from what Zeiss did with their fluor-containing glass in 1939!
S
* EDIT I was wrong - the early Sonnar 4/300mm for Contax SLR and Exakta SLR DID have one lens made from LD glass woith v=70! _________________ www.artaphot.ch
Last edited by stevemark on Fri Dec 01, 2023 8:13 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nathanbarlow
Joined: 01 Dec 2012 Posts: 12
|
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2023 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
nathanbarlow wrote:
Alsatian2017 wrote: |
I've been using the nFD 300 mm f/5,6 and 300 mm f/4 lenses and both are really nice in terms of ergonomics (thanks to the Rear focusing manual focusing is quick, easy and smooth) and image quality (apart from the lateral and longitudinal chromatic aberrations which clean up quite well in Camera Raw or Lightroom). I've since sold the 300 mm f/5,6 since I'm using a tripod quite often for my landscape photography and the faster variant accepts a tripod adapter while being as sharp at f/4 as the slower one at f/5,6.
If you have more money to spend, consider the 300 mm f/4 L which is every bit as good as the much costlier 300 mm f/2,8 L. Note that the older FL and FD SSC variants of the 300 mm f/2,8 dont have IF or RF - focusing will be much slower and less confortable. |
how do you find the f/4 in terms of focusing. That was the biggest drawback after fragility of fluorite and the weight of the 2.8L that I could see - that the focussing barrel is like major PITA to draw down, and for a manual lens thats crucial for useage.
Im unlikely to be f5.6 simply because with adapting to EOS, thats 2/3 stops slower which is very big loss for an 5.6 . acceptable on f4, still fast on 2.8
Alsatian2017 wrote: |
I just discovered that you're using and old and trusty Canon D60. How are you adapting the FD 200 mm f/2,8 (BTW, no such thing as a "L" lens with these specifications in the FD line...), with a glassless (no infinity) or a glass adapter (nort recommended for good IQ) ? |
I call it an L lens due to the IQ being shockingly good, and the understanding that these FD primes were usually professional level cost when new. Aware its not technically an L.
Yes I am using a optical adapter. IQ still exceeds most of my other lenses. The FD 200m f2.8 is just that good. Every so often I go man this lens must be reeeeeally good without the optical adapter degradation. I also loose 2/3 stops off the 2.8, so really not able to use everything available on the lense with my current setup, but it is future proofed as mirrorless doesnt require optical adaptor as Iunderstand it.
Alsatian2017 wrote: |
I would then exclude Canon FD, Minolta MC/MD and Konica AR lenses and rather opt for Nikon Nikkor, Contax/Yashica, Pentax K, Olympus OM or M42 lenses which you'll be able to adapt without the hassle of losing the infinity focusing or the image quality. Among those, the Nikkor 300 mm f/4 in AI-version is cheap and good, the Nikkor ED variant even better. The Olympus Zuiko OM 300 mm f/4,5 might be a worthwhile alternative. Other lenses like the Pentax PK and Pentacon 300 mm f/4 as well as the Tair 300 mm f/4,5 are just too bulky and heavy while the Zeiss/Contax and Pentax M-Star 300 mm f/4 can be rather expensive. |
These sound really good worthwile 300mm to explore w/o needing optical adapters. Nikkor is mentioned below as well. PK could be a good idea aas I have my fathers PK film body as well, although i dont use it as much as I would like to, due to the electronic exposure meter needing repair.
Crazy Leica Fox wrote: |
nathanbarlow wrote: |
Im aware when i adapt FD to EOS i lose 2/3 stop, so an F4 becomes pretty slow indeed. Thats why the f/2.8 appeals here. |
There's some great Canon FD/FL glass and I enjoy using it on mirrorless. But if you're adapting it to EF mount, I agree with posters above who say you should look to other lens systems that can be adapted without penalty. |
Yes, im using an optical adapter. The FD 200mm f/2.8 was bought because f/2.8 tele(!) and came with the adapter. Even with generic optical adapter for EOS, the image quality exceeds all my lenses except perhaps my EF f1.8 50mm.
I also got it with mirrorless in mind for future body upgrades, as I was expanding from m42 glass at the time and was aware FD was also very versatile for many other camera bodies.
Gatorengineer64 wrote: |
Will be contrarian here. A Nikon 300 2.8 ED is a better hunk of glass (unless you are talking L) that can be had for nothing. |
can that be adapted to EOS? Without being murdered by both my Canon and my Nikon fanboi buddies?
stevemark wrote: |
Canon FL/FD 2.8/300mm SSC Fluorite: second fluorite lens ever (1968), very good CA correction, very good general correction, MFD 3.5m
Canon new FD 2.8/300mm L: perfect CA correction, excellent detail resolution, IF, beware of degraded/decayed plastic element in the focusing mechanism!!
Canon new FD 4/300mm L: very good CA correction, very good detail resolution, IF, MFD 3m
Canon new FD 4/300mm: mediocre CA correction, very good detail resolution, IF, lightweight, MFD 3m
Canon new FD 5.6/300mm: mediocre CA correction, very good detail resolution, IF, lightweight, MFD 3m
Minolta AF 2.8/300mm APO G: very good CA correction, very good detail resolution, MFD 2.5m (performance identical to Canon FL/FD 2.8/300 Fluorite)
Minolta (Sony) AF 2.8/300mm APO G SSM: perfect CA correction, near perfect detail resolution.
Mamiya Sekor C 5.6/300mm (ULD): near perfect CA correction, near perfect detail resolution, MFD 4m
Nikkor Ai 4.5/300mm ED: near perfect CA correction (400nm to 1000nm!), very good detail resolution, MFD 4m
Nikkor AiS 4.5/300mm ED-IF: mediocre-good CA correction, very good detail resolution, IF, MFD 2.5m
Olympus Zuiko OM 4.5/300mm: mediocre-good CA correction, very good detail resolution, MFD 3.5m
Pentax M* 4/300mm ED: mediocre-good CA correction, very good detail resolution, MFD
Pentax F 4.5/300mm IF-ED: very good CA correction, very good detail resolution, IF, MFD 2m (!)
Zeiss CY Sonnar 4/300mm: mediocre CA correction, very good detail resolution
My two favourites from the above list are:
FAST: Canon new FD 2.8/300mm L
SLOW: Mamiya Sekor C 5.6/300mm (ULD)
Very good as well:
Canon FL/FD 2.8/300mm Fluorite
Canon new FD 4/300mm L
Minolta AF 2.8/300mm APO G HS
Nikkor Ai 4.5/300mm ED "non-IF" (!)
Pentax F 4.5/300mm IF-ED
I have tested most of those lenses side-by-side, and the differences between an excellent 300mm lens (Mamiya Sekor C / Canon nFD) and the worst 3rd party lenses are just STUNNING. You'll never see such differences in the 28mm to 200mm range of vintage primes. S |
thanks for this amazing list and comparison, really opens up my options and gives a great list to beable to search and explore _________________ M42, FD on EOS D60 : flickr
Canon D60 (2002 model) (APS-C sensor)
200mm Canon FD f2.8 (L)
135mm Helios M42 f2.8
50mm Helios M42 f1.8
18-28mm Samyang M42 f4-4.5
24-85mm Canon EF (USM)
50mm Canon EF f1.8
yes thats 1970s glass on a Noughties 2nd gen dSLR. Just keeping it funky |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Slalom
Joined: 10 Dec 2017 Posts: 158 Location: Stourbridge
|
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2023 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Slalom wrote:
The canon mount is 44mm on the flange focal distance, any thing larger can be used with an appropriate adapter without glass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance
So nikon F to canon FE is 2.5mm so enough metal for a pair of mounts.
You can also see tha sony E/EF at 18mm opens up a huge range of adapters. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3953 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2023 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Alsatian2017 wrote: |
I just discovered that you're using and old and trusty Canon D60. How are you adapting the FD 200 mm f/2,8 (BTW, no such thing as a "L" lens with these specifications in the FD line...), with a glassless (no infinity) or a glass adapter (nort recommended for good IQ) ? |
nathanbarlow wrote: |
I call it an L lens due to the IQ being shockingly good, and the understanding that these FD primes were usually professional level cost when new. Aware its not technically an L. |
nathanbarlow wrote: |
Yes I am using a optical adapter. IQ still exceeds most of my other lenses. The FD 200m f2.8 is just that good. Every so often I go man this lens must be reeeeeally good without the optical adapter degradation. |
That doesn't really line up, to be honest.
The Canon FD/nFD 2.8/200mm as well as the later Canon nFD 2.8/200mm IF do have quite a lot of chromatic aberrations, both lateral and longitudinal. You can check on my website how the Canon compares to other well known 200mm lenses here:
http://www.artaphot.ch/systemuebergreifend/objektive/529-200mm-lenses
I think the 100% crops linked are pretty self explanatory. BTW the Canon FD 2.8/200mm as well as the Canon nFD 2.8/200mm "non-IF" look nearly identical as the Canon nFD 2.8/200mm IF!
That said, I would recommend you to get an addditional camera BEFORE investing in new lenses. I'm not into Canon mirrorless (others certainly know more about them), but to give some ideas from the Sony side:
* used Sony APS-C mirrorless with 12-16 MP (NEX-3, NEX-5) got for around CHF/USD 100.--, sometimes less
* used Sony APS-C mirrorless with 24 MP (e. g. A6000) got for around CHF/USD 200.-- to 300.--
* used Sony FF mirrorless go for CHF 300.-- (A7, no image stabilizer) or CHF 400-500.-- (A7II, with image stabilizer)
Thats a lot of perfromance for your bucks ... and you can adapt EVERYTHING! The electronic viewfinder has its drawbacks, but the tiny "tunnel" viewfinder of the D60 (which I own as well) isn't fun either. Focusing is certainly more precise using the EVF of the Sony mirrorless cameras.
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nathanbarlow
Joined: 01 Dec 2012 Posts: 12
|
Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2023 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
nathanbarlow wrote:
Compared to my other lenses is the key word there, when im talking about the Canon FD 200mm f/2.8.
For me, theres a huge colour pop and clarity gain with the 200mm compared to other glass I own.
I dont really pixel peep either, as its a 6.3MP camera I'll typically check for sharpness if its critical to the shot taken.
Im sure there is significant CA , its a 1970's / 1980's telephoto lens.
Agree on time for a body change, I'm just still very much in the dSLR phase of shooting and yet to jump to mirror (canon or otherwise). I started with adapting m42 well before mirrorless was available, and its been integral to my style of shooting. The new Canon R has my interest, but sadly not my pocket book (yet).
New (to me) glass will last longer in expanding my photography than a updated body
I also like the physical act of looking through a camera and manual lens movements , so a move to digital screenviewing is very odd to my way of working? im sure ill do it one day, but for now Im lugging chunky cameras haha _________________ M42, FD on EOS D60 : flickr
Canon D60 (2002 model) (APS-C sensor)
200mm Canon FD f2.8 (L)
135mm Helios M42 f2.8
50mm Helios M42 f1.8
18-28mm Samyang M42 f4-4.5
24-85mm Canon EF (USM)
50mm Canon EF f1.8
yes thats 1970s glass on a Noughties 2nd gen dSLR. Just keeping it funky |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nathanbarlow
Joined: 01 Dec 2012 Posts: 12
|
Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2023 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
nathanbarlow wrote:
I found your article on the 300mm primes an informative read too
Thanks for letting me know about your site _________________ M42, FD on EOS D60 : flickr
Canon D60 (2002 model) (APS-C sensor)
200mm Canon FD f2.8 (L)
135mm Helios M42 f2.8
50mm Helios M42 f1.8
18-28mm Samyang M42 f4-4.5
24-85mm Canon EF (USM)
50mm Canon EF f1.8
yes thats 1970s glass on a Noughties 2nd gen dSLR. Just keeping it funky |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10983 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2023 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
How about the CANON EXTENDER FD 1.4X-A? Use with 200mm lens. _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
kathala
Joined: 13 May 2022 Posts: 142
|
Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2023 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kathala wrote:
FD on EOS makes no sense optically, period, unless you change the mount and eliminate the need for a glass adapter. You can buy mount change kits, but for north of 100 quid.
The 300 2.8 was touted THE best FD lens (followed by the 500 4.5). I would agree, having enjoyed both. The 300 2.8 is worlds sharper than the 200 2.8 or indeed ANY 200mm FD lens (this too is not just my opinion but exhaustively documented)
I sold the 300, though, because it was just too heavy. Even handling requires a monopod, and travelling with it is just tiring.
FYI, there WAS both an SSC and an L 300 2.8, with performance differences being at best academic (someone compared them on flickr); the optical design is slightly different. (I had the L)
There is a visible difference between the 300 4 L and non-L! ("new FDs")
I would bet all FD lenses are lighter than M42 lenses, and probably sharper.
The 300 5.6 has a decent but not stellar reputation, and image quality is on par with the 100-300 5.6 L zoom
If you're interested: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XHrXeijkKB_ULZxcgJK_v4iPBbxAfOuuo-VuP5ESDvA _________________ Photography Reference Tables:
drive.google.com/drive/folders/1aJ5F8XM6t5AK4bydthcDoiwhsh5CUx3N
My Art and Books: ChristianSchnalzger.de
My Exploration of Panoramic Photographic Storytelling:
flickr.com/photos/hach_und_ueberhaupt/
The better you look, the more you see (B. E. Ellis) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 875
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2023 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
kathala wrote: |
The 300 5.6 has a decent but not stellar reputation, and image quality is on par with the 100-300 5.6 L zoom
If you're interested: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XHrXeijkKB_ULZxcgJK_v4iPBbxAfOuuo-VuP5ESDvA |
I find the 300 5,6 to be excellent. Here are two pics on Sony A7II. the second one is a 100% crop of the first...
Feuillage d'automne | Autumn Foliage by lumens pixel, sur Flickr
Extrait de la photo de feuillage | Crop of the foliage picture by lumens pixel, sur Flickr
Can we seriously expect anything better? The bad reputation of middle range lenses results sometimes from the disappointing results of not so competent users. Whereas, not in all cases, people paying huge amounts for high end lenses would at least try to use them adequately. Though this is not always verified. _________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sergun
Joined: 01 Jun 2017 Posts: 291 Location: наша раша
|
Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2023 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sergun wrote:
I threw a canon 300/5 into the album.6. The chromatics are quite strong, even when closed. There is a small software on the open diaphragm (I probably had such a copy) To be honest, I sold it because it was impossible to remove it from the first A7R.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/7ji1YkgpEiu1tAz37 _________________ https://www.flickr.com/photos/105161078@N06/
https://fotoload.ru/fotosets/6661/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|