Canon FL 85-300mm f/5

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

As I have oft mentioned here before, I was a dealer in photo gear in a previous life. While I was active, I had the pleasure (and frustration) of having many nice pieces of gear pass through my hands. It was frustrating because, all too often, I didn't get to try out some of the gear I had obtained before it sold, and other times I had, but didn't get the images back from processing before it sold. So I've had quite a few items slip through my fingers that I otherwise would have kept -- at least for a while. Such is the case with a lens that arrived today. Some twenty-three or twenty-four years ago, I bought a Canon FL lens outfit, which included the 19mm f/3.5 R (which I kept and used extensively), the 75-150 and the 85-300. There were more FL lenses than those three, but they were the ones I remember. The 19mm was a wonderful lens, it was in very nice condition, and I really enjoyed it. The 75-150 and 85-300 had obviously been heavily used. They both showed lots of wear, but their optics were mint. I never got to try out either of them before they sold, and they sold surprisingly quickly, as I recall, especially because of their condition. As a dealer one thing I found out pretty quickly was, the cleaner the item, the more I could ask for it and the faster it would sell. Both those zooms bucked this factoid. I'll wager the 75-150 was a very good lens because Canon's philosophy back then was that they refused to build any zoom lens that was not as sharp as an equivalent prime. But the one I've always wondered about was that 85-300mm f/5. Almost as large as a mortar tube and just as heavy, it dwarfs just about any other zoom you'd care to put alongside it. Here's a shot of one from Canon's museum:

https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/fl124.html

This lens is a heavyweight compared to other xx-300 lenses. It weighs 1850 grams, which is equal to a little over 4 pounds. So yeah, it's BIG. But it is extremely well made, as were most of Canon's FL lenses. Fortunately, it comes with a tripod mount.

So a couple weeks ago, not having anything better to do, I'm browsing through eBay's listings and I come across a listing for the FL 85-300/5 with an opening bid amount of US $50. And there were no bids yet.The description mentioned some light fungus on a rear or inner rear element, which was probably scaring people off, but I wasn't too concerned -- I'd cleaned lenses of light fungus before. And the auction still had six days to run its course, so I was convinced it would get some bidding action with such a low opening bid amount. I went ahead and saved it to my watch list, mostly out of curiosity because I wanted to see how high this lens would get bid up to in an auction-style listing (there were a couple of BINs for FL 85-300s at that time, each well over $300). Best of all, this particular lens was in very clean condition and even came with its original case Very Happy

but no caps Crying or Very sad

So the close of auction day finally comes around and I'm surprised -- still no bids. Of course I was intrigued now, so I had to watch the auction close. And here it is, about 1 minute before the auction closes, and I hear this little voice saying, "Ya know, $50 for that lens would be a steal. Besides you know you want it." Feeling the early onset of GAS, I'm trying to ignore this treacherous little voice, but it starts in on me again, "That Mir website speaks in glowing terms about this lens, ya know. And would you just look at that big front element? Constant f/5, gotta be at least a 72mm filter size." And I'm groaning audibly now, trying to force my trembling outstretched fingers away from the number keys. "You know," the little voice sez innocently, "if you don't like it, you can always put it back on eBay and make some money off of it." Arrrghh! My alter ego had succeeded again. I feverishly punched in a very small higher bid as a way of exacting my revenge against this fiendish voice, sure to be outbid if another bidder jumped in. $51.51. My final offer. The last few seconds counted down, and . . .

Sold! $50.00 with 1 bid. Feed the Paypal icon as you leave, thankyouverymuch.

Here it is: Click here to see on Ebay

It actually looks nicer in person than it did on that auction. And fortunately, the fungus is so slight, you really have to be looking for it to find any at all. It looks to be on the inner surface of the rear-most element, so it should be relatively easy to get to, but it's so minor, I doubt if it affects image IQ. Unlike the earlier one I'd owned, which looked like it had been "rode hard and put up wet," as the rural folks around these parts are likely to say, it is in beautiful condition. Now, if only I had a NEX or A7 to do it justice. Well, with an f/5 aperture I could probably get by with my Fotodiox FD to EOS converter, I told myself. Might be worth a shot. So off I went.

Okay, below are four rather boring looking photographs. There isn't much to look at around my house during the middle of January. All the trees have lost their leaves, plus it was rather late in the afternoon so shadows were long and the light was going away fast. So I selected a subject that would be a good one for determining sharpness. In the following photos, the point of focus is the single oak leaf with a strong reflection of the late afternoon sun that is located more or less in the center of the images. The camera is my EOS XS, which has an APS-C sensor, good for 10.1 mp. Because the subject is so boring, I improved contrast and color saturation. But the only sharpening I did was to the RAW file, bumping it up from an in-camera setting of "5" to "7". Any higher than 7 as an in-camera setting and the images start showing ugly artifacts. Please Note: I used a Fotodiox brand FD-EOS lens mount converter. It has been my personal experience that the Fotodiox actually produces slightly better images than the other brands, like Bower, for example. It has also been my personal experience with these adapters with their corrective lenses that at apertures of about f/3.5 and smaller, they actually do a decent job. Typically they fall down -- badly -- at faster apertures: f/2.8 and larger. So anyway, see for yourself. This lens easily out-resolves my XS's 10.1mp sensor, even with the Fotodiox adapter. I chose to shoot ever shot at the wide open setting of f/5 because I wanted to see just where the poor performance areas were with this lens. My conclusion is that there is just a touch of magenta and green CA, which I removed from one image (300mm), and didn't bother with the others because it was so minor. Click on the below images to see them at 1600 pixels wide.

Canon FL 85-300mm f/5 @ 85mm f/5

Canon FL 85-300mm f/5 @ 100mm f/5

Canon FL 85-300mm f/5 @ 200mm f/5

Canon FL 85-300mm f/5 @ 300mm f/5

You'll notice, especially with the photo taken at 300mm, that the depth of field is quite shallow. My camera, mounted on a sturdy tripod, was about eight feet away from the subject and you can see that, at 300mm, the depth of field doesn't even span the length of that leaft, which was maybe 3" long. So at 8 feet or so, DOF @ f/5 is about 2 inches.

This lens sold for 99,500 yen back in 1965. In today's dollars, basically just move the decimal point to the left two digits and you'll be close. Almost a thousand dollars in today's money. Back then, though, the yen was about 320 to the dollar or so, which made the price much more attractive.

In 1965 there weren't a lot of pros shooting with Canon gear, but I'll wager that this lens was designed with the pro in mind. I have read opinions that Canon's later big FD zooms -- the 85-300mm f/4.5 and 50-300mm f/4.5L, and even later, the 100-300mm f/5.6L -- surpassed it in terms of sharpness and contrast. But while this may be true, I also believe that the differences are minimal.

So, in conclusion -- if you shoot with a good mirrorless camera, it's worth considering the old FL-mount optics, including the zooms. This is only the fourth FL-mount optic I have bought for personal use -- the others were the 19mm f/3.5 R, the 35mm f/2.5, and the 55mm f/1.2 -- and so far I have found them all to be first class lenses. Lenses that will hold resolution even with high pixel-count sensors.

bernhardas · Expire: 2017-05-23

edited

Bille · Joined: 03 Jan 2013 Posts: 381

50$ is a great deal.

Check this out ... Click here to see on Ebay

My FL collection is down to the 50/1.4 (I) and 55/1.2 but I might add one of those zooms some time.

Schnauzer · Expire: 2012-03-08

WOW!!! You lucked out. Looks great and appears to work as well as it looks.

I have liked just about every older canon lense that I have bought.

Schnauzer · Expire: 2012-03-08

WOW!!! You lucked out. Looks great and appears to work as well as it looks.

I have liked just about every older canon lense that I have bought.

Schnauzer · Expire: 2012-03-08

I must have liked it a lot. Double post.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

Thanks, guys -- yeah, I feel pretty stoked about this lens. Wish I could mount it directly to a digital camera, but that eventuality is gonna have to wait a while yet. In the mean time, I have several nice Canon FD film cameras I can shoot with, so I'll be taking it out and using it with film for a while.

Hey Bille, wow, that's a surprise. But that dealer has an exceptional lens. Near mint, with the original caps and the original box. But no case, apparently. So I have a question for anyone considering purchasing a lens like this one -- which would you rather have, the box, or the case? Yeah, I thought so.

55 · Expire: 2022-06-15

Bumping this old topic...

As cooltouch did, I bought a copy of the FL 85-300 f/5 for a low price because it had fungi on the elements. I had no idea if I'd be able to clean it. But for the price, I figured it was worth a try.

Soon after the lens arrived, I set about trying to open it to clean the glass. I quickly ran into a frustrating dead end, so I put the lens away for a rainy day. It sat in a corner gathering dust for several months before I decided to give it another try. Finally, I was able to get enough of the lens apart to clean it.

Since then, I've shot with it a few times around my home and at local parks. The samples are resized JPEGs from my Sony A7ii. Unless noted, I didn't process them further:

#1 (at f/5)

#2 (at 300mm, f/5 - slight crop and some red fringing removed)

#3 (100% crop of #2)

#4 [at f8]

#5 [at f/8]

#6 (at f/5)

#7 (at f/5 - processed with Silver Efex Pro2)

#8

It's a large lens and it has a tripod mount for a good reason. I found hand holding it to be difficult.
At f/5 images have some glow, but I think detail is surprisingly good. Contrast improves stopped down, but sharpness doesn't get much better.
There was some red and green fringing in high contrast scenes, but it cleaned up well in post processing.
And the 4 meter minimum focus distance may have been typical for a long lens in the 1960s, but I find it to be an annoying limitation.

After getting to know this lens, I like it, but I don't love it. Too many typical zoom lens compromises. Apart from its awe inspiring build quality and sheer size, there's nothing really outstanding about this lens: Good, not great.

Also, while I had my lens apart for cleaning, I took notes and photos and documented some of the process. If your FL 85-300 f/5 needs some maintenance, this link might help:
http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-fl-85-300mm-f-5-disassembly-tips-t81884.html