Vintage Canon FD 200/2.8 on NEX-5

[ferrick]

Bought this lens during my Osaka trip two weeks ago. Just 12,800 yen. I have never used any 200mm lens with such large aperture. It's a completely new experience for me when I used it today!

[Oldhand]

Not too shabby at all.
I really miss the Canon FD's that I used to own when I was shooting film.
I never did have a 200mm FD but there was a very sweet 135 f2.5 that was my favourite.
Thanks for sharing these.
OH

[ManualFocus-G]

Looks very good indeed to me. I previously owned the 200/2.8L EF version, and that was excellent too.

[Bille]

Looks excellent, thanks for posting.

[ferrick]

[ferrick]

[ferrick]

[Excalibur]

[ferrick]

[Excalibur]

[ferrick]

[Oldhand]

I did have a Tamron 200mm(regular, not SP) - f3.5 I think - that was as good as the results from the Canon shown here.
The 135/2.5 was better - my favourite lens among my FD's, closely followed by the standard 50mm f1.8.
Sadly, I let them all go when I embraced digital imaging, as there was so little choice in using those legacy lenses.
I kept one - the 50mm macro - and it does work with an adapter on my Nikon.
But now I am rambling, and I don't want to de-rail the thread.
Cheers
OH

[sibsolo]

A really great lens!
I have bought it for $150
True color, real sharpening...
Here some pictures:
http://mihanev.ru/blog/canon-fd-200mm-f-2-8.html

And some pictures now:

[stevemark]

[Oldhand]

I have acquired a Canon FDn 4/200 IF since I last commented on this thread. Sooooo cheap and no-one was interested in such a slow lens.
Well it is an excellent performer and I am very pleased with it.
OH


#1


#2

[blotafton]

Very nice Oldhand! What kind of pigeon is that?

[Oldhand]

Thank you blotafton
The pigeon is an Australian native white headed pigeon Columba leucomela. It is found along the east coast of the country. It lives in tropical and sub-tropical rainforests, in bushland and along watercourses. It is often found in groups. The fully grown male has an almost white body with blackish wings and tail. It is a very beautiful bird. This one is a juvenile.
OH

[cooltouch]

Very nice photos. Back in 1985, I bought a copy of the type II nFD 200mm f/2.8, the one with IF. I liked it a lot for certain types of work, but I found that it had rather severe CA issues so I had to use it with care in bright sun or when photographing bright objects with hard lines. Lots of green and magenta fringing.

Here's one of my favorite photos taken with my original 200/2.8. Taken in about 1986, Canon F-1, Kodachrome 64 rated at ISO 80.



I sold that lens when I switched systems to Nikon in 1989. I've missed it, though, despite its CA issues. And finally, a few months ago, I bought another one. Same version, nFD type II. This one shows some cosmetic wear, but the glass is perfect:



After I bought it, I decided to conduct a test of the various 200mm lenses I own. These include the subject nFD 200mm f/2.8 type II, a nFD 200mm f/4 IF, a Nikon 200mm f/4 Micro-Nikkor, a Vivitar 200mm f/3.5, and because it is such a sharp lens, especially for a zoom, a Tamron 80-200mm f/2.8 LD. I also wanted to include the Tamron because it is my only other 200mm f/2.8 optic. The camera was a Sony NEX 7 set to ISO 100. My subjects were our mailbox, as seen from our house's front door, and a street sign about 100 meters distant from our house's front door. All the following images were center shots. I didn't bother with corner shots since I was using an APS-C camera.

This is a shot of the street sign, taken with the Canon nFD 200mm f/2.8 @ f/8:


And a shot of the mailbox, taken wth the Canon nFD 200mm f/2.8 @ f/8:


Here's a combination shot of all the 200mm lenses -- a 100% crop -- taken of the stop/street sign. All lenses were set to f/8.


A combination shot of the mailbox, all 200mm lenses set to f/4, 100% crop.


A 100% crop of a combination shot of the Canon nFD 200/2.8 and Tamron 80-200/2.8 @ f/2.8:


And lastly another 100% crop of a combination shot of the Canon and Tamron @ f/2.8:


My conclusion was that all the lenses were quite evenly matched even by f/4, except for the Vivitar. I too found the Canon nFD 200mm f/4 IF to be an outstanding performer. I bought mine about six years ago for a very cheap price, about $40 as I recall. Wide open at f/2.8, both the Canon nFD 200mm f/2.8 IF and the Tamron 80-200mm f/2.8 LD were a bit soft, but still capable of producing very good photos. If you look closely at the last photo, you can see some slight purple fringing exhibited by the Canon. The Tamron, with its LD glass, has better control over CA than the Canon.

[blotafton]

[Oldhand]

Thank you Michael for your extensive test.
I have sometimes been tempted by the FDn 2.8/200 but I am so happy with the 4/200 that I can see little point in my case.
The advantage of the extra stop is mitigated by the CA at widest aperture and the 4/200 is the equal of the bigger lens at f4.
The shot of the pigeon was taken at f4 as you can tell from the circular highlights
On top of that it is much smaller and easier to use.
Happy snaps
Tom

[stevemark]

[cooltouch]

OH and Steve, I agree absolutely with your analyses. In my case, my first ever 200mm prime was the nFD 200/2.8. I found out about the capabilities of the 200/4 maybe a year later. And that's why, when I began to reacquire Canon FD gear about six years ago, I bought the 200/4 IF. I bought the 200/2.8 IF mostly just for sentimental reasons, to be honest. Cuz I don't need it for the f/2.8 aperture at 200mm since I have the Tamron 80-200/2.8 LD, a very impressive optic and better corrected for CA than the Canon to boot. No, I just bought it because I used to own one.