| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
shaolin95
Joined: 24 Apr 2014
Posts: 75
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:16 pm Post subject: Ordered a Canon FD 300mm F/2.8 SSC Fluorite.any owners here? |
 |
|
shaolin95 wrote:
So I used to have the normal FD 300mm 2.8 white but sold it and now for some reason got curious about trying this rare Fluorite version.
Anyone else currently using one?
I saw a test here and liked how it was more contrasty and a bit longer than the white version but I understand with such old lenses, performance can vary a lot based on condition.
We shall see!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Langstrum
Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Posts: 351
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Langstrum wrote:
I think you saw my comparison. What a pity that you don't have the FD version to compare side by side. I just did quick shots to see the differences so I wonder it's because of my copies or it's actually lens properties.
Please post here your opinions once you can shoot with this FL. I will do further comparison if it's needed.
_________________
Camera: Sony A7 mark III, A6300
AF Lenses:
Canon EF 50/1.8; EF 200/2.8 L, EF 200/1.8 L, EF 300/4 L Sony E mount SEL 50/1.8 OSS, SEL 16/2.8 Fuji X mount XF 35/1.4 R
MF Lenses: Peleng MC 8/3.5, 17/2.8 Samyang 14/T3.1, 35/T1.5, TS 24/3.5 ED, 85/T1.5, Polar 85/1.4 Auto Revuenon 28/2.8; MC 50/1.4 Vega11U 50/2.8 Carl Zeiss Tessar 50/2.8 (exakta mount) Auto Chinon 50/1.9 Zenitar ME1 50/1.7 Sears Auto Sears 55/1.4; Sears 135/2.8 Auto Yashinon DX 50/1.4; Tomioka 50/1.2 SMC Pentax 50/1.7; 50/1.4 Canon FD 50/1.4 S.S.C; 55/1.2 S.S.C; FD 50/1.2 L; FD 85/1.2 L; 85/1.2 S.S.C Aspherical; FD 80-200/4 L 300/2.8 S.S.C Fluorite FD 300/2.8 L FD 200/1.8 LCosina-S 50/1.2 Helios Helios 44 Chrome f/22, 44-2, 44-3, 44M-4, 44M-7 (58/2), Helios-40 85/1.5 Jupiter Jupiter-9 85/2; Jupiter-37A 135/3.5; Jupiter-21M 200/4 Nikon Ai 105/2.5 Tairs-3S 300/4.5
Voigtlander 15/4.5 Aspherical; Ultron 35/1.7
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shaolin95
Joined: 24 Apr 2014
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 4:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
shaolin95 wrote:
| Langstrum wrote: |
I think you saw my comparison. What a pity that you don't have the FD version to compare side by side. I just did quick shots to see the differences so I wonder it's because of my copies or it's actually lens properties.
Please post here your opinions once you can shoot with this FL. I will do further comparison if it's needed. |
Just to clarify, I noticed you call it FL but it says FD on the hood.
Yeah I wish I had an FD as well but I think also that with lenses this old, condition of the lens are so crucial that it would be hard to ever know which lens was better when new between them.
Monday cannot come soon enough! lol |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Langstrum
Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Posts: 351
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Langstrum wrote:
| shaolin95 wrote: |
| Langstrum wrote: |
I think you saw my comparison. What a pity that you don't have the FD version to compare side by side. I just did quick shots to see the differences so I wonder it's because of my copies or it's actually lens properties.
Please post here your opinions once you can shoot with this FL. I will do further comparison if it's needed. |
Just to clarify, I noticed you call it FL but it says FD on the hood.
Yeah I wish I had an FD as well but I think also that with lenses this old, condition of the lens are so crucial that it would be hard to ever know which lens was better when new between them.
Monday cannot come soon enough! lol |
Oops, mine is FD but I don't know why I kept saying FL to you. FL-F version looks different and it's even rarer. My Fluorite and FD L lenses have nice glass but I don't know if the coating is still effective or not since they both old. I'm looking forward to see your images.
_________________
Camera: Sony A7 mark III, A6300
AF Lenses:
Canon EF 50/1.8; EF 200/2.8 L, EF 200/1.8 L, EF 300/4 L Sony E mount SEL 50/1.8 OSS, SEL 16/2.8 Fuji X mount XF 35/1.4 R
MF Lenses: Peleng MC 8/3.5, 17/2.8 Samyang 14/T3.1, 35/T1.5, TS 24/3.5 ED, 85/T1.5, Polar 85/1.4 Auto Revuenon 28/2.8; MC 50/1.4 Vega11U 50/2.8 Carl Zeiss Tessar 50/2.8 (exakta mount) Auto Chinon 50/1.9 Zenitar ME1 50/1.7 Sears Auto Sears 55/1.4; Sears 135/2.8 Auto Yashinon DX 50/1.4; Tomioka 50/1.2 SMC Pentax 50/1.7; 50/1.4 Canon FD 50/1.4 S.S.C; 55/1.2 S.S.C; FD 50/1.2 L; FD 85/1.2 L; 85/1.2 S.S.C Aspherical; FD 80-200/4 L 300/2.8 S.S.C Fluorite FD 300/2.8 L FD 200/1.8 LCosina-S 50/1.2 Helios Helios 44 Chrome f/22, 44-2, 44-3, 44M-4, 44M-7 (58/2), Helios-40 85/1.5 Jupiter Jupiter-9 85/2; Jupiter-37A 135/3.5; Jupiter-21M 200/4 Nikon Ai 105/2.5 Tairs-3S 300/4.5
Voigtlander 15/4.5 Aspherical; Ultron 35/1.7
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shaolin95
Joined: 24 Apr 2014
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
shaolin95 wrote:
| Langstrum wrote: |
| shaolin95 wrote: |
| Langstrum wrote: |
I think you saw my comparison. What a pity that you don't have the FD version to compare side by side. I just did quick shots to see the differences so I wonder it's because of my copies or it's actually lens properties.
Please post here your opinions once you can shoot with this FL. I will do further comparison if it's needed. |
Just to clarify, I noticed you call it FL but it says FD on the hood.
Yeah I wish I had an FD as well but I think also that with lenses this old, condition of the lens are so crucial that it would be hard to ever know which lens was better when new between them.
Monday cannot come soon enough! lol |
Oops, mine is FD but I don't know why I kept saying FL to you. FL-F version looks different and it's even rarer. My Fluorite and FD L lenses have nice glass but I don't know if the coating is still effective or not since they both old. I'm looking forward to see your images. |
So painful to know that the lens is in our local distribution center but the useless customer "service" from KEH will not call Fedex to authorize allowing me to pick up the package today instead of having to wait until Monday. Last time I order from KEH..they really have been going downhill from when I first started buying from them. :/
Anyways, I will surely post some photos...hopefully the horrible winter weather will give me a break. lol |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 3754
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
I have an FD 2.8/300mm Fluorite as well. Is is a nice small "lightweight" (less than 2 kg) 2.8/300mm lens. It's overall performance is comparable to the Minolta AF 2.8/300mm APO, but the Minolta / Sony 2.8/300mm APO G SSM is better.
According to Marco Cavina, the newer (white) 2.8/300mm L should have a better performance than the older (black) FD 2.8/300mm:
http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Canon_300_Fluorite/00_pag.htm
I have been shooting with both the (black) "Fluorite" as well as the (white) L version using 24 MP FF cameras, but not at the same time.
My impression was that the "L" had a better color correction, but the "Fluorite" a slightly better contrast at f2.8. However i may be wrong since this impression is not based on a careful side-by-side comparison!!
Stephan
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 3754
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Springtime in Zurich / Switzerland 
Canon FD 2.8/300mm Fluorite @f2.8 and Sony A7. JPG out of camera.
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shaolin95
Joined: 24 Apr 2014
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
shaolin95 wrote:
Hello Guys!
Sorry I never updated this thread.
Well...when I got the Fluorite I was in love on how it looked on my Sony A7Rii! Although for the first time ever I really had an issue with how front heavy the lens is...made it very unbalanced to hold as I would do with the FD 300mm white version.
In any case, for me IQ is the only thing that matters....sadly, that is where I was let down BIG TIME. Unlike my previous FD 300mm 2.8, the Fluorite was not sharp at all at 2.8...nor 3.2...comparing images to ones taken with my FD before it was a no contest.
So, I ended up selling it for a tiny profit.
Of course we all know that with old lenses its hard to tell when its a bad performer or just a bad/aged copy. Mine looked great but performed bad.
So, guess I will just try a white 300mm again
Regards |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Langstrum
Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Posts: 351
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 3:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Langstrum wrote:
I'm sorry to know that, you must got a bad copy. However I have the same experience with you regarding the handling. The front element is too big and heavy, it's not balanced well as the white version so it's not really pleased to focus.
_________________
Camera: Sony A7 mark III, A6300
AF Lenses:
Canon EF 50/1.8; EF 200/2.8 L, EF 200/1.8 L, EF 300/4 L Sony E mount SEL 50/1.8 OSS, SEL 16/2.8 Fuji X mount XF 35/1.4 R
MF Lenses: Peleng MC 8/3.5, 17/2.8 Samyang 14/T3.1, 35/T1.5, TS 24/3.5 ED, 85/T1.5, Polar 85/1.4 Auto Revuenon 28/2.8; MC 50/1.4 Vega11U 50/2.8 Carl Zeiss Tessar 50/2.8 (exakta mount) Auto Chinon 50/1.9 Zenitar ME1 50/1.7 Sears Auto Sears 55/1.4; Sears 135/2.8 Auto Yashinon DX 50/1.4; Tomioka 50/1.2 SMC Pentax 50/1.7; 50/1.4 Canon FD 50/1.4 S.S.C; 55/1.2 S.S.C; FD 50/1.2 L; FD 85/1.2 L; 85/1.2 S.S.C Aspherical; FD 80-200/4 L 300/2.8 S.S.C Fluorite FD 300/2.8 L FD 200/1.8 LCosina-S 50/1.2 Helios Helios 44 Chrome f/22, 44-2, 44-3, 44M-4, 44M-7 (58/2), Helios-40 85/1.5 Jupiter Jupiter-9 85/2; Jupiter-37A 135/3.5; Jupiter-21M 200/4 Nikon Ai 105/2.5 Tairs-3S 300/4.5
Voigtlander 15/4.5 Aspherical; Ultron 35/1.7
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 3754
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
| shaolin95 wrote: |
Hello Guys!
...
when I got the Fluorite I was in love on how it looked on my Sony A7Rii!
...
In any case, for me IQ is the only thing that matters....sadly, that is where I was let down BIG TIME. Unlike my previous FD 300mm 2.8, the Fluorite was not sharp at all at 2.8...nor 3.2...comparing images to ones taken with my FD before it was a no contest.
...
|
First (simple) question: Was there any filter in the rear drop-in filter compartment?? I know from my Minolta 2.8/300 APO that such lenses may react visibly to a "missing" UV filter. And "adaptall-2.com" tells you the same:
http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/107B.html
If this was not the reason, there are two other possibilities:
1) the FD "Fluorite" is not good enought for perfect images at f2.8 using 50MP sensors (probably true)
2) you have had a "lemon"
At the moment I myself am using the FD "Fluorite" on my A7 for the professional documentation of artwork in churches. Focusing is smooth if the lens is on a tripod, it is really lightweight (1.9kg) and neither distortion nor CAs are cumbersome. In fact i can use the lens without hesitation at f2.8, and i often do. I have added a 100% crop from two recently taken images, one at f2.8, the oher at f8. Neither CAs nor vignetting were corrected; sharpening was set to "50" and sharpening radius was "0.5px" using Photoshop.
Probably the lens behaves better that shown here, since the painting and the camera did not run really in parallel; thus the upper part is slightly out of focus. Nevertheless these crops give an idea of the performance of the 300mm 2.8 "Fluoriite". 
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 3754
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2020 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Here's the beast - I got a motor drive MF for my old Canon F-1, and now the F-1 & 2.8/300mm combination feels much more balanced!
S
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blazer0ne
Joined: 12 Sep 2018
Posts: 836
Expire: 2024-12-07
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 2:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Blazer0ne wrote:
...
Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 4:31 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 3754
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
| Blazer0ne wrote: |
Was this lens introduced prior to rear-group focus? |
I just checked Canons website - to my surprise, the FD 2.8/300mm Fluorite was introduced in the same year as the FD 4.5/400mm IF: In 1975. The Canon FL 2.8/300mm Fluorite (basically the same lens, but without aperture simulator for wide open TTL measuring) had been introduced in 1974, though.
S
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blazer0ne
Joined: 12 Sep 2018
Posts: 836
Expire: 2024-12-07
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2020 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Blazer0ne wrote:
...
Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 4:31 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 3754
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2020 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
| Blazer0ne wrote: |
Looks to me like the entire lens is a single optical block that moves away from the camera when focusing closer. |
Yes. It has neither IF nor RF (rear focusing) nor floating elements.
S
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
