Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

FD 80-200mm f/4L is like a prime lens
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:23 am    Post subject: FD 80-200mm f/4L is like a prime lens Reply with quote

The only zoom lens I'm using now and it's with me all the time since it's quite small to carry around. The lens has some fungus inside but the photos it took are still gorgeous. The sharpness is on par with many modern lenses and the bokeh is smooth enough for portraits. I mostly use 135-200mm focal length and all the photos below were taken at f4. The only thing I don't like is the push-pull zooming mechanism some time can be engaged spontaneously when I'm adjusting the focus, otherwise it's hard to find anything to complain about this lens. And I got it for $90...

Please click on the photos to see the high resolution one on Flickr












PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very hard to argue against your POV with these samples.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Many people still have a prejudice that old MF lenses are just for fun, not for serious works, but I want to prove that it's wrong. When I showed the photos to other people, they just simply reacted by immediately finding more information on this zoom lens.
Laugh 1


PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like 1 Like 1 Like 1


PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Indeed very nice pics!

I have a 3rd-party FD 80-200 zoom, the push/pull-zoom is fin! But I find it heavy and not well balanced on my Fuji. What is the weight of this one?

(I also find the FD-mount quite fiddly somehow, I always struggle with mounting/removing an FD-lens to/from the adapter.)


PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The weight is 679 g, and I found it's quite light (it's lighter and more compact than the non-L version), but still a bit unbalanced on my A7ii.

At first I had problem with FD adapter, too, then I found the way to manage it. There is an aperture lock ring, you should set it to ON position before mounting, so the lock will stay on the side of the lever in the mount and not stuck in the middle when you set it.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Superb lens - and you use it so well.
Congratulations
Tom


PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:
Superb lens - and you use it so well.
Indeed - flawless composition and framing!


PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like 1 Like 1 small


PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Canon nFD 4/80-200mm L has one lens made out of fluorite, a material with extremely low dispersion.

At f=200mm the lens has less CAs than e. g. the Sony 2.8/70-200mm G. Other aberrations are not so well corrected; for near-perfect images i have to stop it down to f8 or better f11. Distortion is quite visible at 80mm and in the 130 - 200mm range. In spite of these little drawbacks, 24MP FF images from the nFD 80-200mm L are very crisp and clear.

The Canon EF 4/70-200mm L is slightly better, but not that much.

Stephan


PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you Oldhand, Sjak and Wolan!

@Stephan: Thank you for the information! I didn't test the distortion but it's not important for my portrait so it's fine to live with it, and I can confirm that this lens is very well corrected for chromatic aberrations. The best sharpness probably can be reached at about f/8 but even the wide open is good enough for my usages.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like 1

Nice shots. Still my favorite zoom lens and its light weight is a nice bonus.

I also mostly shoot it at 135-200, so I can set Steady Shot on the A7rii at 135mm and leave it there for some limited in camera stabilization.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like 1 Like 1


PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Are you using a glazed adapter or unglazed?


Langstrum wrote:
The weight is 679 g, and I found it's quite light (it's lighter and more compact than the non-L version), but still a bit unbalanced on my A7ii.

At first I had problem with FD adapter, too,
then I found the way to manage it. There is an aperture lock ring, you should set it to ON position before mounting, so the lock will stay on the side of the lever in the mount and not stuck in the middle when you set it.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

@tikkathree: I'm using this one



PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, I'm guessing that this fits a non-Canon body which renders my question academic. Thanks

Langstrum wrote:
@tikkathree: I'm using this one



PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh I see, I didn't mention that I used Sony A7ii. For Canon EOS, the only way to use this lens correctly is modifying the mount...


PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Has anyone compared the Canon FD 80-200mm F4 to the Zeiss Contax 80-200mm F4?

I've read very positive reviews for both of them.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

recently received contax Zeiss 80-200mm F4. Weather is lousy, I managed only once to go with him to the street. Everywhere F4



back 80 and 200 mm F4


PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

andk wrote:
Has anyone compared the Canon FD 80-200mm F4 to the Zeiss Contax 80-200mm F4?

I've read very positive reviews for both of them.


Are you talking about the Canon FD 80-200mm F4 or the Canon FD 80-200mm F4 L ?

I do have both Canon lenses, as well as the Zeiss Vario Sonnar 4/80-200mm.

The Zeiss is much newer (around 1992) than the Canon lenses (mid-1970s and mid-1980s). Generally, it is better corrected (less distortion, better corners at f4 and f5.6) than the Canon FD 80-200mm L, but the Canon has a better correction of CAs. Stopped down to f8, the Canon L images are more crisp, and colors are very clear.

The Zeiss mechanics are an absolute joy to use; the lens feels more precise than the Canon (whether it really is i don't know).

Both lenses (the Zeiss and the Canon L) are clearly better than the Minolta MD and the Leica R 70-210mm. Also the different Hexanon zooms (3.5/80-200mm and both 4/80-200mm) and the Pentax M 4/80-200mm are clearly inferior to the Zeiss. The AiS Nikkor 4/80-200mm and the 4/70-210mm both are quite good lenses, but i haven't tested them in detail yet. I would say they come close to the Zeiss (better than the Minolta), but this is a preliminary feeling and not the result of rigorous tests.

At f=200mm, the Zeiss CY 4/80-200mm is almost indistinguishable from the Minolta MC 4/200mm (another very good vintage MF lens).

Stephan


PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Stephan.

I was talking about the Canon L version from the first post.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 4:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Konica UC Zoom-Hexanon 4/80-200 is another contender, it matches the Vario-Sonnar in sharpness and lack of distortion, but has slightly more visible CA on the edges and the coatings are not quite as good so it flares and ghosts a little more. In real world usage however, if you keep the angle to the sun in mind, the Hexanon is capable of equally good results. I actually prefer the Minolta AF 4/70-210 because it has a vibrancy and overall aesthetic to it's images that I really like, in fact, it's a better lens than the modern Canon EF 4/80-200 L in many ways.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The Konica UC Zoom-Hexanon 4/80-200 is another contender, it matches the Vario-Sonnar in sharpness and lack of distortion, but has slightly more visible CA on the edges and the coatings are not quite as good so it flares and ghosts a little more. In real world usage however, if you keep the angle to the sun in mind, the Hexanon is capable of equally good results. I actually prefer the Minolta AF 4/70-210 because it has a vibrancy and overall aesthetic to it's images that I really like, in fact, it's a better lens than the modern Canon EF 4/80-200 L in many ways.


Do you mean the Minolta beercan? I've tried two because I wanted to have an AF (with adapter) lens for my Sony. But in both cases, I much preferred the Canon L. YMMV.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, the Minolta beercan, had mine since 1993 and will never part with it.

Minolta 70-210mm f4 versus Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS:

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2012/03/24/minolta-70-210mm-f4-versus-canon-70-200mm-f4-l-is/


PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coase wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The Konica UC Zoom-Hexanon 4/80-200 is another contender, it matches the Vario-Sonnar in sharpness and lack of distortion, but has slightly more visible CA on the edges and the coatings are not quite as good so it flares and ghosts a little more. In real world usage however, if you keep the angle to the sun in mind, the Hexanon is capable of equally good results. I actually prefer the Minolta AF 4/70-210 because it has a vibrancy and overall aesthetic to it's images that I really like, in fact, it's a better lens than the modern Canon EF 4/80-200 L in many ways.


Do you mean the Minolta beercan? I've tried two because I wanted to have an AF (with adapter) lens for my Sony. But in both cases, I much preferred the Canon L. YMMV.


I meant the Minolta MD-III 4/70-210mm (we're in a MF forum, aren't we?), but the "beercan" AF 4/70-210 has the same optics. Of course the Canon L has much less CAs than the MD/AF 4/70-210mm, even if David Kilpatrick and Ian claim the contrary. Davids image are simply green leaves (nothing red!), and when taking images only with green colors no (red) CAs will be visible, of course. A person as knowledgeable as David Kilpatrick does know that, i think.

I have tested the Minolta/Sony 2.8/70-200mm APO G side-by-side with the Canon nFD 4/80-200mm L, on a stable tripod (Kilpatrick: handheld ...), and using high res digital cameras, and i can publish these results. The Canon nFD 4/80-200mm L (as well as the Canon EF 4/70-200mm L) gives much cleaner colors than both the Minolta/Sony 2.8/70-200mm G and the Minolta MD/AF 4/80-200mm.

And claiming that the Hexanon UC 4/80-200mm is equal to the Zeiss C/Y 4/80-200mm is ... quite ridiculous. I have tested several samples of the UC Hexanon, and they are by far inferior to the Zeiss.

Stephan