Canon FD 100-300 5.6 (non-l) any good?

[Big R]

I'm looking once again for a long telezoom to about 300mm. I had a Tamron 60-300 which was very good but also quite heavy and a bit unwieldy, so I sold it (should've kept it perhaps...).

So looked about a bit and found the Canon FD 100-300 5.6. There seem to be 2 Versions, the newer being lighter, more compact and allegedly optically superior. I once had a Canon EF 100-300 which was OK but clearly inferior to my Tamron so it had to go.

Does anyone own the second FD 100-300 version? Ist any good? Better than the EF? Or do they share optics? Comparable to my beloved Tamron?

I have a Sony A6400 and the 18-135 Super zoom which is quite good, so Zoom range to 200mm does'nt really interest me very much. I'm looking for a budget option for the occasional zoo and moonshot.

[stevemark]

I have tested the Canon new FD 5.6/100-300mm against the following:

* Canon new FD 5.6/100-300mm L
* Minolta AF 4.5-5.6/75-300mm (first full metal version "big beercan")
* Tamron SP 3.8-5.4/60-300mm

* Minolta MC/MD 4/200mm (first "long" version)
* Nikkor 4.5/300mm IF-ED

I have compared these lenses looking at 24 MP FF images in the infinity range at 100mm, 200mm, and 300mm (corner resolution wide open and at f11).

The "ordinary" Canon nFD 5.6/100-300mm has slightly lower corner resolution and less contrast than the Minolta and Tamron zooms.

The Canon 100-300 L seems to have even lower corner resolution but - of course - less CAs (only about half as much as the "ordinary" Canon 100-300). The Minolta, BTW, at f=300mm has almost as little CAs as the Canon L zoom!

The Tamron has no CAs at 100mm, but it is vignetting strongly at 300mm/f5.4 (and even visibly at f11).

The "ordinary" Canon FD 100-300 is the largest of the bunch (about 200mm, and not - as sometimes reported - 172mm long!!), and i would not recommend it if you consider the Tamron 60-300 to be "unwieldy", especially since it isn't optically superior.

You might consider something like the first version of the Minolta MC/MD 4/200mm. It is excellent even at f4, and it is only about 530g / 130mm long.

Stephan

[marcusBMG]

To go lighter/smaller than the adaptall 60-300mm 23A I can suggest that means either primes, or more modern (plastic) zooms. I have just been checking out a cosina 100-300mm recently acquired for very little, a typically plasticky but therefore light cosina product of ?1990's, pretty good actually, especially through the middle of its zoom range, but definite drop off in iq zooming to 300mm and slow - f6.7. There are almost innumerable variants of sigma x-300mm zooms, you could play the game of picking up different ones and seeing if one does well on your sony.
Primes: the adaptall CT300 is the lightest of the adaptall 300mm f5.6's, but IMO marginally the weakest, the SP 54B and the 1st gen version 1's (with tripod mount therefore larger and heavier) are slightly better. 300mm seems a good compromise for eg zoo but for the moon I would want longer focal length really.
Couple of more offbeat suggestions: the tamron 250mm f4.5 preset t-mount is one of the best (and fastest) lenses of this type; the tamron "nestar" 400mm f6.9 is one of the sharpest vintage t-mount 400mm and fits in your pocket, trick is finding one..

[Big R]

Thank you very much!

[stevemark]

[cooltouch]

You need to ask yourself -- are you after convenient size or optical quality? Because rarely are you gonna get both, especially with a something-to-300 zoom. That Tamron 60-300 has long been a favorite of mine. I bought my first Tamron 60-300 in 1985 and I still own two copies. Back in my film days, I shot a LOT of slides with that lens and it didn't disappoint. I've never experienced the vignetting at 300mm that Steve mentions. And I've got lots of slides I can show you to prove it.

But when it comes to best quality, I don't think you can get away from size. The best 100-300mm lens I've ever used is the Tokina ATX 100-300mm f/4 SD. It is amazingly sharp wide open with great contrast. And with that constant f/4 aperture, it can produce some nice bokeh too. But this optical excellence comes at a price. It is big and fairly heavy. But to me it's worth every gram of weight and millimeter of size.

[stevemark]

[cooltouch]

Very interesting. So, wondering if I've been misremembering my Tamron 60-300's performance, I just went through some of my old slides and sorted out about a dozen with more or less plain backgrounds that I know were taken with the Tamron. I did find a couple of shots that showed some mild vignetting, but I would regard it as negligible -- much closer to what your Canon exhibited. I couldn't find one image with that same level of vignetting. So, I'm not saying that it can't happen -- I'm just saying that I question whether it is a universal issue with that lens. However, I hadn't recorded exposure information with any of these image, so I can't state with any certitude the apertures it was set at. But the fact that my images show much less vignetting may point to a more real world sort of usage, such that it won't be such a concern.

i have owned a couple of others that were much worse == the Vivitar Series 1 28-90 and the Sigma 600mm mirror. Well, actually, I've always regarded the Sigma's results as a hot spot rather than vignetting. But the Vivitar displayed rather severe vignetting, especially when shooting wide open. Yet, that was such a great lens, its vignetting never precluded me from using it. And even if my Tamron would have shown the same level of vignetting that yours does, it wouldn't have prevented me from using it.

Having written all the above, however, I still regard the Tokina 100-300/4 to be way, way better.

[stevemark]

[cooltouch]

At 300/2.8 I'm just the opposite. Considering how much a lens like that costs, I want perfect photos when shooting wide open. Even illumination, tack sharp results. I gotta say, the Tamron SP 300/2.8 LD IF I own doesn't disappoint. But that's reaching far afield from the OP's original requests.

You know, getting back on topic in that regard, I can't help but wonder how some of the cheaper 100-300/5.6 (or so) zooms out there size up. I've seen them in various makes, and I've owned a few. The ones I've owned are a pair of Soligors -- a 100-300mm f/5 two-ring model and a 95-310mm f/5.6 push-pull model. More recently, I picked up as part of a group purchase, an Albinar 100-300mm f/5.6. Interesting thing about the Albinar is, unlike other Albinar zooms that were made in Korea, this one was made in Japan. I haven't done any substantive tests with it yet, but from a bit of casual shots I've taken with it, I'd have to see that it isn't a bad optic, really. Now as for the Soligors, I've owned two of the 80-300s. The first one I bought back in the 80s and shot lots of slides with it. It was a decent performer, but I ended up replacing it with the Tamron SP 60-300 and I found I liked the Tamron better. Recently I found myself getting curious about the lens again, after inspecting some slides I took with it that were quite sharp. So I picked up a very clean copy for next to nothing off eBay. I haven't really done anything with this new one though. The 95-310, on the other hand, is not worth much more than the trash bin. It is one of the worst zooms I've ever had the occasion to use. I'm sure glad I paid only peanuts for it because that's scarcely what it's worth.

So anyway, I'm curious about these other "off-brand" 100-300/5.6's that are out there and how they might stack up against some of the better known examples -- specifically, I suppose, the Canon 100-300, which seems to be the best known. I don't own the Canon FD 100-300, although I do own an EF 75-300/4-5.6. But I'm getting curious now, so I think I'm gonna put together a set of tests on the Soligor 100-300 and the Albinar 100-300. See how they fare against each other, and even better -- against my Tokina 100-300/4 SD.

[marcusBMG]

I've just sold a vivitar TX version of the tokina (soligor et al) 100-300mm f5 2-ring. It has a reputation I think as one of the better zooms of this vintage, and my pics with it tended to corroborate that. This was nearer 200mm than the exif 300mm IIRC, f8, K3.




I had sold a viv TX 200mm at auction for a good price, but this went for peanuts at a loss in spite of my salemanship and test pics
But since I had only acquired both to snag the PK TX mounts overall I'm happy. I'll probably give the 100-300mm f5 a good review on PF sometime, but although its a classy lens I wasn't minded to keep it, the superior IMO adaptall 23A wins that one.

[aidaho]

[stevemark]

[cooltouch]

I forgot until just now -- I also own a couple of Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 AF-D ED zooms. Both were obtained as part of outfits I bought -- which is why I have two. I dunno about this lens. Like other AF-D Nikkors, it works reasonably well as an MF lens, which is often how I use it -- specifically with my NEX 7. It appears decent enough with "normal" shots, but one night I was shooting pics of the moon and I used this lens along with a couple other 300s (Tamron 300/2.8 LD and Tokina 100-300/4 SD), and I was surprised at the level of flare it exhibited, and I would have been shooting at either f/8 or f/11 too. So I need to do some more shooting with this lens, see what's up with it.

I don't own an FF digital, and it's been years since I've shot any pics with my Tamron 300 LD at f/2.8 with a film camera, and I can't recall any specific instances. So I'll take you at your word. But considering the way a lens like this is often used wide open, I just don't see a bit of vignetting to matter, really. Typically the lens will be centered on a subject and everything else in the frame will be blown bokeh, so a bit of vignetting isn't gonna make much difference.

[Big R]

Very interesting discussion.

In the last couple of years I had a few longer zooms. In my memory I hold dearly the Tamron 60-300 as excellent at all focal lengths but too heavy for my kind of shooting and the Minolta AF 100-300 APO which I regret selling to this very day. The Canon EF 100-300 I got cheap was good only considering the price, it had an unacceptable falloff in IQ at the long end. My Canon EF 70-300 IS was defect, the STM 55-250 was quite good but somehow boring, my Sony 55-210 just mediocre in all aspects. If my Minolta MD 70-210 f4 weren't as heavy as it were I think I still would own it.

Never really considered primes, what I'll now rectify by having bought an Canon FD 300 5.6 (and a 200 f4 which I somehow ran into...). Am quite curious how these will turn out.

[cooltouch]

While I've not personally owned one, or shot one, another good 300/5.6 worth considering is the Tamron 54B SP 300mm f/5.6. I keep reading good things about this lens. It isn't all that common. Weighs 21.5 oz. (610g), so less than a pound and a half. No tripod mount, though, although it might could be adapted for one?

[uddhava]

[stevemark]