Canon FDn 200mm f4 Oh My!

[Oldhand]

This lens overlooked for its faster sibling the 2.8/200 and so it sells for next to nothing.
Worth a serious look if you are after a 200mm lens and don't want to pay too much.
Here are some quick samples to show its quality.
OH

[bernhardas]

edited

[miran]

Beautiful results! I especially like the parrots. Sharp, contrasty and colourful. And quite nice bokeh as well.

[Excalibur]

In a comparison test:- My Canon FDn 200mm f4 either is a slightly inferior copy or my Kiron 80-200 f4 is a very good copy...as I can't see any difference in results e.g. A4 prints, so as the Kiron is more useful my Canon is not used.
So it would be interesting if more members added their views on the FDn 200mm f4

[cooltouch]

Well, I have one. It didn't get much use back when my only digital was an EOS, but now that I have a NEX, I guess I should dust it off and give it a whirl. Wish I had the colorful subjects that OH has though.

[Oldhand]

Thanks everyone.
Here is a crop of one of the king parrot pictures - this is the male.
The feather detail is quite good.
OH

[padam]

Nice examples.

While there are other very good cheap 200mm lenses out there, the main difference with this is the minimum focusing distance (internal focus)

[mo]

#4 and 5,wow just beautiful. I have started to buy Canon now I have the M4/3 camera (and XE-1),but never seriously looked at their zooms. I think I have to start looking.OH is it easy to focus say if you used it at a sporting event? and how about the weight?

[Oldhand]

[dnas]

Just a word of warning about this lens.... I seen many of them with hazing on the second element from the front. Simple cleaning with not remove it.

So when you examine it, make sure you use an LED light to check that there's no haze.

[Oldhand]

Here are some pix of the lens itself.
Second is next to Pentacon 4/200 to show difference.
OH

[mo]

Thanks for the comparision, looks good on the XE1.

[cooltouch]

This thread inspired me to take mine out of the cabinet and shoot some flower pics with it. I also have a Komine-made Vivitar 200mm f/3.5 -- the all metal one with the ribbed focusing collar -- that I decided to bring along. After buying this Vivitar some five years ago, I did a rather frustrating comparison between the two lenses, using a Canon camera and some rather grainy 400 ISO film. I wasn't able to find much detail with that comparison, but given the film I was using, the two lenses appeared to be approximately equal in performance. The biggest differences between the two are, 1) the Vivitar is 1/2 stop faster and 2) the Vivitar weighs about 1/2 lb (about 240 grams) more than the Canon, the Canon weighing exactly 1 lb and the Vivitar weighing about 1-1/2 lb. Minumum focusing distance is close between the two -- a bit under 5 feet for the Canon and about 6 feet for the Vivitar. Both have built-in hoods, but as OH mentioned, the Canon has IF, whereas the Vivitar does not. Having IF means that the lens tends to focus faster than a lens without it. On balance, I prefer the Canon, even though it's 1/2 stop slower, because it's smaller, lighter, and focuses faster with IF. More recently, I bought a Mamiya 200mm f/3.5 in M42, mostly on a lark because it was priced so cheap and I figured that, if it were a Mamiya, chances are it was a good lens. I simply forgot to give this lens a try as well. It is of the same approximae vintage as the Vivitar -- pretty large and heavy, with all metal and glass construction. Rather than add photos from it here, I'll probably just do a separate evaluation.

So, here are some of my shots. I shot the images with my Sony NEX 7 in raw mode at ISO 100 and used PS's raw converter on them. All images were shot with the lenses wide open. My attitude toward this is I would rather challenge a lens to see how good it can perform at its most demanding setting, which is usually wide-open, than setting it to its sweet spot before shooting. I enhanced the photos slightly with the converter, adding some contrast and overall exposure adjustments, a bit of light sharpening and noise reduction. After translating the images to jpg, I performed no additional adjustments to them. The images are full-size. Click on them to load the full-size images into your browser.

Canon nFD 200mm f/4 IF, all images shot at f/4:

Yellow Hibiscus:


Bougainvillea:


White Roses with Pink Fringing:


White Roses:


New Growth Rose Leaves:


Vivitar (Komine) 200mm f/3.5, all images shot at f/3.5:

Yellow Hibiscus:


Bougainvillea:


White Roses with Pink Fringing:


White Roses:


New Growth Rose Leaves:


My quick analysis is as follows: Keeping in mind that all the flowers, except for the Bougainvillea were in the shade, the Canon images appear to be a bit better saturated (I didn't add any saturation in post), with the Vivitar's images having a somewhat more cool cast. Even though the Canon's maximuum aperture is f/4, its bokeh are noticeably more appealing to me, as is evinced most plainly by the close up images of the new-growth rose leaves. I find the Vivitar's bokeh to be pleasing as well, just that the Canon's is a bit better.

[Oldhand]

The more I use this lens the more I like it.
OH

[Oldhand]

A final few from me.
OH

[tb_a]

Thomas,

Excellent pictures from an obviously very capable lens and a very good photographer. However, for my taste the color pictures are by far much nicer for the presented plants and parrots.
Although I really like B&W I would prefer color at least for the parrot.

Cheers,

[Oldhand]

[tb_a]

[cooltouch]

Thomas, yes it's the same story with Canon. If one wants the last version of their 200/2.8, the model with IF, a typical eBay price will be $200+.

I owned the Canon 200/2.8 IF for years before I got my 200/4. I loved that lens for the "look" I could get with it, especially when shooting wide open. But there is one area where the 200/4 is vastly better than the 2.8 version, and that's how well CA is handled. I often had to be very careful how I used that lens. In bright sun, any hard lines or specular highlights would result in enough CA to ruin the shot. Not so with the f/4 version.

[WNG555]

Simply beautiful! It's easy to see how outstanding this lens is in the hands of an outstanding photographer.
The additional B&Ws do show off the lens' contrast.

I'm trying very hard to not purchase this lens! I wonder how the older S.C.C. version compares, and if it's also IF?

Already own several fine 200mm f/3.5 and f/4 primes. Of course, they all have their own character.
One being the Vivitar Komine f/3.5 that cooltouch compared above. Looks to be a bit sharper wide open than the Canon FDn. Not bad for a single-coated lens.
The other two favorites are an Olympus OM Zuiko MC f/4 and a Konica Hexanon AR f/3.5.
Hexanon is a resolution monster, with no CA.

[Attila]

this is generally true, f4 lenses are excellent may even better than f2.8 brothers, they are lot smaller usually.
but ... people love fast lenses

[cooltouch]

[papasito]

First class brand have all a good 200 mm lens, it was a popular FL.

The nikkor, rokkor, takumar, hexanon, zuiko, are all good or very good.

But think that any of them is not in the same league of the canon fdn used in this thread. Very, very good lens. In some pics has a similar rendering than my apo telyt 3.4/180. And this is not a little thing

[Oldhand]

Yes, this lens is particularly good - it continues to surprise me.
Here is one from this morning
OH

[Oldhand]

We have been to the city and are not long back.
Here are a couple of shots with the Canon FDn 4/200 and a little help from LR and NIK
OH


#1


#2