| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 3754
Location: Switzerland
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:58 pm Post subject: Canon nFD 4/300 & 1.4x vs FD 4.5/400 |
 |
|
stevemark wrote:
As requested by Sergun in another thread, i've compared the nFD 4/300mm (non-L) with Canon FD 1.4x to the FD 4.5/400. This is a "quick-and-dirty" comparison; weather isn't ideal (moving air is causing reduced resolution). However, it may give you a first impression.
These are 100% crops from the extreme corner of a A7II JPG (24MP) directly out of the camera. All images taken wide open.
First the nFD 4/300mm without converter, at f4:
Then the nFD 4/300mm with Canon FD 1.4x converter:
And finally the FD 4.5/400mm:
Stephan
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Blazer0ne
Joined: 12 Sep 2018
Posts: 836
Expire: 2024-12-07
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Blazer0ne wrote:
...
Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 10530
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Comparing apples with oranges here. Try with same frame by moving positions to get same magnification, for equal dof.
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aidaho
Joined: 29 Apr 2018
Posts: 456
Location: Ukraine
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
aidaho wrote:
| visualopsins wrote: |
| Comparing apples with oranges here. Try with same frame by moving positions to get same magnification, for equal dof. |
My perception is: one uses these FLs exactly when he can't do that.
In any case FD 4.5/400mm is clearly ahead, even when it is one stop brighter.
If we are to stop it down to a level of nFD 4/300mm+1.4x TC (and thus increase DOF at almost equal to teleconverted 300), this will probably turn into a no contest win for 400mm.
_________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/curry-hexagon/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 10530
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
| aidaho wrote: |
| visualopsins wrote: |
| Comparing apples with oranges here. Try with same frame by moving positions to get same magnification, for equal dof. |
My perception is: one uses these FLs exactly when he can't do that.
In any case FD 4.5/400mm is clearly ahead, even when it is one stop brighter.
If we are to stop it down to a level of nFD 4/300mm+1.4x TC (and thus increase DOF at almost equal to teleconverted 300), this will probably turn into a no contest win for 400mm. |
Yes! Thank you. I misunderstood what is being shown here. The first image 300 no tc is not compared, only last two images are compared -- same magnification, different apertures do give different dof, however the faster 400 without tc already shows better performance, as you rightly say, stopping down 400 will only increase performance difference.
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 3754
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
| visualopsins wrote: |
| Comparing apples with oranges here. Try with same frame by moving positions to get same magnification, for equal dof. |
Depth-of-field is absolutely meaningless in these crops: It doesn't matter at all whether the subject is 1580m or 1610m away.
Stephan
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sergun
Joined: 01 Jun 2017
Posts: 283
Location: наша раша
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sergun wrote:
Cool. A separate topic on nfd 300/4 non L My copy is stuck in Japan because of сovid-19 (I can still refuse it) There are few photos from it in the network, if anyone has examples, please show them. Pro teleconverter asked as a bonus, longer than 300mm rare use.
p/s Thank You Stephen
_________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/105161078@N06/
https://fotoload.ru/fotosets/6661/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 10530
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
| stevemark wrote: |
| visualopsins wrote: |
| Comparing apples with oranges here. Try with same frame by moving positions to get same magnification, for equal dof. |
Depth-of-field is absolutely meaningless in these crops: It doesn't matter at all whether the subject is 1580m or 1610m away.
Stephan
... |
Yes, thanks, I misunderstood what was compared. Framing difference 400mm and 420mm close enough. Dof difference is very small, essentially nonexistent here, however I would not go so far to say "absolutely meaningless", only insignicant. Comparing different frames dof becomes significant.
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 3754
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2020 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
| sergun wrote: |
Cool. A separate topic on nfd 300/4 non L My copy is stuck in Japan because of сovid-19 (I can still refuse it) There are few photos from it in the network, if anyone has examples, please show them. Pro teleconverter asked as a bonus, longer than 300mm rare use.
p/s Thank You Stephen |
The nFD 4/300mm (non-L) is a pretty nice and lightweight 300mm lens. If you apply the CA-correction for landscape photos, or if you intend to make portraits or animal photography, the CAs are not worrisome. However, for focusing it doesn't use helicoids, but bearings similar to those found in zoom lenses, and usually they are not precise any more. So precise focusing can be a bit tricky - not as easy and fast as originally intended by the Canon engineers ...
S
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sergun
Joined: 01 Jun 2017
Posts: 283
Location: наша раша
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2020 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
sergun wrote:
I found a Minolta MD tele rokkor 300/4.5 inside my country. Will it be an alternative to Canon 300/4 ?
_________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/105161078@N06/
https://fotoload.ru/fotosets/6661/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 3754
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2020 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
| sergun wrote: |
| I found a Minolta MD tele rokkor 300/4.5 inside my country. Will it be an alternative to Canon 300/4 ? |
Yes, certainly. CAs should be about the same, the Rokkor is very sharp in monochromatic light (e. g. landscapes with mainly green grass or foliage). The MF internal focusing never has problems with worn out part (unlike the nFD). I can post some images tomorrow evening.
S
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sergun
Joined: 01 Jun 2017
Posts: 283
Location: наша раша
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2020 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sergun wrote:
| stevemark wrote: |
| sergun wrote: |
| I found a Minolta MD tele rokkor 300/4.5 inside my country. Will it be an alternative to Canon 300/4 ? |
Yes, certainly. CAs should be about the same, the Rokkor is very sharp in monochromatic light (e. g. landscapes with mainly green grass or foliage). The MF internal focusing never has problems with worn out part (unlike the nFD). I can post some images tomorrow evening.
S |
Yes, it would be interesting to see
_________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/105161078@N06/
https://fotoload.ru/fotosets/6661/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 3754
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2020 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
| sergun wrote: |
Yes, it would be interesting to see |
Sorry, bad / dull weather today - not good for 300mm testing! I'll compare the nFD 4/300mm (non-L), the Minolta MD-II 4.5/300mm, the Nikkor Ai 4.5/300mm ED and the Nikkor AiS 4.5/300mm IF-ED. Maybe we could add also the Pentax F 4.5/300mm IF-ED.
S
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
