View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2934 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2022 12:50 pm Post subject: Canon new FD 200mm f/2.8 |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
If you can deal with a fair amount of chromatic aberrations, this is very nice bokeh lens and a lot of fun to play with. They can be found very cheap; I bought mine for 66 euros + shipping from Japan. All images wide open:
Canon nFD 200mm f_2.8_7 by devoscasper, on Flickr
Canon nFD 200mm f_2.8_5 by devoscasper, on Flickr
Canon nFD 200mm f_2.8_4 by devoscasper, on Flickr
Canon nFD 200mm f_2.8_3 by devoscasper, on Flickr
Canon nFD 200mm f_2.8 by devoscasper, on Flickr
Canon nFD 200mm f_2.8_1 by devoscasper, on Flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2022 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Quote: |
Canon new FD 200mm f/2.8 |
Are you talking about the earlier nFD 2.8/200mm without IF (identical optics as the FD 2.8/200mm), or is it the later nFD 2.8/200mm with IF?
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2022 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
I've had a love-hate relationship with this lens ever since I bought my first one, brand new, back in the mid-80s. I discovered early on when shooting slide film that I had to be very careful about the subject and background because of pronounced CAs. They can be tamed now somewhat when shooting digital, cleaned up in post. I've even successfully cleaned up slide images in post that I shot with this lens. It is indeed a great performer as long as you keep in mind its drawbacks.
Here is a small selectioion of slides that I shot when I was freelancing as a motorsports photographer. Fujichrome 100. Duped with my NEX 7 and 55mm f/2.8 Nikkor macro lens. Because of the angle of the sun, I didn't have to do much clean-up in post.
A Pair of Corner Workers at Willow Springs Raceway on a cold, blustery January morning, circa 1986. Canon F-1, Canon 200mm f/2.8, Fujichrome 100.
IMSA Race, 1986 at Riverside International Raceway. Group 44 Jaguar XJR7. Canon F-1, Canon 200mm f/2.8, Fujichrome 100.
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/202211/big_1067_imsa_rir_group_44_jag_xjr7_1b_1.jpg]
[/url]
IMSA Race, 1986 at Riverside International Raceway. Group 44 Jaguar XJR7 overtaking a GT-1 Camaro. Canon F-1, Canon 200mm f/2.8, Fujichrome 100.
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/202211/big_1067_imsa_rir_group_44_jag_camaro_1a_2.jpg]
[/url]
IMSA Race, 1986 at Riverside International Raceway. Bayside Disposal Porsche 962. Sounded like a vacuum cleaner, but it was fast! Canon F-1, Canon 200mm f/2.8, Fujichrome 100.
I don't know why this is, but there is a slight softening of the images shown here compared to what I'm observing on my own machine. So in other words, the images are somewhat sharper than they appear here. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2934 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2022 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
Quote: |
Canon new FD 200mm f/2.8 |
Are you talking about the earlier nFD 2.8/200mm without IF (identical optics as the FD 2.8/200mm), or is it the later nFD 2.8/200mm with IF?
S |
I have the IF one.
@cooltouch: nice images.
I noticed that the lens is sharp enough wide open. Focus Peaking works good with this lens. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2022 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
cooltouch wrote: |
I've had a love-hate relationship with this lens ever since I bought my first one, brand new, back in the mid-80s. I discovered early on when shooting slide film that I had to be very careful about the subject and background because of pronounced CAs. |
Since I got the my FD 2.8/200mm and my nFD 2.8/200mm IF I always was wondering why Canon didn't make this lens an "L" lens, using UD glass or fluorite. At least the nFD 2.8/200 IF should have gotten an upgraded color correction.
Nikon had their 2.8/180mm ED (not IF, though), and Minolta soon would introduce the AF 2.8/200mm APO G (also an IF lens).
cooltouch wrote: |
Here is a small selectioion of slides that I shot when I was freelancing as a motorsports photographer. |
Thanks for sharing them!
cooltouch wrote: |
I don't know why this is, but there is a slight softening of the images shown here compared to what I'm observing on my own machine. So in other words, the images are somewhat sharper than they appear here. |
That's why I always recommend to click on my test images published here at mflenses.
The images you see within the thread usually are not really sharp.
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2934 Location: The Netherlands
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2022 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Hey Casper, looking at your last group of images, it appears to me that your nFD 200 IF has better CA control than mine did. I would have avoided shots such as your second and third because of rather severe CAs, especially along the reflections in that chain link fence. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2934 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2022 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
cooltouch wrote: |
Hey Casper, looking at your last group of images, it appears to me that your nFD 200 IF has better CA control than mine did. I would have avoided shots such as your second and third because of rather severe CAs, especially along the reflections in that chain link fence. |
I removed most CA’s in post 😊. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10556 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2022 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
cooltouch wrote: |
...
IMSA Race, 1986 at Riverside International Raceway. Group 44 Jaguar XJR7 overtaking a GT-1 Camaro. Canon F-1, Canon 200mm f/2.8, Fujichrome 100.
... |
WOW!!! _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ 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 (151B), 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 |
|
|
vivaldibow
Joined: 23 Jun 2018 Posts: 837
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2022 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
vivaldibow wrote:
Photos look very nice. I don't own too many 200mm f/2.8. But I like my Soligor 200mm f/2.8 P. Would like to see how it compares.
By the way, which website do you guys buy from Japan? Thanks. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2934 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2022 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
vivaldibow wrote: |
Photos look very nice. I don't own too many 200mm f/2.8. But I like my Soligor 200mm f/2.8 P. Would like to see how it compares.
By the way, which website do you guys buy from Japan? Thanks. |
I bought from Buyee.jp
Just beware, I’m having a dispute with them over an other item, so it’s not without risk. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Crazy Leica Fox
Joined: 29 Apr 2017 Posts: 59
|
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2022 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Crazy Leica Fox wrote:
Wow, fantastic!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Alsatian2017
Joined: 05 Mar 2018 Posts: 237
|
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2022 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Alsatian2017 wrote:
vivaldibow wrote: |
Photos look very nice. I don't own too many 200mm f/2.8. But I like my Soligor 200mm f/2.8 P. Would like to see how it compares.
|
I've got two copies of the Soligor 200 mm f/2.8 (Tokina and Sun made) and one copy of the Canon nFD 200 mm f/2.8 (without IF) and I compared the latter to the Tokina made Soligor P lens (a German language review can be found following the "Objektive" links in my signature..). While the Soligor certainly has its merits, it is much inferior to the Canon lens regarding resolution and contrast throughout the frame, up to the point that focusing wide open with a Sony A7 and the focusing loupe function gets a little unreliable due to the low contrast at f/2.8. Border and corner performance is much weaker as well while chromatic aberrations are similarly high. BTW, the later Sun version has a weaker build quality as well as a slightly reduced optical performance (resolution is higher but contrast suffers quite a bit more). _________________ Personal website : https://volkergilbertphoto.com
Classic lenses : https://volkergilbertphoto.com/objektive/
Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/volker.gilbert/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ultrapix
Joined: 06 Jan 2012 Posts: 551 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ultrapix wrote:
A bit off topic, but my EF-L version amazes me any time |
|
Back to top |
|
|
vivaldibow
Joined: 23 Jun 2018 Posts: 837
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2022 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
vivaldibow wrote:
caspert79 wrote: |
vivaldibow wrote: |
Photos look very nice. I don't own too many 200mm f/2.8. But I like my Soligor 200mm f/2.8 P. Would like to see how it compares.
By the way, which website do you guys buy from Japan? Thanks. |
I bought from Buyee.jp
Just beware, I’m having a dispute with them over an other item, so it’s not without risk. |
Thanks. Understand. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
vivaldibow
Joined: 23 Jun 2018 Posts: 837
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2022 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
vivaldibow wrote:
Alsatian2017 wrote: |
vivaldibow wrote: |
Photos look very nice. I don't own too many 200mm f/2.8. But I like my Soligor 200mm f/2.8 P. Would like to see how it compares.
|
I've got two copies of the Soligor 200 mm f/2.8 (Tokina and Sun made) and one copy of the Canon nFD 200 mm f/2.8 (without IF) and I compared the latter to the Tokina made Soligor P lens (a German language review can be found following the "Objektive" links in my signature..). While the Soligor certainly has its merits, it is much inferior to the Canon lens regarding resolution and contrast throughout the frame, up to the point that focusing wide open with a Sony A7 and the focusing loupe function gets a little unreliable due to the low contrast at f/2.8. Border and corner performance is much weaker as well while chromatic aberrations are similarly high. BTW, the later Sun version has a weaker build quality as well as a slightly reduced optical performance (resolution is higher but contrast suffers quite a bit more). |
Thanks for the info. I feel the Tokina made 200/2.8 is quite decent. Sharp enough indoor; outdoor I really haven't tested enough. Interesting to know Canon version is so much better. I am intrigued. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
flavio81
Joined: 20 Mar 2022 Posts: 35 Location: Lima, Peru
|
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2022 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
flavio81 wrote:
I loved my nFD 200/2.8 (with Internal focusing).
Yes, sometimes you could see a hint of chromatic aberration, and also longitudinal chromatic aberration (which I hate on lenses). But on the other hand bokeh was really really smooth and the lens balances perfectly and is so easy to focus with only 1 finger.
The results is what count and I got great pictures with this lens, great portraits, and it was an extremely sharp lens, as well. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
connloyalist
Joined: 22 Jul 2020 Posts: 252 Location: the Netherlands
|
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2022 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
connloyalist wrote:
How do you distinguish the Canon nFD 200mm 2.8 IF from the non-IF version? According to my information the nFD was first made as 5/5 (elements / groups) in 1979 and then from 1982 as 7/6. I assume the IF is the 7/6 version. How do you tell them apart on eBay?
Regards, C. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
y
Joined: 11 Aug 2013 Posts: 304 Location: EU
|
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2022 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
y wrote:
connloyalist wrote: |
How do you distinguish the Canon nFD 200mm 2.8 IF from the non-IF version? According to my information the nFD was first made as 5/5 (elements / groups) in 1979 and then from 1982 as 7/6. I assume the IF is the 7/6 version. How do you tell them apart on eBay? |
The 7/6 aka nFD II features MFD of 1.5m compared to the original nFD's 1.8m.
So simply check the minimal value visible on distance scale of the focusing ring. There here should be either a 1.8 or 1.5 mark printed in white. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6010 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2022 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
y wrote: |
connloyalist wrote: |
How do you distinguish the Canon nFD 200mm 2.8 IF from the non-IF version? According to my information the nFD was first made as 5/5 (elements / groups) in 1979 and then from 1982 as 7/6. I assume the IF is the 7/6 version. How do you tell them apart on eBay? |
The 7/6 aka nFD II features MFD of 1.5m compared to the original nFD's 1.8m.
So simply check the minimal value visible on distance scale of the focusing ring. There here should be either a 1.8 or 1.5 mark printed in white. |
Also, the easiest visual marker is that the retractable lens hood on the IF version has diamond knurling, while the earlier version is plain with straight grooves for grip
Cheers
Tom
Last edited by Oldhand on Sun Nov 20, 2022 8:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
connloyalist
Joined: 22 Jul 2020 Posts: 252 Location: the Netherlands
|
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2022 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
connloyalist wrote:
y wrote: |
connloyalist wrote: |
How do you distinguish the Canon nFD 200mm 2.8 IF from the non-IF version? According to my information the nFD was first made as 5/5 (elements / groups) in 1979 and then from 1982 as 7/6. I assume the IF is the 7/6 version. How do you tell them apart on eBay? |
The 7/6 aka nFD II features MFD of 1.5m compared to the original nFD's 1.8m.
So simply check the minimal value visible on distance scale of the focusing ring. There here should be either a 1.8 or 1.5 mark printed in white. |
Oldhand wrote: |
y wrote: |
connloyalist wrote: |
How do you distinguish the Canon nFD 200mm 2.8 IF from the non-IF version? According to my information the nFD was first made as 5/5 (elements / groups) in 1979 and then from 1982 as 7/6. I assume the IF is the 7/6 version. How do you tell them apart on eBay? |
The 7/6 aka nFD II features MFD of 1.5m compared to the original nFD's 1.8m.
So simply check the minimal value visible on distance scale of the focusing ring. There here should be either a 1.8 or 1.5 mark printed in white. |
Also, the easiest visual marker is that the retractable lens hood on the IF version has knurling, while the earlier version is plain
Cheers
Tom |
Ah yes, thank you both. I hadn't noticed the difference in knurling. That should be distinguishable even when you can't see the MFD.
Regards, C. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
laenee
Joined: 31 Jan 2011 Posts: 369 Location: Shanghai
|
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2022 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
laenee wrote:
cooltouch wrote: |
I've had a love-hate relationship with this lens ever since I bought my first one, brand new, back in the mid-80s. I discovered early on when shooting slide film that I had to be very careful about the subject and background because of pronounced CAs. They can be tamed now somewhat when shooting digital, cleaned up in post. I've even successfully cleaned up slide images in post that I shot with this lens. It is indeed a great performer as long as you keep in mind its drawbacks.
Here is a small selectioion of slides that I shot when I was freelancing as a motorsports photographer. Fujichrome 100. Duped with my NEX 7 and 55mm f/2.8 Nikkor macro lens. Because of the angle of the sun, I didn't have to do much clean-up in post.
A Pair of Corner Workers at Willow Springs Raceway on a cold, blustery January morning, circa 1986. Canon F-1, Canon 200mm f/2.8, Fujichrome 100.
IMSA Race, 1986 at Riverside International Raceway. Group 44 Jaguar XJR7. Canon F-1, Canon 200mm f/2.8, Fujichrome 100.
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/202211/big_1067_imsa_rir_group_44_jag_xjr7_1b_1.jpg]
[/url]
IMSA Race, 1986 at Riverside International Raceway. Group 44 Jaguar XJR7 overtaking a GT-1 Camaro. Canon F-1, Canon 200mm f/2.8, Fujichrome 100.
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/202211/big_1067_imsa_rir_group_44_jag_camaro_1a_2.jpg]
[/url]
IMSA Race, 1986 at Riverside International Raceway. Bayside Disposal Porsche 962. Sounded like a vacuum cleaner, but it was fast! Canon F-1, Canon 200mm f/2.8, Fujichrome 100.
I don't know why this is, but there is a slight softening of the images shown here compared to what I'm observing on my own machine. So in other words, the images are somewhat sharper than they appear here. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|