FD 80-200mm f/4L is like a prime lens

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Well, I can publish literally thousands of images taken with the AF 4/70-210 on both film and digital to prove that it doesn't have a lot of CAs, or rather, neither of my copies has, I can't speak for other samples of lenses that are now over 30 years old. Kilpatrick used an a900 for his test, I use an a850, before that an a100, an a200 and a dozen Minolta film bodies. Maybe other sensors give different results.

Oh, and when you say far inferior, are you talking about pedantic squinting at corners at wide apertures or making a blanket statement about the results the lens can produce in 'normal' photographic use?

Here's three examples from the AF 4/70-210 on my a850 where you would expect to see CAs, but to my eyes, these images are remarkably free of CA, particularly for a zoom:

#1

#2

#3

As for the UC Hexanon, it's not quite as good in the CA correction, it displays some red and green CAs, but less than most zooms of it's era, you can see some green CA here on the chrome strip below the Jaguar, although the reflection from the green car body doesn't help:

On this clock picture the red and green CAs can be seen, but on my old NEX-3 they were very slight, perhaps on a higher resolution more modern sensor the red and green CAs would reach 1 or 2px. However, that is a matter of one or two clicks in Adobe RAW loader to remove.

#1

#2

When it comes to sharpness, it's as sharp as a good prime, sharper than most zooms, a little bit sharper than the Minolta beercan:

It's sharp at distance too, but where it falls down is in overall contrast, it's contrasty for a zoom of that age, less so than some primes or the Vario-Sonnar.

Overall, it's a great lens that produces results as good as a good prime lens of similar age.

kerry_13 · Joined: 05 Jun 2018 Posts: 1

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4088 Location: Switzerland

folderholder · Joined: 24 Jan 2010 Posts: 102 Location: California

The Canon Fd 80-200mm L has become my standard telephoto lens in the last half year. I have no idea how it compares to the Zeiss/Yashica lens, or the Hexanons, or to any other. Anyone who is happy with their results has a good lens as far as I am concerned. I think the results from this one are about as good as I will get from a manual focus telephoto. The Canon is competent at handling flare, but not as good as some more recent lenses. I always use a lens hood and work within its limits. The flare issue is the only thing that makes me consider switching to other lenses. The Canon's colors, contrast and dimensionality are excellent, imo.

I enjoy seeing the comparison shots that other forum members post. Thanks to everyone.

The photos below are only cropped, otherwise straight jpgs from a Canon EOS M6. At the 200mm setting this camera gives an equivalent fl of 320mm. Very useful in a portable lens. Incidentally, in my travels I rarely see anyone else using this camera (maybe never!), but I think it is a viable alternative to the other brands. For anyone interested, the battery lasts a long time with a manual lens attached. The camera has taken more than 50,000 exposures for me with nary a glitch.

These two photos were taken in May 2018 in Beijing and Shenyang, China. Most likely at around f/8.

folderholder · Joined: 24 Jan 2010 Posts: 102 Location: California

I have been comparing the Zeiss 80-200mm and Canon 80-200mm L. Both excellent lenses, but the Zeiss seems to have a slight focus shift as it is stopped down. Has anyone else seen this?

folderholder · Joined: 24 Jan 2010 Posts: 102 Location: California

Straight jpgs (except cropping) from Canon M6 and Canon fd 80-200mm f/4 L. One of my truly fav lenses. It even has a macro setting.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

First of all, I want to say that the images shown from the Canon 80-200 L are about what I'd expect to see from such a lens. I am especially impressed with the bokeh it delivers at f/4. They are soft and simply beautiful.

I owned the 80-200 L briefly back when I was a camera dealer. I bought an outfit for resale, which included the 80-200 L, and only briefly was able to play around with it, so my experiences are limited. I do remember a few things about it, however.

First of all, a word or two about the 80-200 L's size by comparison. Canon produced two other lenses in that general focal range -- well three, if you include the 100-200/5.6, but I usually don't. The other two are the two-ring 80-200 f/4 and push-pull 70-210 f/4. The 80-200/4 two ring was available in both breechlock and new FD mounts. The breechlock lens was physically slightly larger and weighed more than the nFD version. The 70-210 is a fairly large lens. Almost as large is a Vivitar S1. The nFD 80-200 two-ring is moderately sized, I would say -- about right for its focal length and relatively modern design. Whereas the 80-200 L is quite petite by comparison. It's the smallest of them all. In fact, its size approaches that of the very compact Albinar 80-200 f/3.9 -- a ubiquitous push-pull lens that can often be found on eBay for less than $20. I mention the Albinar only because it was my first ever zoom and I was (and still am) quite familiar with its size.

So, if you can put up with the fact that it's a push-pull zoom (I know a lot of folks used to only AF zooms that can't), it is a lens that handles well. It's lightweight and compact, yet delivers knock-out quality images.

A few words about the other two Canon offerings: I own both the nFD 80-200 f/4 two-ring and the 70-210 f/4 push-pull zoom. The 80-200 two-ring Canon had always regarded as its professional model and the 70-210 as an amateur optic. New prices reflected this. The 80-200 sold for a lot more than the 70-210 did. I got curious about just how much better than the 70-210 the 80-200 was, so I shot some comparison images. The subject was not the best choice, so I should do this again, but the results of this shoot were that the difference between the two lenses was negligible. I should also point out that I included my Tamron 80-200 f/2.8 LD in this test and its images were also virtually indistinguishable from the others. All the more reason for a retest, since the Tamron is of known quality to me.

My judgement of the image quality of these two lenses is that the 70-210 provides images of generally excellent quality and that the 80-200 two-ring's are just a bit better.

I would expect the 80-200 L's images to be substantially better than what either of these two lenses can deliver -- on par with those that I typically get from my Tamron 80-200 f/2.8 LD. Yes, I would expect the Tamron and the Canon 80-200 L to be roughly equivalent in capabilities, except the Tamron has benefit of the f/2.8 maximum aperture, but the Tamron also weighs at least twice as much as the Canon 80-200 L. And that can make for a BIG difference in terms of portability and usability. You really have to want to use that Tamron because of its bulk.

I just jumped over to eBay to have a look at this lens. Its prices mostly have come down a lot. There are several Japanese sellers who have this lens for sale for much less than what I typically see it going for there. Makes me want to get one and add it to my FD inventory.

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4088 Location: Switzerland