Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Ask about Canon FD Macro 100/4 S.C. ?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 2:39 am    Post subject: Ask about Canon FD Macro 100/4 S.C. ? Reply with quote
Is it a good macro lens? how to compare with Volna 9 I already own? including Price maybe..
Thanks


PostPosted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
nobody knows?


PostPosted: Sun Sep 26, 2010 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have this lens.
Haven't really had time to try it, but I like it.

It can be found very cheap.
If you are gonna use it only for macro, there is no problem that a non-glass adapter doesn't focus to infinity.

Note that it will only focus to 1:2 without the FDU 50 macro adapter.

I have no idea on how it compares to other lenses like the Volna 9.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have one too. I have converted it to Canon EF mount - German site, some pictures:
http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/Canon-FD100-4.0-Macro-EOS-EF-Umbau.html

I do not use it often.
And after buying a Vivitar 135/2.8 Close Focusing and a Noflexar 200/4 I suppose I will use it not often the next weeks. I dont like the f/4 much, 2.8 macros I like much more.

As far as I remember I paid ~ 70 Euro for it.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the info.. I think I won't take it. Will stay with Volna 9, maybe will search for Kiron


PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a Kiron 105/2.8 (1:1) too. Because I was not statisfied with the contrast and sharpness wide open I bought the Canon FD 100/4 (1:2).
But that is only f/4 (I know that before Smile that often gets to dark to work handhold. And a bigger problem, 100 mm are very close to my Zeiss 85/1.4 or my new Canon FD 85/1.2 (not converted yet). Due to this, and because it is to plastic, a Sigma 90mm/2.8 (1:2) is not my favorit too.

Now I have the 135 Vivitar Close Fokus (1:2) to test if it is good enough, and the Novoflex 200/4 on bellows. The first images of the later one are statisfying.

I want a macro with different focal length, to use it for travel to.
And there I am happy to have different focal lengths, not tow times nearly the same. The factor 2 for the focal lengths is good for me: 14, 28, 58, 135 and 300 mm could be a nice option.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ZoneV wrote:
I have a Kiron 105/2.8 (1:1) too. Because I was not statisfied with the contrast and sharpness wide open I bought the Canon FD 100/4 (1:2).
But that is only f/4 (I know that before Smile that often gets to dark to work handhold.


i must disagree with Kiron comment, as most who use it would probably do, that is one of the stellar macro performers around. maybe you have a bad copy

as for macro wide open... for real macro you need to stop it down anyway

as for f4 being too dark for handhold...i have micro nikkor 200mm/4 that i use just fine handheld

ZoneV wrote:
And a bigger problem, 100 mm are very close to my Zeiss 85/1.4 or my new Canon FD 85/1.2 (not converted yet). .


why would that be a problem? they are different focal lenghts and if 100mm is a quality lens then there is no reason to have and use it


PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Can confirm the ZoneV statement.
After a comparison between 4 Macro lenses, Tokina AT-X 2.5/90mm, Panagor 2.8/90mm, Vivitar (Komine) 2.8/90mm and the Kiron 2.8/105, the Kiron was at open aperture the last in the field. Stop down gives better results, but not as good to say "stellar performer"..

The results of the test are:

1. Tokina ATX 2.5/90
2. Panagor and Vivitar 2.8/90 (they are the same lenses
3. Kiron 2.8/105mm

Regards
Henry


PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here is another test which has the result that the Kiron 105/2.8 is not that good full open:
http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nikon-foto.de%2Ftemplates%2Fmystuff%2F3rdparty%2FKIRON_2.8-105_MACRO.html
And at least I would not buy more copys to get a probably better one - I decide my opinon about the lens on my copy.

To use macrolenses sometimes full open is my personal kind of work. Don´t care if that is real macro or not.
I like to have very small depth of field sometimes - probably at 1:1 that is no problem with f/4, but at 1:3 that could be more a problem.

Furthermore I like to use the lens not only for macro, but for longer distances too.
I try to have the possibility to pack a camera bag which gives me as much as possible options for my kind of photography. Because of that, I try to reduce nearly double focal lengths. If the vivitar 135/2.8 CF works well, it would be very good - for me. Other photographers could see it completly different.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Fast macro lenses have indeed an advantage, but it's not shooting faster, it's that they are easier to focus accurately.
I mean, try to focus a tiny object with a f/2 lens and a f/4 lens, and the concept will be clear...
Then of course after you have accurately focused at f/2 you will stop down to more typical macro aperture such as f/8 or more


PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Fast macro lenses have indeed an advantage, but it's not shooting faster, it's that they are easier to focus accurately.
I mean, try to focus a tiny object with a f/2 lens and a f/4 lens, and the concept will be clear...
Then of course after you have accurately focused at f/2 you will stop down to more typical macro aperture such as f/8 or more


Yes, thats right in terms of only using it as a macro lens. Focus accuracy is one thing, another thing in addition to that is to use the lens for general purposes as a short telephoto lens instead of taking two different lenses in your bag.

Stopped down, nearly every macro lens is good. But the difference is what we expect, a "specialist" or a macro + general usable lens.

The Tokina for example is one of the lenses you can use in excellent quality for both situations.. short telephoto lens and especially for macro work because of the floating Element concept you can use this lens also on long distances near infinity. The Kiron and other Macro lenses do fail on long distances. IMHO (maybe i am wrong) only Zuiko 2/90mm do have also the floating element concept in the macro 90mm segment.

So the Kiron and also the Canon fails if you want more then only macro.. independent of f-stop..

Cheers
Henry

Last edited by hinnerker on Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:37 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Fast macro lenses have indeed an advantage, but it's not shooting faster, it's that they are easier to focus accurately.
I mean, try to focus a tiny object with a f/2 lens and a f/4 lens, and the concept will be clear...
Then of course after you have accurately focused at f/2 you will stop down to more typical macro aperture such as f/8 or more

I use my macros stopped down
when I focus at F11 viewfinder is dark, but they are great difference between lenses
with good lenses, the contrast still snap and focus precision is 100%
with some macro lenses like the takumar 50:4, I have problem to focus even at F4
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1