FD or M42: 300mm? suggestions on next glass?

[nathanbarlow]

Hiya,
been lurking far too long , used to be on here loads back in my under-employed student days before it all got serious and adult-like.

Basically, now that I have a Proper Job(TM) and getting some financial stability behind me.... it has come with some G.A.S as a side dish, and some reminders to make a .... nay not a reckless spend, ...an "investment"

So looking for advice on a big fat tele.

lol love a good tele. or open to suggestions or advice on where to expand my glass into (or replace?)

Got my eye on Canon 300mm FD SSC f2.8 which is like eyepopping amazing

Howver there is also a Canon 300mm FD f/4 , and we are talking like a fifth of the price.
Like the f/4 is like a day or two's wage lol.....the f/2.8 is a proper chunk of change (seen one decent used for a reasonable price, seen 4 other examples for ludicrious prices from Japan, mint condition tho, but thats wasted on me, im a user and abuser on the ole camera system)

Wanted to ask is ....at 300mm is it really that big a deal with the 2.8? I know its the fluorite magical "pre-L" lens tech and well a little bit of the rarity of the FD and that its a very highly rated lens for its era.

Love me fast glass and my FD 200mm f/2.8 L changed my entire photography style when i got it (about 8 years ago now)

Im aware when i adapt FD to EOS i lose 2/3 stop, so an F4 becomes pretty slow indeed. Thats why the f/2.8 appeals here.

Also thinking future proof, as its likely my next camera will be mirrorless when mirrorless is 5-10years older than it is now, as currently FD glass wont need an optical element in the adapter to mirrorless is my understanding (i.e once i move off EOS in into M or R when its not current flagship tech)

I'm into landscape slash action shots, timelapses, ND filters, long exposures kinda stuff....maybe more acurrate to say "travel photog" ...im into hiking and traveling etc outside of photography so i pair those interests up

My Samyang is my "poor lens" of the bunch as i can only shoot wide open f4 on it (needs a different M42 adapter which ive never actually got around to ordering) but its just so versatile as a wide zoom, mind you it got dropped off the top of a tripod ontop of a tour bus and survived, just needs a little lovetap now and then to move back from 28mm

Could be wide angle where I look to spend on my glass?

open to suggestions on glass - or even going something standard length and going past f16 f22 ...like lenses with f32? multi-bladed iris? something with snazzy unique image quality?

chuck me your favorite m42/FD suggestions ?

Cheers

-------------------------------------
Canon D60 (2002 model) (APS-C sensor)
------------------------------------
200mm Canon FD f2.8 (L)
135mm Helios M42 f2.8
50mm Helios M42 f1.8
18-28mm Samyang M42 f4-4.5
------------------------
24-85mm Canon EF (USM) - an AF lens (travel zoom lens)
50mm Canon EF f1.8 (AF nifty fifity lightweight for travelling)

[Oldhand]

The Canon FD 300mm f5.6 is even better value and is very sharp.
Given that your styles of photography don't demand speed, it could suit you quite nicely.
Also it is dirt cheap
Tom

[lumens pixel]

[philslizzy]

This* came up today along with your post. A Canon FD lens catalogue, browse through it and check out on ebay any that you may be interested in.

Though to be honest if you are using it on a Canon FD or EOS body then M42, Nikon, Exakta and PK lenses can be adapted perfectly. Why not broaden your search?

* http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-new-fd-lens-book-and-canon-new-fd-lens-poster-t84863.html

[Alsatian2017]

I've been using the nFD 300 mm f/5,6 and 300 mm f/4 lenses and both are really nice in terms of ergonomics (thanks to the Rear focusing manual focusing is quick, easy and smooth) and image quality (apart from the lateral and longitudinal chromatic aberrations which clean up quite well in Camera Raw or Lightroom). I've since sold the 300 mm f/5,6 since I'm using a tripod quite often for my landscape photography and the faster variant accepts a tripod adapter while being as sharp at f/4 as the slower one at f/5,6.

If you have more money to spend, consider the 300 mm f/4 L which is every bit as good as the much costlier 300 mm f/2,8 L. Note that the older FL and FD SSC variants of the 300 mm f/2,8 dont have IF or RF - focusing will be much slower and less confortable.

[Alsatian2017]

[caspert79]

If you're willing to look beyond FD/M42 I can recommend the Mamiya Sekor 300mm f/5.6 for the M645 system.
It's quite lightweight, and the best lens you're gonna find for the money. Don't go for the ULD version, as it is more expensive, and not better than the regular version.

MamiyaSekorC30056_9 by devoscasper, on Flickr

MamiyaSekorC30056_7 by devoscasper, on Flickr

[RokkorDoctor]

[Crazy Leica Fox]

[Gatorengineer64]

Will be contrarian here. A Nikon 300 2.8 ED is a better hunk of glass (unless you are talking L) that can be had for nothing.

[stevemark]

I own quite a few of those lenses mentioned before, and since others not limited to Canon FD or M42 will read here as well, I'll add a few remarks based on my personal experience with these lenses on 24MP or 43 MP FF.

Canon FL 5.6/300mm SSC Fluorite: first fluorite lens ever (1968), very good CA correction, very good general correction, MFD 4m
Canon FL/FD 2.8/300mm SSC Fluorite: second fluorite lens ever (1968), very good CA correction, very good general correction, MFD 3.5m
Canon new FD 2.8/300mm L: perfect CA correction, excellent detail resolution, IF, beware of degraded/decayed plastic element in the focusing mechanism!!
Canon new FD 4/300mm L: very good CA correction, very good detail resolution, IF, MFD 3m
Canon new FD 4/300mm: mediocre CA correction, very good detail resolution, IF, lightweight, MFD 3m
Canon new FD 5.6/300mm: mediocre CA correction, very good detail resolution, IF, lightweight, MFD 3m
Konica AR 4.5/300mm: mediocre CA correction, good detail resolution, MFD 4m
Minolta MC 4.5/300mm mediocre CA correction, good detail resolution, MFD 4.5m
Minolta MD 4.5/300mm IF: mediocre CA correction, very good detail resolution, IF, MFD 3m
Minolta AF 2.8/300mm APO G: very good CA correction, very good detail resolution, MFD 2.5m (performance identical to Canon FL/FD 2.8/300 Fluorite)
Minolta (Sony) AF 2.8/300mm APO G SSM: perfect CA correction, near perfect detail resolution.
Mamiya Sekor CS and E 4/300mm: bad-mediocre CA correction, good detail resolution, well built AND lightweight, MFD 5m (!)
Mamiya Sekor C 5.6/300mm (ULD): near perfect CA correction, near perfect detail resolution, MFD 4m
Nikkor Ai 4.5/300mm: mediocre CA correction, good detail resolution, MFD 4m
Nikkor Ai 4.5/300mm ED: near perfect CA correction (400nm to 1000nm!), very good detail resolution, MFD 4m
Nikkor AiS 4.5/300mm ED-IF: mediocre-good CA correction, very good detail resolution, IF, MFD 2.5m
Olympus Zuiko OM 4.5/300mm: mediocre-good CA correction, very good detail resolution, MFD 3.5m
Pentax M* 4/300mm ED: mediocre-good CA correction, very good detail resolution, MFD
Pentax F 4.5/300mm IF-ED: very good CA correction, very good detail resolution, IF, MFD 2m (!)
Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 4/300mm (historical 1955 lens): bad CA correction, bad resolution, low contrast
Zeiss CY Sonnar 4/300mm: mediocre CA correction, very good detail resolution
several third party 4/300mm and 4.5/300mm lenses: Crap. very bad CAs and low corner resolution.

My two favourites from the above list are:
FAST: Canon new FD 2.8/300mm L
SLOW: Mamiya Sekor C 5.6/300mm (ULD)

Very good as well:
Canon FL 5.6/300mm Fluorite
Canon FL/FD 2.8/300mm Fluorite
Canon new FD 4/300mm L
Minolta AF 2.8/300mm APO G HS
Nikkor Ai 4.5/300mm ED "non-IF" (!)
Pentax F 4.5/300mm IF-ED

I have tested most of those lenses side-by-side, and the differences between an excellent 300mm lens (Mamiya Sekor C / Canon nFD) and the worst 3rd party lenses are just STUNNING. You'll never see such differences in the 28mm to 200mm range of vintage primes.

S

[stevemark]

[Alun Thomas]

[D1N0]

Hahahaa very funny

[sergun]

I once had a Canon 300/5.6 on the first A7R. Recently, there has been a Mamiya Sekor C 300/5.6. This is heaven and earth. Firstly, the canon resolution does not even reach the level of the Mamiya Sekor 300/5.6, and secondly, chromatics and color.

mamiya300 https://photos.app.goo.gl/3pNkhsJ6MRqcr2EV7

[stevemark]

[nathanbarlow]

[Slalom]

The canon mount is 44mm on the flange focal distance, any thing larger can be used with an appropriate adapter without glass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance

So nikon F to canon FE is 2.5mm so enough metal for a pair of mounts.

You can also see tha sony E/EF at 18mm opens up a huge range of adapters.

[stevemark]

[nathanbarlow]

Compared to my other lenses is the key word there, when im talking about the Canon FD 200mm f/2.8.

For me, theres a huge colour pop and clarity gain with the 200mm compared to other glass I own.

I dont really pixel peep either, as its a 6.3MP camera I'll typically check for sharpness if its critical to the shot taken.

Im sure there is significant CA , its a 1970's / 1980's telephoto lens.

Agree on time for a body change, I'm just still very much in the dSLR phase of shooting and yet to jump to mirror (canon or otherwise). I started with adapting m42 well before mirrorless was available, and its been integral to my style of shooting. The new Canon R has my interest, but sadly not my pocket book (yet).

New (to me) glass will last longer in expanding my photography than a updated body

I also like the physical act of looking through a camera and manual lens movements , so a move to digital screenviewing is very odd to my way of working? im sure ill do it one day, but for now Im lugging chunky cameras haha

[nathanbarlow]

I found your article on the 300mm primes an informative read too

Thanks for letting me know about your site

[visualopsins]

How about the CANON EXTENDER FD 1.4X-A? Use with 200mm lens.

[kathala]

FD on EOS makes no sense optically, period, unless you change the mount and eliminate the need for a glass adapter. You can buy mount change kits, but for north of 100 quid.

The 300 2.8 was touted THE best FD lens (followed by the 500 4.5). I would agree, having enjoyed both. The 300 2.8 is worlds sharper than the 200 2.8 or indeed ANY 200mm FD lens (this too is not just my opinion but exhaustively documented)
I sold the 300, though, because it was just too heavy. Even handling requires a monopod, and travelling with it is just tiring.

FYI, there WAS both an SSC and an L 300 2.8, with performance differences being at best academic (someone compared them on flickr); the optical design is slightly different. (I had the L)

There is a visible difference between the 300 4 L and non-L! ("new FDs")

I would bet all FD lenses are lighter than M42 lenses, and probably sharper.

The 300 5.6 has a decent but not stellar reputation, and image quality is on par with the 100-300 5.6 L zoom

If you're interested: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XHrXeijkKB_ULZxcgJK_v4iPBbxAfOuuo-VuP5ESDvA

[lumens pixel]

[sergun]

I threw a canon 300/5 into the album.6. The chromatics are quite strong, even when closed. There is a small software on the open diaphragm (I probably had such a copy) To be honest, I sold it because it was impossible to remove it from the first A7R.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/7ji1YkgpEiu1tAz37