Canon FD 80 - 200 f/4 L vs Sony 55 - 210 SEL55210

JohnnyCage · Dec 21, 2013

I was a bit underwhelmed by the two kit lenses that came with my Sony NEX 5R. The SELP1650 I sold but the SEL55210 I've hung on to because I just didn't know what to get as a replacement. I didn't want to spend grand or more on a telephoto lens, neither did I want something too bulky. So what to get? I had bought Canon's FD lenses (35 2, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 135 2.8) and used them with a dumb adapter with very good results, but none of them reached far enough.

So I went on numerous forums and review sites to find a lens that can conquer the SEL55210 without breaking the bank, or the bulk!! The Canon FD 80-200 f/4 L kept popping up. It has quite a big fan club with pretty much everyone saying its sharp wide open, minimal CAs, flare, etc. But I couldn't find any definite tests. No comparison between lenses, MTF tests (I know this is asking a but much now), etc. Anyway, because of the overwhelming positivity towards this lens I decided to get it. 250 USD later I had a mint condition Canon FD 80-200 f/4 L at my door.

I've had the lens for a month and now it's time to share test results. Here's what I did:

- I shot each lens at max tele only. First both were wide open then I stopped the Sony down to f/8.

- I shot a target about 5 m away from the camera and manual focused at each setting at least 3 times and then selected the image with the best focus when looking at the files on my large monitor.

- I set OSS off, used a table and a 2 s delay when shooting. (Actually, come to think of it I should have used my remote, damn I never use that thing!)

- I shot in RAW, ISO 100 with +0.7 EV since the NEX 5R tends to underexpose by this much and then imported these into Lightroom.

- I equalized white balance

- In terms of sharpening I tried to pull out as fine detail without going overboard so I used sharpening amout: 99, radius 0.5, detail 0, masking 0.

- I left the default color noise correction on

- I made no other changes (unless Lightroom makes others I'm unaware of) and exported into JPEG at 90% quality

So how does the Sony compare to a Canon lens that was designed a quarter of a century earlier?

Canon FD 80-200 f/4 L at 200 f/4

SEL55210 at 210 f/6.3. Sorry the image got wonky, I wasn't paying attention to leveling because I was focusing on focusing!!

SEL55210 at 210 f/8

Have a look at the images yourself to decide how they perform.

If you need a second opinion here's mine =)

Sharpness: From what I see the Canon at f/4 performs better than the Sony at f/6.3 in all regions of the image (I know that most of the image is out of focus but you get what I mean). At f/8 the Sony seems to sharpen up and is on par with the Canon in the center but further out the Canon is still the clear winner. To be honest it's hard to tell if the Sony actually sharpens up in the center when stopped down or if the change is just perceived due to the increase in contrast and reduction in CAs. It certainly sharpens up further out when stopped down though.

Contrast and CAs: With both lenses wide open the Canon is the clear winner in both regards. In fact it's remarkable just how good the Canon is here in both areas! With the Sony stopped down to f/8 they are about on par. I'll let you decide this one.

Bokeh: There was a reason I left most of the image out of focus with an annoying wood column on the right - it was so that some comparison of bokeh can be made. Obviously the depth of field is much narrower with the Canon especially when compared to the Sony at f/8. In terms of the quality of the bokeh I'll let you make up your own mind. Of course bokeh is a peculiar beast and depends on focus distance, background distance, aperture, etc. and the same lens can create relatively smooth bokeh at some times and then very distracting and ugly bokeh in other compositions.

Anyway, I'm no pro so I'll leave it at that. I just hope this helps others get an idea for what each lens is capable of. Interestingly the lenses cost about the same to buy if you buy the Sony new. The Sony gives you AF and OSS. The AF can be handy of course, but the OSS is somewhat negated by the fact that you have to stop down to f/8 to get a similar performance to what the Canon gives you at f/4. So ultimately you only get about a 1 stop advantage due to OSS (I'm working on the assumption that OSS in this lens would normally give a 3 stop advantage). Of course this has only been a comparison at around 200 mm.

Other things to consider are size, weight, zoom ratios, macro abilities, etc.

Finally here's a bit more of what the Canon can do...

Canon FD 80-200 f/4 L at 200 f/5.6

Can you pick a winner??

JC.

P.S. My first post here so excuse any newbie/noob mistakes!

Manny316 · Dec 21, 2013

JohnnyCage said:
I was a bit underwhelmed by the two kit lenses that came with my Sony NEX 5R. The SELP1650 I sold but the SEL55210 I've hung on to because I just didn't know what to get as a replacement. I didn't want to spend grand or more on a telephoto lens, neither did I want something too bulky. So what to get? I had bought Canon's FD lenses (35 2, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 135 2.8) and used them with a dumb adapter with very good results, but none of them reached far enough.

So I went on numerous forums and review sites to find a lens that can conquer the SEL55210 without breaking the bank, or the bulk!! The Canon FD 80-200 f/4 L kept popping up. It has quite a big fan club with pretty much everyone saying its sharp wide open, minimal CAs, flare, etc. But I couldn't find any definite tests. No comparison between lenses, MTF tests (I know this is asking a but much now), etc. Anyway, because of the overwhelming positivity towards this lens I decided to get it. 250 USD later I had a mint condition Canon FD 80-200 f/4 L at my door.

I've had the lens for a month and now it's time to share test results. Here's what I did:

- I shot each lens at max tele only. First both were wide open then I stopped the Sony down to f/8.

- I shot a target about 5 m away from the camera and manual focused at each setting at least 3 times and then selected the image with the best focus when looking at the files on my large monitor.

- I set OSS off, used a table and a 2 s delay when shooting. (Actually, come to think of it I should have used my remote, damn I never use that thing!)

- I shot in RAW, ISO 100 with +0.7 EV since the NEX 5R tends to underexpose by this much and then imported these into Lightroom.

- I equalized white balance

- In terms of sharpening I tried to pull out as fine detail without going overboard so I used sharpening amout: 99, radius 0.5, detail 0, masking 0.

- I left the default color noise correction on

- I made no other changes (unless Lightroom makes others I'm unaware of) and exported into JPEG at 90% quality

So how does the Sony compare to a Canon lens that was designed a quarter of a century earlier?

Canon FD 80-200 f/4 L at 200 f/4

SEL55210 at 210 f/6.3. Sorry the image got wonky, I wasn't paying attention to leveling because I was focusing on focusing!!

SEL55210 at 210 f/8

Have a look at the images yourself to decide how they perform.

If you need a second opinion here's mine =)

Sharpness: From what I see the Canon at f/4 performs better than the Sony at f/6.3 in all regions of the image (I know that most of the image is out of focus but you get what I mean). At f/8 the Sony seems to sharpen up and is on par with the Canon in the center but further out the Canon is still the clear winner. To be honest it's hard to tell if the Sony actually sharpens up in the center when stopped down or if the change is just perceived due to the increase in contrast and reduction in CAs. It certainly sharpens up further out when stopped down though.

Contrast and CAs: With both lenses wide open the Canon is the clear winner in both regards. In fact it's remarkable just how good the Canon is here in both areas! With the Sony stopped down to f/8 they are about on par. I'll let you decide this one.

Bokeh: There was a reason I left most of the image out of focus with an annoying wood column on the right - it was so that some comparison of bokeh can be made. Obviously the depth of field is much narrower with the Canon especially when compared to the Sony at f/8. In terms of the quality of the bokeh I'll let you make up your own mind. Of course bokeh is a peculiar beast and depends on focus distance, background distance, aperture, etc. and the same lens can create relatively smooth bokeh at some times and then very distracting and ugly bokeh in other compositions.

Anyway, I'm no pro so I'll leave it at that. I just hope this helps others get an idea for what each lens is capable of. Interestingly the lenses cost about the same to buy if you buy the Sony new. The Sony gives you AF and OSS. The AF can be handy of course, but the OSS is somewhat negated by the fact that you have to stop down to f/8 to get a similar performance to what the Canon gives you at f/4. So ultimately you only get about a 1 stop advantage due to OSS (I'm working on the assumption that OSS in this lens would normally give a 3 stop advantage). Of course this has only been a comparison at around 200 mm.

Other things to consider are size, weight, zoom ratios, macro abilities, etc.

Finally here's a bit more of what the Canon can do...

Canon FD 80-200 f/4 L at 200 f/5.6

Can you pick a winner??

JC.

P.S. My first post here so excuse any newbie/noob mistakes!

Interesting comparisons considering how most people say old zoom lenses are supposedly crap compared to the new state-of-the-art zooms. The Canon is the clear winner. How much did the Canon cost compared to the Sony?

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

--
My Photography Page Come check it out
I don't take pictures on how I see the world. I take pictures on how I want the world to be: Bright and vivid.

Manny316 · Dec 21, 2013

Nevermind. just saw how much you paid for the Canon. My eye strain is killing me plus it's 3am. I'm off to bed.ha Congrats on your new lens!

--https://www.facebook.com/mannydelossantosphotography

My Photography Page Come check it out
I don't take pictures on how I see the world. I take pictures on how I want the world to be: Bright and vivid.

nzmacro · Dec 21, 2013

Not really surprised and good to know. If you want another fine lens, the Canon FD 100-300 F/5.6L (the "L" version), no CA and sharp as a tack. I should use it more often, just a little too short though. Nice lens.

Anyway, nice to see and its always been a good FD lens that one. Have fun with it.

Danny.

DLeeT · Dec 21, 2013

JC:

Very interesting. I have the 55-210 and also a lowly Canon FD 75-200 (not even an L) that goes for around 50 USD. I wonder how the Canon and Sony would compare at further than 5 m? Take a look at some of Justin's shots with the 55-210. And even the dirt cheap 75-200 does pretty well at 5 m: see below.

But there is no doubt the old legacy zooms are underrated. They are great for an introduction to telephoto shooting and the fact they are shunned makes many of them a bargain!

Some, the "Ls" particularly, seem to be getting a bit pricey. The 55-210 is now selling on eBay for about the same price as your Canon FD 80-200 L. You might comment, with your experience of both, which you would choose if buying just one.

Cheers, Lee

Canon FD 75-200, about 5 m

havanna60 · Aug 17, 2014

DLeeT said:
I have the 55-210 and also a lowly Canon FD 75-200 (not even an L) that goes for around 50 USD. ... there is no doubt the old legacy zooms are underrated. They are great for an introduction to telephoto shooting and the fact they are shunned makes many of them a bargain!

Canon FD 75-200, about 5 m

Hi Lee,

This is Miki again. Actually, this was the post that brought me to have a look at your photos and ask a couple of questions. I love manual focusing on mirrorless cameras. Since my daughter took over my A7 and FD80-200/f4L, I am looking for a decent smallest possible, cool retro-looking pure MF telephoto zoom lens for my camera, and I found that the Canon FD 75-200/f4.5 is one of the smallest (123x71mm, 510g, 52mm filter) the other option would be Nikon 80-200/f4.5D (153x73mm, 750g, 52mm filter). I already have a heavy Nikon 180mm/f2.8 (138x78mm, 800g, 72mm filter), which is excellent, but too heavy. I am aware that modern lenses with their better coating and aspheric elements are better performers, and this time I am interested how do you feel the FD75-200 on your NEX6?

My current FD lens set with my APS-C mirrorless camera: 15mm/f2.8 fisheye, 24mm/f2.8, 50mm/f1.2, 85mm/f1.2L

As you can see, the FD85mm with its 72mm filter size is too big. I'd love to have a lens with 52mm filter thread. The FD15mm fisheye has no real alternative. BTW, I am a Speed Booster fan, too. This way I can use my lens set with near full-frame DoF and FoV. I am thinking of buying a NEX5 because of its touch screen, but this is another story.

Take care and thank you, Miki

DLeeT · Aug 17, 2014

Thanks for the nice comments.

Here is a shot of the 75-200 next to my NEX-6 (Sigma 30 on the camera.) The 75-200 is light -- maybe something over a pound? As you would expect, the 75-200 isn't as good as the SEL55-210 -- which of course isn't as good as... and on and on...) ;-)

The 75-200 is the only one of these cheap zooms I have used so I can't be much help on others. Looks to me like you have been researching them so you know more about them than I do.

Have you considered one of the legacy prime telephotos? More money of course, but higher quality so better IQ.

I don't use the 75-200 much anymore; usually with close in wildlife under low light conditions where its 4.5 beats the SEL 55-210's 6.3 (at 210 mm.)

Not sure if this helps much. Good luck with whatever you decide! Lee

P. S. Very soft shot, but you get the idea!

shaolin95 · Aug 17, 2014

I did a comparison between the sel55210 and the FD 200mm f2.8 and then decided to throw in a FD 70-210mm f4 I got super cheap. Was expecting the Sel55210 to lose to the prime and beat the old zoom. Well...to summarize the results...I no longer have the Sel55210! The 70-210mm was clearly better and faster. Maybe my sel55210 was that bad or something because I would expect the 80-200mm f4l to murder it.
--

Gabriel Gerena

Explore Gabriel Gerena’s 13 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Tuloom · Aug 17, 2014

The FD 80-200L is the bargain of the year for the 250-275$ it goes for.

havanna60 · Aug 31, 2014

Hi Lee, I am back again. I have my own copy of the FD 75-200mm for couple of days now. Thank you for the help that you gave when I was looking for a small, Made in Japan, high quality, still inexpensive (mid) telephoto zoom lens. I bought the lens off ebay practically in near new condition from Grandad Dave (UK) for 80 euros shipping to my country included.

The FD 75-200mm is made of very high quality instrument grade plastic (delrin) with a proud Made in Japan logo.

I use Speed Booster, which gives an additional one-stop light to the f4.5. The lens has 52mm (sic!) filter size: really a small lens for a Full-Frame compatible f4.5 constant aperture push-pull.

Clearviewer is really helpful for focusing the 75-200mm. The Speed Booster after calibration makes the distance scale of FF lenses completely usable on APS-C (mirrorless) cameras.

DLeeT said:
the 75-200 isn't as good as ...

I have been in photography for only a year, but I've learned quickly that 99% of the lenses and cameras (far) outperforms their users.

The focus barrel can be pushed to any distance from 75mm to 200mm. The Speed Booster gives the same field of view of the lens on an APS-C camera as if it were used on a FF body.

DLeeT said:
Have you considered one of the legacy prime telephotos? More money of course, but higher quality so better IQ.

I have a brilliant AI 180mm/f2.8 but it is really heavy. I have an FD 135mm/f2.8 and an FD 100mm/f2.8 on their ways to my home; both with 52mm filter size. As I wrote, I am completely convinced that these lenses are way better than 99% of the photographers, especially me. I have several more expensive (large-aperture, heavy) lenses, but I cannot take significantly better photographs with them, at least not today.

Manual focusing (MF) with a long-throw focus barrel with decent focus peaking on mirrorless cameras is revelational experience. In some situations MF is much simpler, easier and quicker, in some other situations, where AF might be more straightforward, I should be more careful to do the job with MF.

DLeeT said:
I don't use the 75-200 much anymore; usually with close in wildlife under low light conditions where its 4.5 beats the SEL 55-210's 6.3 (at 210 mm.)

Whatever brilliant a native mount lens were, no way I'd replace my MF lenses with any of them. Today I my main camera is a Fujifilm body (X-A1), for a couple of days recently I used a brilliant Olympus PEN E-P5 for fun, my daughter is using my ex-A7 and I am looking forward to trying my next Sony camera, possibly an A5100 (because of the tilting touch screen): I maintain one lens system (FD/AI) that I (will be able to) use on multiple mirrorless bodies. When I evaluate a new camera body, the very first feature to test is focus peaking, where Sony excels.

My daughter, Anna (22) and her master (Istvan Pal (96)) taken with the FD 75-200mm.

Take care and thank You, Miki

DLeeT · Aug 31, 2014

Glad you got and are happy with the lens! It looks like new. And nice shot of the family.

Have fun with the lens! Lee

forpetessake · Aug 31, 2014

I've been telling for ages on this forum that every old manual zoom I tried showed noticeably better results than the Sony 55-210mm zoom. I mean even the cheap zooms like Minolta 70-210/4, Kiron 80-200/4, Sigma 55-200/3.5-4.5 APO -- all did better even wide open. The Sony lens is particularly bad at 210mm/6.3 at infinity. But I must also mention that at 55mm the lens is reasonably good.

shaolin95 · Aug 31, 2014

forpetessake said:
I've been telling for ages on this forum that every old manual zoom I tried showed noticeably better results than the Sony 55-210mm zoom. I mean even the cheap zooms like Minolta 70-210/4, Kiron 80-200/4, Sigma 55-200/3.5-4.5 APO -- all did better even wide open. The Sony lens is particularly bad at 210mm/6.3 at infinity. But I must also mention that at 55mm the lens is reasonably good.

havanna60 · Oct 15, 2014

DLeeT said:
It looks like new. And nice shot of the family. Have fun with the lens! Lee

Hi Lee, Thank You for the kind words. Here is a followup:

https://flic.kr/p/p145yb

This photo was picked by the organizers of a major charity concert here:

96-year old hands of Istvan Pal, a shepherd: taken with a Canon FD 75-200 on a mirrorless camera

Many are raving about the excellence of recent Sony/Zeiss/Canon/Nikon/Fuji/Olympus/Panasonic electronic lenses with insanely stellar prices to have the ultimate image quality and autofocus speed. I am far from being an established photographer and I take photos for fun: my winner photo above was taken with a terribly inexpensice no-electronics mechanical FD 75-200mm with manual focusing. I just encourage fellow photographers to experiment manual focusing with legacy lenses as much as possible to discover the real beauty of the photography process: to me the process of focusing is part of the soul/intimacy of the photo. Even when I (slightly) miss tack sharp focus, I regard it as (an inherent) part of my style: no way I am going back to automated focusing ever again.

I could not resist sharing my high-spirited feelings. Take care, Miki

GaryW · Oct 15, 2014

forpetessake said:
I've been telling for ages on this forum that every old manual zoom I tried showed noticeably better results than the Sony 55-210mm zoom. I mean even the cheap zooms like Minolta 70-210/4, Kiron 80-200/4, Sigma 55-200/3.5-4.5 APO -- all did better even wide open.

As someone else suggested, these were probably good lenses in their day. Years ago, I went through all of the used A-mount tele zooms at a used camera store, and they were all poor. The 55-210 would have been much better than any of them.

I would think it's more fair to compare to modern lenses. Even the lowly Tamron 55-200 (which I have on A-mount) is better at the long end than the Sony 55-210, and is slightly faster in aperture. The 55-200 is cheap, and quite the bang-for-the-buck. The biggest advantage of the 55-210 is OSS, which is really good, and using the lens at the middle focal lengths, results seem reasonably good, even in lower-light situations (with the Nex-6).

forpetessake said:
The Sony lens is particularly bad at 210mm/6.3 at infinity. But I must also mention that at 55mm the lens is reasonably good.

It's pretty good at some of the middle focal lengths too. But near the far end, it needs to be stopped down to f8.

DLeeT · Oct 15, 2014

Congratulations, Miki! Great shot! And glad you are enjoying the lens. And it shows that gear -- no matter what the price -- is secondary to the hands holding the camera.

Lee

cxsparc · Feb 18, 2015

shaolin95 said:
I did a comparison between the sel55210 and the FD 200mm f2.8 and then decided to throw in a FD 70-210mm f4 I got super cheap. Was expecting the Sel55210 to lose to the prime and beat the old zoom. Well...to summarize the results...I no longer have the Sel55210! The 70-210mm was clearly better and faster. Maybe my sel55210 was that bad or something because I would expect the 80-200mm f4l to murder it.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lgabrielg/

I too have the 70-210/4 and 80-200/4 (non L). In my view the 80-200L is not really a bargain considering that its price frequently runs between 280 to 350 Euros, whereas the other two constant f4 lenses run around 20 Euros!

Both FD f4 Non-L zooms already deliver very good IQ at an insane low price, actually better than my previous Minolta AF 70-210 f4. The considerable size also helps and keeping the system steady. After I received an FD 135/2.8 as present, I stopped using the zooms, though, except for moon shots with a 2x TC added. If you think the zooms are great, those FD primes will make you bonkers. I also have the FD100/2.8 and both the 100 and 135 are very good already wide open. Stop them down to F4 and you get extreme resolution. Of course a zoom is more flexible, but the 80-200 translates to 120-300 mm on APSC, and the 300 mm is actually too far out for many situations - for me.

However, after getting the SEL18105, I rather use that lens. It is also f4 throughout, not expensive, AF and electronic coupled, OSS and also reaches out from 18 to 160 mm FF equivalent with very good IQ.

Also, with the FDs there are two issues for me (besides being MF and no OSS): The older Nex cameras underexpose by another 0.7 EV compared to when SEL lenses are mounted on the body, I have no idea why. The other thing is the color rendering: The FD100 doesn't give the colors I want, the other FDs can be tweaked but all of them have a different color rendering compared to native SEL lenses.

Antone · Feb 18, 2015

cxsparc said:
I too have the 70-210/4 and 80-200/4 (non L). In my view the 80-200L is not really a bargain considering that its price frequently runs between 280 to 350 Euros, whereas the other two constant f4 lenses run around 20 Euros!

Prices for Canon FD lenses have skyrocketed in the last year or so. You could buy an EX-grade 80-200L for around $250 a year ago. Now you have to spend about $400. The popularity of mirrorless cameras are what's behind this increase (they're not suitable for DSLRs because of their registration distance). My only regret is I didn't buy a 20-35L. Its price now is really more than I care to spend.

--
Tony-S

cxsparc · Feb 18, 2015

Totally agree with that. L-Glass may be fine, but paying 30 % of the price of a new AF, OSS and electronic coupled native lens for a 30 year old MF one with unknown history is just a little too much for me.

So we rather have to wait a little for used E-Mount lenses to come down, use the cheaper FD primes instead or fork out the money.

Trollmann · Feb 18, 2015

Lots of Canon L lenses are probably (just joking) better than the E 55-210.

But those gigantic and heavy Canon lenses are beast always lying in a drawer when I am outside happily snapping with the super compact and light weight E 55-210 lens.

And compactness and light weight are also qualities - love the E55-210. Not for beeing splendid optically but the optics are fair and the lens even fit in a Pocket. Always by my side just as my shadow! A lens is a LOT more than optical quality alone.

Canon FD 80 - 200 f/4 L vs Sony 55 - 210 SEL55210

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Senior Member

Attachments

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts