Samples from Canon nFD 200mm f/4

Hi all. I just bought this lens on ebay and here are 3 quick samples all at f/4. What do you think of the overall quality? For the price, I think it is very fun to use - I still need to try some stopped down. I'm not that experienced judging vintage lenses, so any opinions are appreciated. I know you can't conclude much just based on these samples, but anyway... here they are




This cat shows up on my doorstep from time to time. It lives across the street in a riding school and usually I give it some treats, then maybe a week passes and it comes back for more.











--
Best regards,
Ulrik Christiansen

Hi,

Nice images. I've got one and like it, though I don't use it often. I should get it out more - it's a very good lens. You'll find that at wide apertures it's a bit prone to PF (at least on my Fuji) if the image includes very high contrast elements like silver or white branches against dark forest, trees against bright sky, highlights on chrome microphone stands, etc. This issue eases once you stop down a few stops.

Regards, Rod

I think it was probably a good buy

I got one not too long ago, and I'm very taken with it too. I wish it were a little faster and that the MFD were just a little closer, but for the low price you can pick one up, I've got no real complaints.

It can fringe a bit, but it's been pretty easy to clean up in post, unlike some others.

moedius said:

I think it was probably a good buy

I got one not too long ago, and I'm very taken with it too. I wish it were a little faster and that the MFD were just a little closer, but for the low price you can pick one up, I've got no real complaints.

It can fringe a bit, but it's been pretty easy to clean up in post, unlike some others.

Click to expand...

You can get a 200/2.8 FDn at quite reasonable prices. But it is larger of course but still compact for a “2.8”.

Tom Caldwell said:

moedius said:

I think it was probably a good buy

I got one not too long ago, and I'm very taken with it too. I wish it were a little faster and that the MFD were just a little closer, but for the low price you can pick one up, I've got no real complaints.

It can fringe a bit, but it's been pretty easy to clean up in post, unlike some others.

Click to expand...

You can get a 200/2.8 FDn at quite reasonable prices. But it is larger of course but still compact for a “2.8”.

Click to expand...

I was torn initially between the f4 and the f2.8. But I got the f4 because of price - for 40 or 50 bucks it's an easy buy. The 2.8 aren't badly priced at all, but they were running 2-3x as much.

I'm still interested in the other options and recommendations that were made for that FL and have been watching them, but after getting rid of a bunch of gear I no longer wanted last week I made an impulse buy with the extra scratch. I ordered a Tamron 180\3.5 macro, for decent price, in a-mount. So in other words I didn't get any of the ones I was actively looking for:-O

The others are all still on my eventual list for sure.

I have both the f/4 and a late-model f/2.8 and they both have a place in my camera bag when I need 200mm; the f/2.8 has perhaps a little more pop, but the light weight and compactness of the f/4 is certainly an advantage on occasion




FDn 200mm f/4 / Sony A7




FDn 200mm f/2.8 IF / Sony A7



The older 200mm f/4 SSC is no slouch either


FD 200mm f/4 SSC / Sony A7



--
London, UK
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/cybertect/

I was a little disappointed with both the f4 and the f2.8 for purple fringing, especially with the f2.8 because I was expecting to use it mostly wide open...
I found the f2.8 to be quite useable at f4, where the little softness and the PF disappears, providing you select a distant background.

But in any case, the PF was quite easy to get rid of in Lightroom.

I think the f2.8 is definitely worth its price, but it is just a very personal opinion (you have to bear with its weight). I did not keep the f4, so I do not have any pictures to show you...


Canon nFD 200mm f2.8 (IF) @f2.8


Canon nFD 200mm f2.8 (IF) @f4


Canon nFD 200mm f2.8 (IF) @f4


Canon nFD 200mm f2.8 (IF) @f4

I finally went for the Minolta MD 200mm f4, as I am not a big fan of the Canon FD mount and the Minolta is a good sharpness and weight compromise to my eyes.

Marc

The FDn non-SSC is the one I've got - it had a closer MFD than the other options which is why I'd gone with that one specifically.

The value\performance on all of these is pretty great.

moedius said:

The FDn non-SSC is the one I've got - it had a closer MFD than the other options which is why I'd gone with that one specifically.

The value\performance on all of these is pretty great.

Click to expand...

If it's FDn, it is SSC as well, but the three letters don't show up on the lens ;-)

I've got it as well and its value/performance ratio is second to none.

Volker G said:

moedius said:

The FDn non-SSC is the one I've got - it had a closer MFD than the other options which is why I'd gone with that one specifically.

The value\performance on all of these is pretty great.

Click to expand...

If it's FDn, it is SSC as well, but the three letters don't show up on the lens ;-)

Click to expand...

I assume it has to be the FDn version as the MFD is ~1.5m instead of 2.5m?

Tom Caldwell said:

moedius said:

I think it was probably a good buy

I got one not too long ago, and I'm very taken with it too. I wish it were a little faster and that the MFD were just a little closer, but for the low price you can pick one up, I've got no real complaints.

It can fringe a bit, but it's been pretty easy to clean up in post, unlike some others.

Click to expand...

You can get a 200/2.8 FDn at quite reasonable prices. But it is larger of course but still compact for a “2.8”.

Click to expand...

As Tom says, the size increase is really remarkable going from F4 to F2.8 (but you pay in weight, albeit not too much; data from http://www.canonclassics.com):

The 200/4 is 440g, 63 x 121.5 mm (diam. x len.)

The 200/2.8 IF is 735g, 81.2 x 134.2 mm (IF = internal focus)

There are 3 other FDn options:

The 200/4 Macro is 830g, 68.8 x 182.4 mm

The 200/2.8 non-IF is 700g, 78 x 140.5

The 200/1.8L is 2800g, 130 x 208mm!

One of these is not like the others!

I considered the 200/2.8 IF, but went for the F4 due to weight: the Canon FDn lenses are my lightweight kit. Only one adapter and a good choice of small, lightweight options.

Some really nice animal pictures there.

I finally had the time to use this lens some more - this time at f/8 and plenty of light.

I don't have the skill to nail focus every time, even with peaking in the Fuji X-T20. So these are some of the best - edited to my liking.











--
Best regards,
Ulrik Christiansen