Sharpest MF SLR lenses you used - A list

At full aperture, center to edges (not corners), reasonable vignetting.

Here is my short list:

- Leica R 35/2.8

- Leica R 60/2.8 Macro

- Leica R 90/2.8

- Contax Zeiss 35/2.8

- Contax Zeiss 60/2.8 Macro

- Contax Zeiss 85/2.8

- Contax Zeiss 100/3.5

- Minolta 35/2.8 MD-III

- Minolta 100/2.5 MD-III

- Minolta 135/2.8 MD-III

- Minolta 200/4.0 MD-III (but C.A.)

- Canon 80-200/4.0 L FDn

- Canon 300/4.0 L FDn

- Nikon 55/2.8 Macro AIs

- Nikon 105/2.5 AIs

- Voigtlander 90/2.8 Apo SL-IIs

- Samyang 135/2.0

- Pentax 50/2.8 Macro A

- Pentax 200/4.0 A

- Pentax 300/4.5 ED-IF FA* (autofocus)

Notes:

- Only 1 lens with aperture larger than f/2.8

- Many Macro lenses

- Many lenses between 85 and 105 mm

nikon 50/1.2 ais at f2

either c/y zeiss 1.7 or 1.4 at f2.8

the c/y sonnar 100/3.5 is good at f3.5 but it’s only f3.5

contax g planar 45/2 at f2 - same for zm

the 90/85 G, Rollei sonnars benefit being stopped down to f4

the nikkor 105/2.5 ( sonnar ) needs to be stopped down to about f4 to be “sharp”

If I want sharp at large apertures I would use a modern lens like most ARTs, GM’s or my Nikon Z 50/1.8s

Hi,

You've been more exploratory than me. I'm a Fuji user, principally interested in landscape and nature. So I was trying adapted lenses on APSC. This crops the sweet spot out of legacy FF image circles and I don't know if my choices would be the same on an FF digital sensor.

• I tried some WAs - Nikon, OM, and CY - 20, 21, 24 and 28mm lenses with a view to having the capacity to using them on a TS adapter. I found they work, but that they are simply not as sharp as Fuji's 18, 23 and 27mm lenses designed for the APSC format.
• I then bought FLs that Fuji didn't offer. The first was the Nikon 105/2.5, which I bought because I had loved it on film. I found my sample was stunningly sharp at f8, but really uncompetitive at wide apertures. It also generated quite a lot of CAs. I preferred the Canon FD 100/2 - a wonderful but heavy lens. I sold both to explore lighter options.
• I tried a swag of 100, 135 and 200mm lenses. Of these I kept only the Minolta MD v.iii 100/2.5 as my pick of the 100-105s - sharp, good rendering and moderate in weight.
• I never found a 135mm or a 200mm that I really liked. Not great wide open and too many CAs. It seems to me that the 135 and 200mm lenses were too short in the film era to get ED glass and are now too long in the digital era to do well without it.
• I tried several macro lenses and found them a reliable genre, perhaps the best in terms of cross frame sharpness. I kept the Minolta MD100/4 which is sharp and has unusually low CAs, and the Sigma 180mm f5.6 Apo Macro, which has none.
• I finally sought a decent 300mm, and after trying a handful of more affordable consumer grade lenses, all troubled by CAs, I ended up like you with the Canon FD 300/4L. (I would also consider old Fluorite lenses, but they've become more expensive than a used modern lens of 'L' or 'ED' grade so there's no point.)

So we have a little overlap... and some differences.

Cheers, Rod

Technically speaking, i.e. in terms of measurements, that would be the Zeiss S-Biogon 4o/5.6, end of story.

Practically speaking, all of the following have never let me want for sharpness (and I am a demanding pro):

5oo/4.5 Canon FD L

3oo/2.8 Canon FD L (delightful and reported to exceed the f/4L, but not my focal length, so it left)

28o/2.8 Leica Apo-Telyt R (same story as the Canon; Leica guru Erwin Puts rates the Canon higher!)

9o/2.8 Tamron Macro (I have and love the 272e; the later models are even sharper)

9o/4.5 Rodenstock Rogonar-S (that was back in the DSLR days, and a jaw dropping moment for me what SHARP really means - enlarger lens)

85/1.2 Canon FD L (sharper than literally any other MF 85/1.2, including Zeiss'!)

6o/4 Rodenstock Rodagon-WA (enlarger lens)

5o/1.4 Canon FD (so surprisingly sharp when stopped down that I gave up the Leica Summicron! (wide-open, it is of course no match for anything modern))

28/2.8 Canon FD (so surprisingly sharp that I all but gave up my pancake 28)

35/2 Canon FD (just a bit too slow for my taste, so it left)

12/2.8 Samyang

and technically 35/1.4 Sigma Art, since I use it as a manual focus lens (MF adapter for aperture control only - works perfectly)

concerning manual 2oos, Rod, I experienced the same (Canon FD 2oo/4 should be on the list of LEAST sharp MF SLR lenses). Grudgingly, I tried the 7o-21o/4, which happened to weigh less than 1oo/2.8+2oo/4, and is actually sharper than the 2oo/4! I tested it against the famous 8o-2ooL and found no clear winner - one is better at some things, the other at others. Except one is 3oo of your favourite currency, the other 15.

Rod McD said:

Hi,

You've been more exploratory than me. I'm a Fuji user, principally interested in landscape and nature. So I was trying adapted lenses on APSC. This crops the sweet spot out of legacy FF image circles and I don't know if my choices would be the same on an FF digital sensor.

• I tried some WAs - Nikon, OM, and CY - 20, 21, 24 and 28mm lenses with a view to having the capacity to using them on a TS adapter. I found they work, but that they are simply not as sharp as Fuji's 18, 23 and 27mm lenses designed for the APSC format.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately true (-

Rod McD said:

• I then bought FLs that Fuji didn't offer. The first was the Nikon 105/2.5, which I bought because I had loved it on film. I found my sample was stunningly sharp at f8, but really uncompetitive at wide apertures. It also generated quite a lot of CAs. I preferred the Canon FD 100/2 - a wonderful but heavy lens. I sold both to explore lighter options.

Click to expand...

That's bizarre, I had the inverse experience. My Nikon 105/2.5 AIs was sharper and had a lot less C.A. than the Canon 100/2.0 FDn

Rod McD said:

• I tried a swag of 100, 135 and 200mm lenses. Of these I kept only the Minolta MD v.iii 100/2.5 as my pick of the 100-105s - sharp, good rendering and moderate in weight.

Click to expand...

Excellent lens. The 200/4.0 is also, despite a touch of C.A. But the marvel is the 135/2.8 MD-III: even slightly sharper than the 100/2.5 MD-III !

Rod McD said:

• I never found a 135mm or a 200mm that I really liked. Not great wide open and too many CAs.

Click to expand...

You probably never had a perfect sample of the Minolta 135/2.8 MD-III, As soon as weather allows, I will take some photos with it to show you what it can do.

• It seems to me that the 135 and 200mm lenses were too short in the film era to get ED glass and are now too long in the digital era to do well without it.
• I tried several macro lenses and found them a reliable genre, perhaps the best in terms of cross frame sharpness. I kept the Minolta MD100/4 which is sharp and has unusually low CAs, and the Sigma 180mm f5.6 Apo Macro, which has none.

- i probably got a bad sample of the Minolta 100/4.0 Macro, mine was not very sharp.

• I finally sought a decent 300mm, and after trying a handful of more affordable consumer grade lenses, all troubled by CAs, I ended up like you with the Canon FD 300/4L. (I would also consider old Fluorite lenses, but they've become more expensive than a used modern lens of 'L' or 'ED' grade so there's no point.)

- Alas, despite trying 3 samples of the Canon 300/4.0 L, all of them suffer of the 'rubberized ball bearings disease'. Focusing is difficult, and the sharpness of the shots is like a lottery. Sometimes excellent, sometimes blurry. But I am extremely happy with the Pentax 300/4.5 IF-ED FA*, despite its weight and the absence of tripod collar. It is very sharp, and no C.A., at full aperture! Practically an 'Apo' lens.

So we have a little overlap... and some differences.

- Yes... I think that the differences are mostly due to the fact that one of us didn't have a perfect sample of the lens considered. Another lens that surprised me: the Minolta 300/4.5 MD-III. My first one was really mediocre, despite looking 'like new'. But the light weight and small size for the aperture are so wonderful that I bought a second one. It was like day and night. A lot better, if still not as good (a little bit of C.A., slightly less sharp in the center) as the Canon and Pentax. And no ball bearings issue.

Cheers, Rod

Thanks for your input!

Thanks. In your list I have or had the following:

kathala said:

9o/2.8 Tamron Macro (I have and love the 272e; the later models are even sharper)

Click to expand...

- I am slightly disappointed by mine. Too much C.A. at f/2.8. I wonder if it is only my sample?

kathala said:

35/2 Canon FD (just a bit too slow for my taste, so it left)

Click to expand...

- I like it too, but if it is sharp, it is not 'ultra-sharp', and it has a huge problem of flare. Really annoying for landscape photography.

kathala said:

12/2.8 Samyang

Click to expand...

- I have one that I use on a Fuji X-T3. Very good indeed.

...concerning manual 2oos, Rod, I experienced the same (Canon FD 2oo/4 should be on the list of LEAST sharp MF SLR lenses).

- Probably due to their damaged ball bearings. I had one that, when tested one day, gave me ultra-sharp results. The next week I used it in real life photography, with most of my photos blurry. I re-tested it and had a mix of bad and sharp shots. I found out that the focusing was moving 'freely' without even touching the focusing ring!

.

Hi Belgarchi.

Thanks. With FD lenses, what are the symptoms of the "rubberized ball bearing issue"? My 100/2 and 300/4L were mint-ish samples and both seemed to operate perfectly. I now only have the 300mm left. Is it a product of years of use and wear? Or is it a product of age and deterioration of materials? And most importantly, is there an economic fix, if and when the time comes?

Thanks, Rod

Rod McD said:

Hi Belgarchi.

Thanks. With FD lenses, what are the symptoms of the "rubberized ball bearing issue"? My 100/2 and 300/4L were mint-ish samples and both seemed to operate perfectly. I now only have the 300mm left. Is it a product of years of use and wear? Or is it a product of age and deterioration of materials? And most importantly, is there an economic fix, if and when the time comes?

Thanks, Rod

Click to expand...

the bearings issue (there are no balls involved ;-) ) only affects fixed focal lenses with internal focusing and/or floating elements and zoom lenses with separate rings for focusing and focal length. While the FD 300 mm f/4 L is thus affected, the EF 100 mm f/2 is not. Instead of hard plastic for the rollers, Canon used a combination of brass and rubber, which was probably at that time more expensive to produce. Unfortunately, the rubber part slowly degrades and causes play and/or blockage of the commands. Some lenses don't show it yet since they have been stored away for several years but all will show it after having used the lens for a while. The only fix is to open the lens and replace the rubber/brass rollers with more durable (plastic/Teflon) parts which will turn out more or less difficult to do.

Best regards

Volker

Belgarchi said:

Thanks. In your list I have or had the following:

Belgarchi said:

9o/2.8 Tamron Macro (I have and love the 272e; the later models are even sharper)

Click to expand...

- I am slightly disappointed by mine. Too much C.A. at f/2.8. I wonder if it is only my sample?

Click to expand...

hm, I never thought so myself, but will also admit that since I own the 85/1.2, I only ever use the Tamron for Macro and then at optimal aperture around f/5.6

Belgarchi said:

Belgarchi said:

35/2 Canon FD (just a bit too slow for my taste, so it left)

Click to expand...

- I like it too, but if it is sharp, it is not 'ultra-sharp', and it has a huge problem of flare. Really annoying for landscape photography.

Click to expand...

I recently learnt that I have an above-average amount of arms, so I use one to shade lenses when they flare

(since many people have no or only one arm, those with two have more arms than the statistical average)

Belgarchi said:

...concerning manual 2oos, Rod, I experienced the same (Canon FD 2oo/4 should be on the list of LEAST sharp MF SLR lenses).

- Probably due to their damaged ball bearings. I had one that, when tested one day, gave me ultra-sharp results. The next week I used it in real life photography, with most of my photos blurry. I re-tested it and had a mix of bad and sharp shots. I found out that the focusing was moving 'freely' without even touching the focusing ring!

Click to expand...

I'm afraid to say it's the optics. Precise focus could be had with a helicoid adapter; I also reched focus every single time (something the 7o-21o taught me). And even a wobbly FD 24/2.8 I once tested was better than a pristine 2oo. The 2oo is decent up-close, but dreadful further away. As a phenomenon, that applies to every lens, including, and very visible, the S-Biogon. But few lenses turn that dismal (or, depending on perspective, are optimised for the completely wrong subject distance).

kathala said:

kathala said:

...concerning manual 2oos, Rod, I experienced the same (Canon FD 2oo/4 should be on the list of LEAST sharp MF SLR lenses).

- Probably due to their damaged ball bearings. I had one that, when tested one day, gave me ultra-sharp results. The next week I used it in real life photography, with most of my photos blurry. I re-tested it and had a mix of bad and sharp shots. I found out that the focusing was moving 'freely' without even touching the focusing ring!

Click to expand...

I'm afraid to say it's the optics. Precise focus could be had with a helicoid adapter; I also reched focus every single time (something the 7o-21o taught me). And even a wobbly FD 24/2.8 I once tested was better than a pristine 2oo. The 2oo is decent up-close, but dreadful further away. As a phenomenon, that applies to every lens, including, and very visible, the S-Biogon. But few lenses turn that dismal (or, depending on perspective, are optimised for the completely wrong subject distance).

Click to expand...

No, it's not. The nFD 200 mm f/4 is one of the best 200 mm lenses of that time and it should be sharp from wide open. If it's not, you definitely have a problem with shot bearings which mess up not only the focussing but the centering as well. That has nothing to do with the lens having a pristine appearance or not since the rubber part of the bearings just degrades after some years, with or without use (see my explanation further up).

Volker G said:

kathala said:

Volker G said:

...concerning manual 2oos, Rod, I experienced the same (Canon FD 2oo/4 should be on the list of LEAST sharp MF SLR lenses).

- Probably due to their damaged ball bearings. I had one that, when tested one day, gave me ultra-sharp results. The next week I used it in real life photography, with most of my photos blurry. I re-tested it and had a mix of bad and sharp shots. I found out that the focusing was moving 'freely' without even touching the focusing ring!

Click to expand...

I'm afraid to say it's the optics. Precise focus could be had with a helicoid adapter; I also reched focus every single time (something the 7o-21o taught me). And even a wobbly FD 24/2.8 I once tested was better than a pristine 2oo. The 2oo is decent up-close, but dreadful further away. As a phenomenon, that applies to every lens, including, and very visible, the S-Biogon. But few lenses turn that dismal (or, depending on perspective, are optimised for the completely wrong subject distance).

Click to expand...

No, it's not. The nFD 200 mm f/4 is one of the best 200 mm lenses of that time and it should be sharp from wide open. If it's not, you definitely have a problem with shot bearings which mess up not only the focussing but the centering as well. That has nothing to do with the lens having a pristine appearance or not since the rubber part of the bearings just degrades after some years, with or without use (see my explanation further up).

Click to expand...

My FD 85 1.2 L looked great but had the dissolving bearing issue.

There was nothing wrong with the images once it WAS focused but the focus throw was just way too loose to keep using it.

I recently sold my FD 24 1.4 L for a silly amount and gave the 85 to the buyer as a bonus (I could have sold it for a decent sum but am not greedy).

Now using a GM 85 1.4 and it is by far the best 85 I have used and while some others are sharper, it is still a very sharp lens and I think it is sharper than the FD 85 1.2 L (which was a lens I loved to use).

smith-jones said:

Now using a GM 85 1.4 and it is by far the best 85 I have used and while some others are sharper, it is still a very sharp lens and I think it is sharper than the FD 85 1.2 L (which was a lens I loved to use).

Click to expand...

sure, the slower the lens, the easier it is to make it sharp. Zeiss Otus and Sigma Art are easily sharper than the Canon FD, but half a stop slower. The GM is inferior to both Zeiss and Sigma, but still sharper than the FD. And slower

kathala said:

kathala said:

Now using a GM 85 1.4 and it is by far the best 85 I have used and while some others are sharper, it is still a very sharp lens and I think it is sharper than the FD 85 1.2 L (which was a lens I loved to use).

Click to expand...

sure, the slower the lens, the easier it is to make it sharp. Zeiss Otus and Sigma Art are easily sharper than the Canon FD, but half a stop slower. The GM is inferior to both Zeiss and Sigma, but still sharper than the FD. And slower

Click to expand...

First, we should define "sharper", a term often used by photographers but "fuzzy" by design. Do we mean resolution or contrast, sharpness in the center, on the borders, or in the corners, sharpness wide open or stopped down, on which sensor size and definition? We really should start to be more precise when using this term and this applies as well to the OP (How to define "sharpest lens" ?)

Anyway, modern lenses should be better corrected than a lens designed fifty years ago ;-)

Volker G said:

kathala said:

Volker G said:

...concerning manual 2oos, Rod, I experienced the same (Canon FD 2oo/4 should be on the list of LEAST sharp MF SLR lenses).

- Probably due to their damaged ball bearings. I had one that, when tested one day, gave me ultra-sharp results. The next week I used it in real life photography, with most of my photos blurry. I re-tested it and had a mix of bad and sharp shots. I found out that the focusing was moving 'freely' without even touching the focusing ring!

Click to expand...

I'm afraid to say it's the optics. Precise focus could be had with a helicoid adapter; I also reched focus every single time (something the 7o-21o taught me). And even a wobbly FD 24/2.8 I once tested was better than a pristine 2oo. The 2oo is decent up-close, but dreadful further away. As a phenomenon, that applies to every lens, including, and very visible, the S-Biogon. But few lenses turn that dismal (or, depending on perspective, are optimised for the completely wrong subject distance).

Click to expand...

No, it's not. The nFD 200 mm f/4 is one of the best 200 mm lenses of that time and it should be sharp from wide open. If it's not, you definitely have a problem with shot bearings which mess up not only the focussing but the centering as well. That has nothing to do with the lens having a pristine appearance or not since the rubber part of the bearings just degrades after some years, with or without use (see my explanation further up).

Click to expand...

Hello!

I can join in by saying that have never used or seen a really sharp FD 200/4.0 and that goes back to trying to source the best copy I could buy brand new for my Canon film cameras when it came out. It was one major fail in my eyes.

I also broke down and bought various copies when getting into adapting lenses to my digital bodies - all the way from my Oly E1 through various generations and systems of cameras - and the results have always been the same. Each and every one, from the ones I shot brand new to all I ever bought used, failed to deliver. Not a single one was as good as other lenses in about the same focal range I have/had.

Despite all the hype, it seems to get from time to time, to me it is not a lens to be recommended at all - but one to avoid.

Best,

Alex

--
carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero

SiFu said:

Volker G said:

kathala said:

SiFu said:

...concerning manual 2oos, Rod, I experienced the same (Canon FD 2oo/4 should be on the list of LEAST sharp MF SLR lenses).

- Probably due to their damaged ball bearings. I had one that, when tested one day, gave me ultra-sharp results. The next week I used it in real life photography, with most of my photos blurry. I re-tested it and had a mix of bad and sharp shots. I found out that the focusing was moving 'freely' without even touching the focusing ring!

Click to expand...

I'm afraid to say it's the optics. Precise focus could be had with a helicoid adapter; I also reched focus every single time (something the 7o-21o taught me). And even a wobbly FD 24/2.8 I once tested was better than a pristine 2oo. The 2oo is decent up-close, but dreadful further away. As a phenomenon, that applies to every lens, including, and very visible, the S-Biogon. But few lenses turn that dismal (or, depending on perspective, are optimised for the completely wrong subject distance).

Click to expand...

No, it's not. The nFD 200 mm f/4 is one of the best 200 mm lenses of that time and it should be sharp from wide open. If it's not, you definitely have a problem with shot bearings which mess up not only the focussing but the centering as well. That has nothing to do with the lens having a pristine appearance or not since the rubber part of the bearings just degrades after some years, with or without use (see my explanation further up).

Click to expand...

Hello!

I can join in by saying that have never used or seen a really sharp FD 200/4.0 and that goes back to trying to source the best copy I could buy brand new for my Canon film cameras when it came out. It was one major fail in my eyes.

I also broke down and bought various copies when getting into adapting lenses to my digital bodies - all the way from my Oly E1 through various generations and systems of cameras - and the results have always been the same. Each and every one, from the ones I shot brand new to all I evrt3 bought used, no a single one was ad good as other lenses in about the same focal range I have/had.

Despite all the hype, it seems to get from time to time, toe it is not a lens to be recommended at all.

Best,

Alex

Click to expand...

Well, that's your opinion, I've got another one, based on my own long time experience and on tests published at the beginning of the 1980s by two independent and reputed French photo magazines. So maybe we should agree to the terms "not recommended by me" rather than "not recommended at all" , which only reflects your own opinion and experience ;-)

Volker G said:

SiFu said:

Volker G said:

kathala said:

Volker G said:

...concerning manual 2oos, Rod, I experienced the same (Canon FD 2oo/4 should be on the list of LEAST sharp MF SLR lenses).

- Probably due to their damaged ball bearings. I had one that, when tested one day, gave me ultra-sharp results. The next week I used it in real life photography, with most of my photos blurry. I re-tested it and had a mix of bad and sharp shots. I found out that the focusing was moving 'freely' without even touching the focusing ring!

Click to expand...

I'm afraid to say it's the optics. Precise focus could be had with a helicoid adapter; I also reched focus every single time (something the 7o-21o taught me). And even a wobbly FD 24/2.8 I once tested was better than a pristine 2oo. The 2oo is decent up-close, but dreadful further away. As a phenomenon, that applies to every lens, including, and very visible, the S-Biogon. But few lenses turn that dismal (or, depending on perspective, are optimised for the completely wrong subject distance).

Click to expand...

No, it's not. The nFD 200 mm f/4 is one of the best 200 mm lenses of that time and it should be sharp from wide open. If it's not, you definitely have a problem with shot bearings which mess up not only the focussing but the centering as well. That has nothing to do with the lens having a pristine appearance or not since the rubber part of the bearings just degrades after some years, with or without use (see my explanation further up).

Click to expand...

Hello!

I can join in by saying that have never used or seen a really sharp FD 200/4.0 and that goes back to trying to source the best copy I could buy brand new for my Canon film cameras when it came out. It was one major fail in my eyes.

I also broke down and bought various copies when getting into adapting lenses to my digital bodies - all the way from my Oly E1 through various generations and systems of cameras - and the results have always been the same. Each and every one, from the ones I shot brand new to all I evrt3 bought used, no a single one was ad good as other lenses in about the same focal range I have/had.

Despite all the hype, it seems to get from time to time, toe it is not a lens to be recommended at all.

Best,

Alex

Click to expand...

Well, that's your opinion, I've got another one, based on my own long time experience and on tests published at the beginning of the 1980s by two independent and reputed French photo magazines. So maybe we should agree to the terms "not recommended by me" rather than "not recommended at all" , which only reflects your own opinion and experience ;-)

Click to expand...

Hello!

We can agree to disagree for sure.

Since my personal experience is all that counts for me rather than the typical add-rigged-magazine "tests" of the time and personal experience of others that may not have the same experience with other offerings to put it into perspective, it is of course a subjective opinion - but that is, like I said, I can not recommend it at all.

Best,

Alex

--
carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero

Hi Volker.

Thanks. Is the task now well known to repairmen? And are there suitable bearings actually available to repairmen to do the job?

I guess the related question is whether it's economic, or whether to simply trade in for a modern lens before my FD lens gets worn enough to exhibit the problem. I could put up the funds and buy a Fuji 70-300, 100-400, etc

Thx, Rod

SiFu said:

Volker G said:

kathala said:

SiFu said:

...concerning manual 2oos, Rod, I experienced the same (Canon FD 2oo/4 should be on the list of LEAST sharp MF SLR lenses).

- Probably due to their damaged ball bearings. I had one that, when tested one day, gave me ultra-sharp results. The next week I used it in real life photography, with most of my photos blurry. I re-tested it and had a mix of bad and sharp shots. I found out that the focusing was moving 'freely' without even touching the focusing ring!

Click to expand...

I'm afraid to say it's the optics. Precise focus could be had with a helicoid adapter; I also reched focus every single time (something the 7o-21o taught me). And even a wobbly FD 24/2.8 I once tested was better than a pristine 2oo. The 2oo is decent up-close, but dreadful further away. As a phenomenon, that applies to every lens, including, and very visible, the S-Biogon. But few lenses turn that dismal (or, depending on perspective, are optimised for the completely wrong subject distance).

Click to expand...

No, it's not. The nFD 200 mm f/4 is one of the best 200 mm lenses of that time and it should be sharp from wide open. If it's not, you definitely have a problem with shot bearings which mess up not only the focussing but the centering as well. That has nothing to do with the lens having a pristine appearance or not since the rubber part of the bearings just degrades after some years, with or without use (see my explanation further up).

Click to expand...

Hello!

I can join in by saying that have never used or seen a really sharp FD 200/4.0 and that goes back to trying to source the best copy I could buy brand new for my Canon film cameras when it came out. It was one major fail in my eyes.

I also broke down and bought various copies when getting into adapting lenses to my digital bodies - all the way from my Oly E1 through various generations and systems of cameras - and the results have always been the same. Each and every one, from the ones I shot brand new to all I ever bought used, failed to deliver. Not a single one was as good as other lenses in about the same focal range I have/had.

Despite all the hype, it seems to get from time to time, to me it is not a lens to be recommended at all - but one to avoid.

Best,

Alex

Click to expand...

Sorry, it is not true at all for the 200/4.0 New FD (totally different from the previous versions). Look at this photo. Good luck to find a 200mm that is as sharp as this at full aperture. [this is on M43 format though, doesn't tell anything about the corners on a FF camera)

Belgarchi said:

SiFu said:

Volker G said:

kathala said:

Belgarchi said:

...concerning manual 2oos, Rod, I experienced the same (Canon FD 2oo/4 should be on the list of LEAST sharp MF SLR lenses).

- Probably due to their damaged ball bearings. I had one that, when tested one day, gave me ultra-sharp results. The next week I used it in real life photography, with most of my photos blurry. I re-tested it and had a mix of bad and sharp shots. I found out that the focusing was moving 'freely' without even touching the focusing ring!

Click to expand...

I'm afraid to say it's the optics. Precise focus could be had with a helicoid adapter; I also reched focus every single time (something the 7o-21o taught me). And even a wobbly FD 24/2.8 I once tested was better than a pristine 2oo. The 2oo is decent up-close, but dreadful further away. As a phenomenon, that applies to every lens, including, and very visible, the S-Biogon. But few lenses turn that dismal (or, depending on perspective, are optimised for the completely wrong subject distance).

Click to expand...

No, it's not. The nFD 200 mm f/4 is one of the best 200 mm lenses of that time and it should be sharp from wide open. If it's not, you definitely have a problem with shot bearings which mess up not only the focussing but the centering as well. That has nothing to do with the lens having a pristine appearance or not since the rubber part of the bearings just degrades after some years, with or without use (see my explanation further up).

Click to expand...

Hello!

I can join in by saying that have never used or seen a really sharp FD 200/4.0 and that goes back to trying to source the best copy I could buy brand new for my Canon film cameras when it came out. It was one major fail in my eyes.

I also broke down and bought various copies when getting into adapting lenses to my digital bodies - all the way from my Oly E1 through various generations and systems of cameras - and the results have always been the same. Each and every one, from the ones I shot brand new to all I ever bought used, failed to deliver. Not a single one was as good as other lenses in about the same focal range I have/had.

Despite all the hype, it seems to get from time to time, to me it is not a lens to be recommended at all - but one to avoid.

Best,

Alex

Click to expand...

Sorry, it is not true at all for the 200/4.0 New FD (totally different from the previous versions). Look at this photo. Good luck to find a 200mm that is as sharp as this at full aperture. [this is on M43 format though, doesn't tell anything about the corners on a FF camera)

Click to expand...

Hello!

As much as I still "enjoy" your lists evey now and then I look into the forums after a few years again, I don't have anything to add to what I allready said and experienced. All I ever tried of the FDs were not good at all.

Good that you seem to have one that works for you.

Best,

Alex

--
carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero

Rod McD said:

Hi Volker.

Thanks. Is the task now well known to repairmen? And are there suitable bearings actually available to repairmen to do the job?

I guess the related question is whether it's economic, or whether to simply trade in for a modern lens before my FD lens gets worn enough to exhibit the problem. I could put up the funds and buy a Fuji 70-300, 100-400, etc

Thx, Rod

Click to expand...

Hello Rod,

it certainly depends on the lens in question. If it's quite expensive and given that one has bought it at a reasonable price, a repair would be certainly worth doing - repair parts are very cheap and easily found online (Teflon tubing with 4 mm outer and 2 mm inner diameter).

Best regards

Volker