Sharpest MF SLR lenses you used - A list

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...

I got enough money to buy any of those (Otus second hand) when i sold my FD 24 L but I was really looking for an auto focus portrait lens so the Otus was out early and the Sigma while very sharp was a bit down the list for me due to distortion and i prefer the bokeh of the GM (also considered Sigma and Sony 135 1.8s and a few others) but the GM was second hand but near mint (looked like it had never been used) at a Sigma price so it was a no brainer for me.

I would have loved to have kept the FD but the dissolving bearings thing made it a pain to use anyway.

I also had the Sony FE 85 1.8 which is a slightly sharper lens than the GM but nowhere near as good for me.

My sharpest remaining manual focus lenses would be an old Tamron 300 2.8 adaptall and Canon 17 TSE and neither would win an ultimate sharpness contest but work great.

I had a FD 50 1.2 L that was extremely good (but not as sharp as my current Sony Zeiss 55 1.8).

I thought my copy of the FD 80-200 f4 L was great and one of the best manual focus zooms i have had but not prime sharp ....another zoom I had and loved was the Tamron 19ah and i have an old MF Tokina 60-120 2.8 that is sharp enough but has really nice bokeh so makes a great portrait lens (which is what it was designed for).

SiFu said:

Belgarchi said:

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)

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

Click to expand...

Okay, thanks..... As for the 200/4.0, this image is damned sharp! A little bit of C.A. though, in out-of-focus areas - see the branches. But the results are unreliable due to the bearings issue. Would you know a 200/2.8 or 4.0 with no C.A.?

smith-jones said:

kathala said:

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

Click to expand...

I got enough money to buy any of those (Otus second hand) when i sold my FD 24 L but I was really looking for an auto focus portrait lens so the Otus was out early and the Sigma while very sharp was a bit down the list for me due to distortion and i prefer the bokeh of the GM (also considered Sigma and Sony 135 1.8s and a few others) but the GM was second hand but near mint (looked like it had never been used) at a Sigma price so it was a no brainer for me.

I would have loved to have kept the FD but the dissolving bearings thing made it a pain to use anyway.

I also had the Sony FE 85 1.8 which is a slightly sharper lens than the GM but nowhere near as good for me.

My sharpest remaining manual focus lenses would be an old Tamron 300 2.8 adaptall and Canon 17 TSE and neither would win an ultimate sharpness contest but work great.

I had a FD 50 1.2 L that was extremely good (but not as sharp as my current Sony Zeiss 55 1.8).

I thought my copy of the FD 80-200 f4 L was great and one of the best manual focus zooms i have had but not prime sharp ....another zoom I had and loved was the Tamron 19ah

Click to expand...

Mine was so-so. That's my experience with old zooms: the results are extremely dependent on the optical condition. Better to keep preciously the ones which perform 'as new'.

smith-jones said:

and i have an old MF Tokina 60-120 2.8 that is sharp enough but has really nice bokeh so makes a great portrait lens (which is what it was designed for).

Click to expand...

Never tried that one, tempting...

Belgarchi said:

Belgarchi said:

and i have an old MF Tokina 60-120 2.8 that is sharp enough but has really nice bokeh so makes a great portrait lens (which is what it was designed for).

Click to expand...

Never tried that one, tempting...

Click to expand...

Of course, how good a lot of these old lenses will depend on how they have been treated. (been dropped, thrown around in bags ETC).

I had a Pentax 50 1.2 that was also very sharp stopped down and I used it so much it simply fell to bits despite being very well built.

I had been looking for a 60-120 2.8 Tokina for years but they were rare and almost always from Japan and many seemed to have fungus or were a bit too expensive for me when i was looking. I gave up and stopped looking but a couple of years ago was looking for another lens on Ebay and it came up locally (Australia) for a great (cheap) price and was in a case and had been looked after very well.

I have lent it to someone but will get it back soonish to play with again for a portrait session I hope (against some of my other lenses).

As to the point on condition of lenses, the charity shop I volunteer at has an old MF slow Promura zoom in mint condition in case and box that we could not sell for $10 for months so i will buy it today I think and give it a run and I bet it works great on my 12mp A7s (most lenses do) and it will probably be better than many otherwise better lenses that have been well used.

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...

Many of the Fd lenses with the issue are more expensive ones and of those, some have gone up quite a bit in value over the last few years (the three aspherical primes especially).

They are being purchased to use for video due to being similar to ultra expensive Canon K35 cinema lenses and many are being rehoused.

Pretty sure both my 24 1.4 L (that was ratty looking but ok glass and no bearing issue) and 85 1.2 L (great looking, great glass but had the problem) were both headed for cinema use after rehousing.

I have a Tokina 70-210 which seems quite sharp. It's the only zoom lens I own, and it gets occasional use.

The push-pull to zoom and rotate to focus collar is a good piece of design.

Don

Belgarchi said:

Belgarchi said:

Belgarchi said:

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...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I guess we are approaching the answer here : this is indeed impressive for what I've seen of the 2oo/4 (old and new FD are two different optical designs, yet similar in performance) - but still nothing I'd consider relevantly sharp for my own use: looks great as-is, but falls apart in detail resolution once you magnify (without even pixel-peeping). But honestly, I envy everybody who is happy with their 2oo/4 since mechanically, it is a beautiful piece to handle.

Belgarchi said:

Okay, thanks..... As for the 200/4.0, this image is damned sharp! A little bit of C.A. though, in out-of-focus areas - see the branches. But the results are unreliable due to the bearings issue. Would you know a 200/2.8 or 4.0 with no C.A.?

Click to expand...

The 8o-2oo/4L is completely free of CA! That is a bold claim and I did not believe it until I tested it myself. Personally, I just found you pay a too significant premium for that CA-freeness which you can also achieve in post with the 7o-21o which, in terms of sharpness (something not easily increased in post) is equal.

--
Photography Reference Tables:
drive.google.com/drive/folders/1aJ5F8XM6t5AK4bydthcDoiwhsh5CUx3N
My Art and Books: ChristianSchnalzger.de
My Exploration of Panoramic Photographic Storytelling:
flickr.com/photos/hach_und_ueberhaupt/
The better you look, the more you see (B. E. Ellis)

Canon FD 400mm f2.8 L

Canon FD 300mm f2.8 SSC Aspherical

Canon FD 80-200mm f4 L

Canon FD 55mm f1.2 SSC Aspherical

Canon FD 50mm f3.5 Macro

Canon FD 800mm f5.6 L

Contax Zeiss 85mm f1.4 T* but only at f2 and smaller

Nikon 400mm f2.8 ED AI-S

Nikon 200mm f2 AI

Nikon 14mm f2.8 AF

Nikon 8mm f2.8 AI-S (considering it's focal length)

Canon EF 17mm f4 L TS-E

Laowa 12mm f2.8 Zero-D

Mamiya 645 50mm f4 Shift over full frame sensor at f8-f11

Arsat 30mm f3.5 6x6 lens over full frame sensor at f8-f11

Wow, this list is much longer than I thought it would be. I only have eight of these now. I regret selling the 85/1.4 and 200/2. They were likely my sharpest lenses ever at f2 and smaller, but can not compare them to my current 55/1.2 Aspherical.

John Crowe said:

Canon FD 400mm f2.8 L

Canon FD 300mm f2.8 SSC Aspherical

Canon FD 80-200mm f4 L

Canon FD 55mm f1.2 SSC Aspherical

Canon FD 50mm f3.5 Macro

Canon FD 800mm f5.6 L

Contax Zeiss 85mm f1.4 T* but only at f2 and smaller

Nikon 400mm f2.8 ED AI-S

Nikon 200mm f2 AI

Nikon 14mm f2.8 AF

Nikon 8mm f2.8 AI-S (considering it's focal length)

Canon EF 17mm f4 L TS-E

Laowa 12mm f2.8 Zero-D

Mamiya 645 50mm f4 Shift over full frame sensor at f8-f11

Arsat 30mm f3.5 6x6 lens over full frame sensor at f8-f11

Wow, this list is much longer than I thought it would be. I only have eight of these now. I regret selling the 85/1.4 and 200/2. They were likely my sharpest lenses ever at f2 and smaller, but can not compare them to my current 55/1.2 Aspherical.

Click to expand...

Thanks! Just curious: did you use other 85/1.4 lenses? If yes, could you comment comparing to the Contax Zeiss?

I have not had any other 85mm f1.4 or f1.2 lenses.

The Zeiss 85/1.4 at f1.4 and f1.8 is much worse than the Canon FD 85/1.8, and Nikon 50/1.4 AI-S, that I had at the same time. I have a beat up Nikon 105mm f1.8 AI-S that is just as bad, if not worse, and it never gets truly sharp. I suspect the elements are out of line, but I have not read many good things about this lens either.

The Zeiss is horribly soft wide open with lots of "blooming" around focussed details. However, that likely made for dreamy smooth out of focus areas. I did not understand "bokeh" back then so did not experiment. I do have one exceptional photo from my nephews wedding, and I assume it was wide open.

smith-jones said:

Volker G said:

kathala said:

smith-jones 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).

Click to expand...

I have an EF 85/1.2 MkI (bought new). It was my second truly expensive lens buy. In the days when everybody still used flash and everybody used dslr (but more the kit variety) the 85/1.2L was a bit of a celebrity lens around the traps. "He isn't using flash!". Now flash has indeed been sidelined even if it does still have its place.

This lens is rather slow focusing and even slower in low light, but when it gets there it is very precise and sharp. The FD version kept its value very well for legacy MF use as the EF version was not only electronic aperture but focus by wire as well.

It took the early electronic EF adapter manufacturers some time before they added focus by wire to their firmware. As a result the EF 85/1.2L was terminally useless on anything other than a Canon dslr body. I am sure that this made the FD version more popular for adapting as it removed all competition from the EF version. But Metabones at least and probably a few other of the better class of adapter sorted out the firmware necessary to drive focus by wire.

Tra-la ... the EF version hiding it light under the FBW bushel now is a good possibility when adapted.

Big heavy slow focusing lump that it is. I don't know if EF lenses have the same bearing issue as the FD type. Just a thought. The MkII versions said to have improved the slow focus issue to a point - the MkI might be worth a look price wise.

As it was never a fast focusing lens I tend to think that it might even focus just that bit faster via an adapter than it ever did on a Canon dslr body.

--
Tom Caldwell

There are lots of sharp lenses out there. TBH, I think sharpness is a little over rated although there certainly are times when it is probably the main factor, maybe for landscapes, architecture etc. Anyway, just a few from me.

Leica APO-Summicron-R 180/2, sharper wide open than most lenses stopped down to their optimum aperture, a great lens.

Leica Elmarit-R 28/2.8 E55, tbh I don;t use it much but excellent

Leica Summicron-R 50/2, super sharp but has terrible purple fringing wide open so what's the point! I don;t use it at all.

Voigtlander 50mm f/2 APO-Lanthar (Sony E Mount), excellent from wide open

Nikon Micro-NIKKOR 55mm f/2.8, super sharp into the corners stopped down

The Zuiko 50/1.4 and 28/3.5 are super sharp too, and quite cheap.

Contax 50/1.4 (stopped down) and 28/2.8 is just excellent

Mamiya M645 80/2.8 is excellent but too slow IMHO

Canon 17/4 tse, but it should be

Tom, one danger with all early EF lenses is that they do not focus at all without a proper camera/adapter, or in case the AF motor dies, which is well documented to happen. Canon offers no spares.

For anyone not familiar with it: this is a visual comparison tool for (albeit rather modern) lenses: https://www.the-digital-picture.com...LensComp=120&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

My Canon SLR lenses list holds some more in-depth information on FDs: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...edit?usp=drive_web&ouid=108628632450090560676

I tested the FD 5o/3.5 against the Tamron 9o/2.8 272e, and if sharpness (or attaining 1:1) is the goal, the latter wins academically.

For anyone interested, there are comparisons online revealing the 55/1.2 Canon FD SSC AL and Aspherical to be identical in sharpness to its successor, the FD 5o/1.2L - at a fraction of the weight and, if you hurry, price.

Tom Caldwell said:

I have an EF 85/1.2 MkI (bought new). It was my second truly expensive lens buy. In the days when everybody still used flash and everybody used dslr (but more the kit variety) the 85/1.2L was a bit of a celebrity lens around the traps. "He isn't using flash!". Now flash has indeed been sidelined even if it does still have its place.

This lens is rather slow focusing and even slower in low light, but when it gets there it is very precise and sharp. The FD version kept its value very well for legacy MF use as the EF version was not only electronic aperture but focus by wire as well.

It took the early electronic EF adapter manufacturers some time before they added focus by wire to their firmware. As a result the EF 85/1.2L was terminally useless on anything other than a Canon dslr body. I am sure that this made the FD version more popular for adapting as it removed all competition from the EF version. But Metabones at least and probably a few other of the better class of adapter sorted out the firmware necessary to drive focus by wire.

Tra-la ... the EF version hiding it light under the FBW bushel now is a good possibility when adapted.

Big heavy slow focusing lump that it is. I don't know if EF lenses have the same bearing issue as the FD type. Just a thought. The MkII versions said to have improved the slow focus issue to a point - the MkI might be worth a look price wise.

As it was never a fast focusing lens I tend to think that it might even focus just that bit faster via an adapter than it ever did on a Canon dslr body.

Click to expand...

Tom, I do not think EF lenses have the issue of dissolving bearings.

I have had an old Canon EF 100-300 5.6 L and it was a nice lens adapted to both Sony FF and M43 and AF was no different on either to a more modern lens in terms of focus (IE slow and stuttering on my cameras as they were CDAF only).

Some old Sigma EF lenses will not focus even on Canons more modern cameras I believe.

I still have an old 20-35 2.8 L and while the AF switch jammed, I removed the switch cover and replaced it with tape and it works fine (I have the switch put at MF as its focuses very slow and stuttering as well). Built like a tank.

I even (gasp) used some of them on a Canon DSLR but not often and they were ok.

The funny thing is the EF 24 1.4 L seems light years better than the FD versions (not that I have used it) but you can buy five or six (or more) EF 24 1.4 L lenses for the price of a mint FD 24 1.4 L.

smith-jones said:

The funny thing is the EF 24 1.4 L seems light years better than the FD versions

Click to expand...

That's interesting. Would you have any link etc. that shows this? I have never seen a side-by-side comparison

smith-jones said:

(but you can buy five or six (or more) EF 24 1.4 L lenses for the price of a mint FD 24 1.4 L.

Click to expand...

yes, we have entered a world where the more expensive a lens is, the worse it gets. I just saw a scratched old Leica Summicron 5omm (not their best lens to start with, and I say this as a great fan of optical designer Walter Mandler) sell for 6k. That's almost a dozen Sigma Art 5os... or the entire Art range, second hand at least

kathala said:

kathala said:

The funny thing is the EF 24 1.4 L seems light years better than the FD versions

Click to expand...

That's interesting. Would you have any link etc. that shows this? I have never seen a side-by-side comparison

kathala said:

(but you can buy five or six (or more) EF 24 1.4 L lenses for the price of a mint FD 24 1.4 L.

Click to expand...

yes, we have entered a world where the more expensive a lens is, the worse it gets. I just saw a scratched old Leica Summicron 5omm (not their best lens to start with, and I say this as a great fan of optical designer Walter Mandler) sell for 6k. That's almost a dozen Sigma Art 5os... or the entire Art range, second hand at least

Click to expand...

No link, just my opinion based on images I have seen (again, not used the EF version).

I did love using my FD version but the price i got for even my ratty looking old copy was just too tempting.

I tried selling it on Ebay not too many years ago and got no bids at a starting price of only a few hundred and would have taken not much more.

The FD 24 1.4 L is a very nice lens but nothing special for photography.

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...

One magazine was certainly C.I., but the other?

The FD 200 4.0 I briefly had was quite good, though I found the 80-200 4.0 to be even better (also the Nikkor 200 4.0 AI & Leica R 180 3.4).

Rol Lei Nut said:

Volker G said:

SiFu said:

Volker G said:

kathala said:

Rol Lei Nut 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...

One magazine was certainly C.I., but the other?

The FD 200 4.0 I briefly had was quite good, though I found the 80-200 4.0 to be even better (also the Nikkor 200 4.0 AI & Leica R 180 3.4).

Click to expand...

Right. The other one was "Photo Cinéma Magazine" (Hors série Spécial Objectifs 1982) . They wrote : "Dès f/4, ce 200 mm atteint une netteté à laquelle d'autres n'arrivent pas à petit diaphragme. Les mesures sagittales sont d'une rare qualité. Un des meilleurs 200 mm actuels."

They've been testing lenses with an MTF bench at infinity and the results most often matched those done by Chasseur d'images.

Which 80-200 mm f/4 do you mean, the old one or the L version? I don't know the Nikkor AI but the Leitz 180 mm f/3,4 is an exceptional lens (probably the best vintage 180/200 mm), thanks to its apochromatic correction.

Contax 50mm F1.7 or 1.4 is mentioned a few times and with good reason!

Pic from 50/1.7



RemcoR

--
Pentax K-1
Samyang 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC Aspherical
Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 21mm F2.8
Pentax FA 35mm F2 AL
Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 35-70mm F3.4 Macro
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50mm F1.7 Contax
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 85mm F1.4 ZK

Too many to list unless you go faster than f2 or 2.8 for longer lenses. The RE Topcors >= 35mm are all very good, talking about early 1960s. The sharpest ought to be enlargers, but they have razor thin DOF (like any lens that is just optimized for a flat plane).