Canon 200mm f/2.8 FD vs EF comparative lens test using a Sony A7ii

[Mfcrisis]

Canon 200mm f/2.8 FD vs EF comparative lens test with a Sony A7ii

I was somewhat disappointed with the purple fringing of the Canon nFD 200mm f/2.8 v2 lens in high contrast situations(eg photos with dark trees/birds against the bright sky) at wide apertures. Unfortunately Canon never made an L version of this lens, although the ordinary version is beautifully made.

I decided that I couldn't live with the purple fringing and got hold of a Canon EF 200mm F/2.8L USM II lens to compare against the FD. The FD was released in 1982 and the EF in 1991 with a minor facelift to a version 2 in 1996.

Key similarities and differences...

Both lens have a 72mm filter thread, an 8-blade aperture and a minimum focus distance of 1.5m. Both lens are well constructed, despite not being an L lens, the FD feels equally well built, compared with the FD.

Other physical differences:

a) The FD has 7 elements in 6 groups(none special); the EF has 9 elements in 7 groups (including two ultra-low distortion elements).

b) The FD combo is about 18% lighter at 840g vs 1012g for the EF (including adapters).

c)) Fitted with adapters (cheap Fotga for the FD, Metabones IV for the EF), both lens are a similar size as shown in the pic below, though the EF's hood (pictured next to the lens) adds considerable bulk.

d) The clever screw-out lens metal hood of the FD is a more convenient design than the reversing plastic hood of the EF.

f) The FD is purely manual focus, whereas the EF is notionally autofocus with the Metabones, but the AF is too slow and too inaccurate to be of any use on a Sony camera

g) The FD has a larger focus ring and is designed for manual focusing, whereas manual focusing is secondary with the EF

h) The FD plus dumb adapter does not convey EXIF info to the camera, whereas the EF and Metabones passes both aperture and focal length to the camera and the A7ii uses this info for the IBIS stabilisation.

Testing...

For convenience, I took pictures of the TV screen at about 3m with both lens at F2.8. The dot pitch of the TV is about 0.8mm (I can make the pixels out with the naked eye at distances up to about 1.5 m. A few scanning artefacts are visible.

Here are the results, hand-held with IBIS on (all processed from RAW via Capture One, with no adjustments):


Above are the side-by-side photos from each lens (low res screen-print). At this resolution The FD (on the left) is noticeably warmer, has better contrast and is generally more appealing. My (non-photographer) wife confirmed this view, without hesitation.

Surprisingly, with all else being equal, the EF needed a shutter speed that was about 35% longer than the FD: 1/13s to 1/15s for the EF vs 1/20s for the FD - quite a large difference. Note that the EF had a (stuck) Kenko UV filter on it, whereas the FD was bare - but that shouldn't make 35% difference.

I zoomed in on the left eye to 100% magnification:


At this level of magnification, the TV's pixels are clearly visible in both pics ... BUT, the FD is clearly sharper. I took six or seven photos with each lens and these results were consistent.

 

[Mfcrisis]

I then zoomed in on the 'Pause' symbol (border region) at 200% magnification:


Looking at the TV's pixels again confirms the superior sharpness and contrast of the FD. The fringing in this high contrast region is however a lot worse for the FD, compared with EF that has about half as much.

Clearly the EF's two ultra-low distortion elements make a difference. This is confirmed by various reviews of the EF, generally along the lines: "The lens produces very low chromatic aberration in our testing, showing only in the corners in areas of high contrast (to our eyes, very light magenta fringing)." In contrast the FD is criticised for relatively high purple fringing.

Summary...

Advantages of the FD lens:

- Much cheaper

- Sharper

- Faster

- Lighter

- Smaller

- Better ergonomics (esp focussing and the built-in lens hood)

Advantages of the EF lens:

- Less purple fringing

- EXIF data (the lack of this for the FD is not too much of an issue using non-electronic prime lens, but it pretty much rules out using an FD zoom with the A7ii)

The results are very surprising since the EF generally gets glowing reviews, compared with mixed views on the FD. However my testing shows that, except for the purple fringing (which I do dislike), the FD appears to be the better option. They are both great lenses though

 

[Mfcrisis]

Here is a picture of the two lenses side by side:

 

[dbm305]

Are you sure the TV screen is a good idea? The refresh rate of the screen will interact with the shutter speed to produce inconsistent sharpness, I would have thought.

I don't have the 200L but I have borrowed it, and was pretty impressed. I do have the ID newFD 200 2.8, and my impression is that it's less sharp (and there is a positive orgy of SLOCA and LOCA, but especially SLOCA in bokeh, which is hard to clean up and can't be completely eliminated)

 

[Mfcrisis]

Are you sure the TV screen is a good idea? The refresh rate of the screen will interact with the shutter speed to produce inconsistent sharpness, I would have thought.

I don't have the 200L but I have borrowed it, and was pretty impressed. I do have the ID newFD 200 2.8, and my impression is that it's less sharp (and there is a positive orgy of SLOCA and LOCA, but especially SLOCA in bokeh, which is hard to clean up and can't be completely eliminated)

I agree that an object or high res picture would be better, but I don't have a live model or picture handy right now.

Yes, there are TV screen artifacts, but the results were consistent across six or seven photos with each lens. Also the pixels are quite revealing of focus. The skin tone shows a clear difference (especially in larger view) and the high contrast pause symbol reveals the purple fringing.

 

[Shirozina]

I've found the purple fringing / LoCA is a signature of most of the FD line of lenses. Makes them unsuitable for subjects where parts of the image are out of focus. That being said I'm not sure what you are seeing is this as the area is in focus. This could be just sensor bloom.

 

[BurntAsh]

The fringing was one of the reasons for the L lenses in the first place. I'm actually kinda disappointed there is no 200mm 2.8L lens prior to the EF mount, leaving the larger 1.8L as your only rare option from Canon.

 

[Mfcrisis]

The fringing was one of the reasons for the L lenses in the first place. I'm actually kinda disappointed there is no 200mm 2.8L lens prior to the EF mount, leaving the larger 1.8L as your only rare option from Canon.

Yes, though there is the Canon FD 300mm 2.8L and the 4.0L worth considering - not cheap for old lenses though!

I am really surprised that, except for the purple fringing, the 200mm 2.8 FD outperforms the 200mm EF - I wonder if the ED glass reduces sharpness and/or contrast?

 

[dbm305]

Yes, though there is the Canon FD 300mm 2.8L and the 4.0L worth considering - not cheap for old lenses though!

I am really surprised that, except for the purple fringing, the 200mm 2.8 FD outperforms the 200mm EF - I wonder if the ED glass reduces sharpness and/or contrast?

That's not my experience of the 2.8L EF versus the FD; but I don't have a 200L to prove it.

Of course I might have a worse than usual FD, or he might have a worse than usual EFL

 

[Alupang]

It does right?

 

[Alupang]

So in order to correct for CA, we lose sharpness in the EF L version?

That nFD 200mm f2.8 was a very expensive lens back in its day. Very interesting that it outperforms the more modern EF L when it comes to sharpness--if your tests are valid and it sounds like you were very careful here.

What would you rather have? Sharpness with CA or less sharpness with CA correction. I'll take the former plus better manual focus = icing on the cake.

 

[dbm305]

As I say in another point in this discussion, it's not a result I got when borrowed an EFL to test against my FD. It may well be true of these two samples, of course.

But the CA in the FD is not LatCA, which is easy to fix -- or at least there is plenty of that, but it can be fixed. And it's not even just LoCA which is harder to fix. It's SLOCA, which makes the out of focus regions a muddy mass of green and purple that is interspersed and hard to remove without destaturating it. And in general the colours are muddy.

The FD is much more suitable as a B&W lens.

 

[Alupang]

Wide open yeah but stopped down to f5.6?

 

[dbm305]

Ah

Don't know; didn't do a comparison at F5.6 between the two canons.

I was looking for something to use at 2.8. For f5.6 I use the Sony FE70-200 which, at 200 and 5.6, is rather better than the FD (though rather more expensive too).

 

[Alupang]

Ah

Don't know; didn't do a comparison at F5.6 between the two canons.

I was looking for something to use at 2.8. For f5.6 I use the Sony FE70-200 which, at 200 and 5.6, is rather better than the FD (though rather more expensive too).

I highly doubt the FE70-200 at 200 and 5.6 "is rather better" than the FD prime stopped down twice to 5.6.

But the FE has AF of course...better sharpness though? Nah--the old FD is sharper than the Canon L.

 

[dbm305]

Well, it's the worst FD prime at the long end ever made, versus a modern zoom in the range that's easiest to make stopped down a bit.

The Fe is resolving nigh on 4000 lp/ph on the a7r, and not much worse in zone B, which an older designed mon premium prime will find it hard to achieve, and it was certainly true of my pair when I first got the FD ...

Anyhow I'll try to do some tests again in the next couple of days to make sure my memory isn't playing tricks on me!

 

[dchao]

My 200/2.8L II seems to perform better than yours using a Fotodiox adaptor on the a5100 (APS-C).

You can see the sample below (100% cropped):

It's taken at f/7.1 because I was comparing it to my SEL55210. But if you want, I can take another shot at something like f/4. IMO, it's not reasonable to expect no CA at the widest aperture.

(because the filter is stuck on the EF, a sign that the lens might have been dropped, you should send the lens back to Canon for calibration)

 

[ProfHankD]

However my testing shows that, except for the purple fringing (which I do dislike), the FD appears to be the better option. They are both great lenses though

PF is usually due to sensors having much higher NIR sensitivity than film, so the different focus plane for NIR (focus shift due to wavelength) causes visible fringing. It could also be due to NUV, but that's rare as glass naturally blocks most UV.

Adding a filter to block the PF-causing wavelengths can dramatically reduce the effect. Not saying it's likely, but the filter stuck on the EF lens might not be a bad thing.... ;-)

 

[Mfcrisis]

As I say in another point in this discussion, it's not a result I got when borrowed an EFL to test against my FD. It may well be true of these two samples, of course.

But the CA in the FD is not LatCA, which is easy to fix -- or at least there is plenty of that, but it can be fixed. And it's not even just LoCA which is harder to fix. It's SLOCA, which makes the out of focus regions a muddy mass of green and purple that is interspersed and hard to remove without destaturating it. And in general the colours are muddy.

The FD is much more suitable as a B&W lens.

I've actually only focussed (pun) on the in-focus areas in my testing so far ... will need to to some out of focus test too.

Re colours, why do you think the pic of the girl on the TV screen looks better with the FD? I'll see if I can get some comparative pics with a real person ;-)

Cheers

Nic

 

[Mfcrisis]

However my testing shows that, except for the purple fringing (which I do dislike), the FD appears to be the better option. They are both great lenses though

PF is usually due to sensors having much higher NIR sensitivity than film, so the different focus plane for NIR (focus shift due to wavelength) causes visible fringing. It could also be due to NUV, but that's rare as glass naturally blocks most UV.

Adding a filter to block the PF-causing wavelengths can dramatically reduce the effect. Not saying it's likely, but the filter stuck on the EF lens might not be a bad thing.... ;-)

If I can get the UV filter off the EF, I swop it over to the FD and EF and test that combo.

Cheers

Nic