Jump to content

Canon FD 100mm-300mm F 5.6 Any Reviews?


panoramic pei

Recommended Posts

<p>Anyone have any experiences with the Canon FD 100mm-300mm F 5.6 Lens to share? I am interested in one, although I prefer to hear if the reviews are positive first. Unfortunately, I do not have the same budget as some Photographers which post here, although I am open also to alternative solutions for Lenses in a similar price bracket. Ideally, strangely enough, I would prefer a 200mm- 300mm Lens if one existed.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don't have any hard data, but the first version of the Canon lens was my only long lens when I first got into FD in the mid-80s. I used it quite a bit, usually at 300mm, and was generally satisfied. I honestly believe that my technique was never good enough to equal the lens's capability, in part because it is a long and fairly heavy lens. It is not the easiest lens to hand hold, and its f/5.6 maximum aperture doesn't promote fast shutter speeds or ease of focusing. It really needed a tripod collar, too--it's so long that even with the camera mounted, I'm not sure that it's stable enough.</p>

<p>There are three versions of this lens. The first is quite a bit longer but retains its length when zooming. 300mm is achieved with the zoom ring nearest the camera. The later versions, both regular and "L," are externally identical, increase in length when zooming, and 300mm is away from the camera. They are a bit lighter and undoubtedly include more plastic, though they are not "all plastic." They are easily recognizable by the newer style focusing grip with a pattern of "hyphens" rather than the diamond grip. I recently acquired these but haven't had time to try them.</p>

<p>I have heard the opposite of a comment above, that the "L" is the best of the set. Individual sample variations and technique make a difference here.</p>

<p>Both of my copies of the newer version have "zoom creep" when held vertically. The old version does not.</p><div>00UtkH-185889584.jpg.22b21d3ed99a1de75e26b0a45cec1f71.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I should explain myself better. For the past several years I am using Bronica ETRS i & various lenses. Since the prices of 35mm Film Cameras dropped immensely again, I targeted Canon FD rather than Nikon again for the purchase of 35mm Film Camera Equipment. I photographed the sample below when I was employed by a magazine for 10 years in Cancun Mexico. Photographed with a Nikon F3- Nikkor 80-200mm AIS F 4, this Lens was 1/ Extremely Sharp, 2/ Excellent Contrast 3/ Superbe Color Rendition even with a lot of Fungus in the Lens due to the extreme humid conditions. I am looking for some equivalent lens (minus the Fungus of course) even it would be a FD 80-200 Lens which would match the qualities mentioned of the Nikkor . It also seems other brands other than Canon are a lot fewer in number to have a excellent selection in FD Mount.</p><div>00Utka-185893584.jpg.f7f7fe65b3c25b69f202818f050eefc2.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The best Canon FD Zoom is the 80-200mm f4.0L nFD after that the 70-210 and 80-200 choices are a toss up. the 100-300mm f5.6L would from what i have seen fall below that.<br>

As to being able to match the quality of the above photo. You do realize that this is an on line forum and as such you photo looks different on about every computer monitor its being displayed on. And at such a LOW quality that to use it as a bench mark is kind of hard.<br>

I have a very good calibrated Viewsonic Pro Series CRT monitor and i see no detail in the feathers so it's hard to tell.<br>

Canon lenses will all have a VERY similar contrast and look as Canon set out to make the system that way. Nikon on the other hand has lenses all over the board for contrast and color from what I have experianced. So again hard to match to your sample.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p> I agree computer monitors have some variation, although a little surprised to hear of that large amount of variation. On my much lower end Viewsonic 15' Flat Screen the image appears to be filled with details everywhere. The image was created on very high end equipment Apple Computer & a Scanview Drum Scanner at that time. The bottom line is that from the advice received, I will look into a 80- 200mm F4 nFD which is quite compact, the ring turn zoom feature is more appealing than push & pull (as a personal preference). The quality of the Lens, the results from the Lens are important factors & in the real world there is more to choose from at affordable pricing compared to the L version.I once again appreciate all the advice.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If i wanna purchase a 300mm zoom for my FD camera what is the best one?<br>

And now the real question which is the best yet not a great deal of money and are there any non cannon ones that are very good also ? (poor college student here) How much should i expect to pay for the choices you suggest also .. i don't want to over pay.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For what it's worth, here's a scan of a Kodachrome shot from the summer of 1988 with the early version FD 100-300/5.6. I didn't conduct a search for an exceptional image; it was actually in the first box I picked up. What with scanner, software, and monitor variations, the result has been mediated so many times that to me it only proves one thing: the original was at least good enough to produce this. I doubt that means much.</p>

<p>Having said that, I found the original slide to be better than I had remembered. There is some lateral chromatic aberration visible at high magnification before reducing the image size, but the sharpness was better than I recalled. The CA is to be expected, since this was never a really expensive lens and it uses no exotic glass. B & H listed it for US $269 in 1992, while the 80-200/4L was US $499. The straight 300/4 was $519 and the 300/4L was a tasty $950. (Anybody want to hear what the 400/2.8L was running? A smooth $4,499, only $1,150 less than the EOS version.)</p>

<p>Robert, I am viewing the flamingo on a fairly new Dell LCD monitor and the detail in the feathers is quite good. I too have a good CRT monitor, albeit a lot older, but it cannot compare for sharpness with this LCD. As a CRT ages, it will lose focus. It is an electron tube, and all of them change characteristics over time.</p>

<p>Mark is right. The 80-200L is in a class by itself. No other FD zoom can match it. (Except maybe the 20-35L, in its own way?)</p>

<p>To answer <strong>dan Mar</strong>, the three 100-300 zooms mentioned in earlier posts will be your least expensive choices. The only other options to include 300mm in OEM Canon FD lenses are:</p>

<p>: the 85-300mm zoom, which is largely if not entirely a holdover of an older design, is quite large and very heavy, and uses what are now unusual, large filters,<br>

: the 50-300mm L zoom, which is also large and heavy and is very expensive (this is the <em>best</em> one, easily running $700 US these days),<br>

: and the 150-600mm L zoom, which is extremely rare and costs about as much as a good used car.</p>

<p>If by "zoom" you should mean "telephoto," terms which people sometimes use interchangeably, there are also several 300mm non-zoom lenses, ranging from an inexpensive and small f/5.6 model up to a big, expensive f/2.8 version. I recently picked up a 300/5.6 in super condition for $40 US.</p>

<p>Prices vary a good deal. A lot of this equipment is surfacing now after 20-30 years buried in closets, and it must seem like time-capsule contents to some. A lot of non-photographic people tend to price lenses by their size--"this is a HUGE lens!!!" I had to laugh out loud recently. I was at a school function with T90, 35-105 zoom, and 300TL. Someone stopped me and said, "Wow! You're serious about photography!" To those who have only experienced a credit-card-sized digital camera, I guess it does look serious, maybe fatal. I told them they should see what I had left at home.</p><div>00UuES-186223684.jpg.f35f87f99a3b4fb0e3cafc21b843d4fc.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p> I am taken more from the human interest aspect & subject matter of this photograph ( nice portrait).Taking in consideration the extreme variations in lighting, it appears sharp enough for the Zoom range yet I am not sold & running out to buy one. I am thinking still on the lines of the nFD 80-200mm & add a Vivitar 2x (7 element) Converter to have a 400mm F8 if really needed at given times. I believe the results will prove to be in the above average range with the 2x Converter & probably rate not too far behind or even maybe equal the performance of a FD 100-300mm Zoom.Thanks for sharing.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I hope the photo of the lenses is helpful to people now and in future searches. I bought the two newer versions with the intent of making some comparisons since these lenses haven't had the best reputation online. Someday I'll get that done.</p>

<p>I know I'm beginning to beat a dead horse here, but thought I'd include a bit more information about the 100-300L for archival reference. I couldn't remember exactly what was special about the lens, but I found this in the Canon FD "L" lenses brochure. Compared to the first version of the lens, Canon states:</p>

<p>"Weight has been reduced by 120 grams (14%) and overall length is 35mm (17%) less. Chromatic aberrations (secondary spectra) are suppressed and sharp images obtained over the entirely [sic] field through the use of one element each of fluorite and UD glass. In addition, distortion has been kept to the very minimum by making the relay lens more compact and by using a lens for correcting curvature of field. Spherical aberration, coma and astigmatism are also uniformly low during zooming for high image quality at any focal length."</p>

<p>It has 15 elements in 10 groups! The 80-200L has 14 elements in 12 groups.</p>

<p>It sounds like it ought to be a better lens than it gets credit for. Its optics are nearer the 80-200L than the 50-300L or 150-600L, neither of which use a fluorite element. The MTF curves shown in the brochure for the 80-200 and 100-300L show different responses, but the overall MTF ratios for the two lenses look very similar. That makes me more interested in shooting some film with them.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm really curious how the two iterations of standard 100-300 compare- for such a major mechanical makeover how could the optics possibly remain unchanged? Canon Museum shows the "second gen" 100-300, and lists it as 14 elements in 9 groups.<br>

Reading the 80-200/4L's optical formula is amusing, especially in light of comments sometimes heard about the best lenses having the fewest elements. I think the old adage about "making things as simple as possible, but not simpler" is more accurate!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hmm. The first version has 14 elements in 9 groups. That is curious. The Museum refers to "a new aberration compensation method" in the second generation lens. How new? New to that lens or to the FD zoom as compared to FL? I have a diagram of the earlier lens, but not the later non-L. It would be in the 1986 <em>Lens Work</em> book, but the page images are not present in the archive of Christian Rollinger's FD site.<br>

 <br>

MIR has mixed up information on these lenses. There are two sets of specifications listed, but the picture representing the second generation lens actually shows the first, and the weight is wrong. This page indicates 15 elements in 9 groups for the 2G lens, in conflict with the Canon Museum.<br>

 <br>

Soooo . . . I finally found my way to the archive of Gary Coombs' site that originally hosted the 1986 <em>Lens Work</em>. This http://web.archive.org/web/20011226064209/garycoombs.com/LensWork/LensWork116.htm tells us that the 2G lens has 15 elements, 9 groups--the Canon Museum is apparently wrong. So, Rick, there's an extra element in there.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Greetings from a long-time reader but first-time poster. I've finally bothered to register to contribute to a subject near and dear to my interest--longer zooms. When I first started looking at them, I couldn't find much information about them, so I'll contribute what I can.</p>

<p>First of all, Robert is correct in noting in his initial query that the subject here is really the 200-300mm range. There are faster and sharper options in both zooms and primes at 100-200mm. But I consistently find myself coming up short for my needs at 200, so I've found that I benefit from having the 200 to 300 range.</p>

<p>I have what Alan has identified as the newer version of the 100-300mm f5.6 non-L. I've been pleasantly surprised by the color and reasonable sharpness of this lens. If you have reasonable expectations with this lens, you can get reasonable results (up to 8 x 10) if you have enough light. With a max speed of only 5.6, "if you have enough light" almost goes without saying. This lens benefits from a lens hood to avoid flair in that light. Without a tripod collar, it helps if you can at least find a place to prop yourself as you get into the 200-300 range.</p>

<p>After a few months with the 100-300, I lucked into an 85-300 f4.5 SSC for less than $100. This lens is a hoss, but if you can wrangle it, you can get excellent results. This lens has a tripod collar, and I didn't expect it to be hand-holdable, but I actually find myself using it that way more and more. With the monopod or without, I feel much more secure having this lens with the breech-lock mount, as the lens tends to hold the camera more than the camera holds the lens. The 85-300 is faster and sharper than the 100-300, and I have been using it more than the 100-300. But if I'm going to be lugging the gear for a few hours, the 100-300 has its place.</p>

<p>I've been tempted by the 100-300 L, but I can't get excited about paying a premium for another 5.6 lens with no collar. The 50-300 L is well out of my range. It weighs the same as the 85-300 SSC.</p>

<p>I'm curious if anyone has experience with 3d-party zooms in this range. Jeff mentioned the Tokina AT-X 100-300 f4. There is also the Tamron SP 60-300 f3.8-5.4 (no collar and 5.4 at the long end).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ken has contributed some very interesting points, finally I am ready to compare the qualities of the Canon nFD 80- 200mm F4 with a previously owned 80- 200mm F4 ( Fungus infested) Nikkor Lens. I do prefer the handling features of this FD Lens so far. All I need to do is to find a co-operative Blue Jay to test the Lens, since Flamingos are out of the question in Canada for now. Although global warming may bring them here eventually.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...