Canon 200mm FD

<p>I used my 200mm lens on an Olympus E-PL1 camera for a close-up portrait. It ddi very well.</p><div></div>

<p>Another perspective with the 200mm lens.</p><div></div>

<p>The lens focuses very smoothly, and it is quite sharp.</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Raid - which of the Canon FD 200 lenses are you using? Your results are terrific and my your daughter is growing...I remember lots of your family pictures from the past. Years ago I had the FDn/2.8 which was a fine performer, but I never used it very often. Too bad I didn't save it for the mirrorless era.</p>

<p>Hi Stephen,<br>

This is 200/2.8IF FD on the M 4/3 body wuth built-in Image Stabilizing system and a 10X focus magnifying in the E-PL1. The FD lenses are awesome on M 4/3 cameras. <br>

Yes, the girls are older now!<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>Raid</p>

<p>I used to own this same lens -- the nFD 200/2.8 IF. I sold it when I switched from Canon FD to Nikon. But now I'm shooting Canon FD again and there are times when I miss it. And times when I don't. This is an exceptional lens if the lighting conditions are in your favor. If, however, you're shooting at hard straight lines in bright sun, you'll get unusually strong levels of CA radiating off these hard straight lines. They were bad enough to ruin photos back when I shot slides only. Now, with good processing software, much of this CA can be eliminated, so the lens is more useful. Here are a couple of scannned slides I took with mine back during the mid-1980s.<br /> Canon F-1, Kodachrome 64. A charming couple on a cold, windy day:<br /> <img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/wircouple.jpg" alt="" width="900" height="586" /></p>

<p>Canon F-1, Kodachrome 64. An A-Sport Racer (Lola 332) at the now-gone Riverside International Raceway:<br /> <img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/lolat332massaged.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="667" /></p>

<p>Hi Michael,<br>

I took some photos in harsh sunlight,minutes apart from the photos that I have posted here. The harsh light bothered my daughter.but I did not look for faults by this lens as you have described. I will inspect those images again.</p>

<p>The FD canon lenses are great,well made and with great results.</p>

<p>Yes, this is true. I have been using FD lenses since the 1980's, and have not sold any. Now, I can use them with FD cameras with film or with M4/3 cameras for digital. If I had a Leica M240 or Sony A7r, I would get full frame images, but I do not own such FF cameras (yet).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I had a Leica M240 or Sony A7r, I would get full frame images, but I do not own such FF cameras (yet).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p >A friend of mine has lent me her M-240 for the past few months and I can tell you FD lenses work well on it. The only downside is that they’re much larger and heavier than a M-mount Leica lens or LTM lens. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >My favorite FD lenses to use on the M-240 are the FD 15mm fisheye and FL-F 500. When I need a 35mm or 50mm lens, I use my Leica M-mount lenses.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >My favorite lens to use on the M-240 is my old LTM Canon 50/1.2. Pictures taken between F1.2 and F2.0 are magical. Sharp, but soft, if that makes any sense. A great portrait lens.</p>

<p>I owned that lens and loved it. Bokeh is really smooooth, the lens is sharp. But yes, sometimes there can be a bit of CA when shooting wide open and having high contrast edges.</p>

<p>Hi Jim,<br>

I know what you mean by "sharp and soft".<br>

Yes, the FD lenses can be quite large in size, but I already have many FD lenses, so the cost is zero.<br>

I will hopefully get a M240 one day.</p>

<p>Raid</p>

<p>===========================</p>

<p>"A friend of mine has lent me her M-240 for the past few months and I can tell you FD lenses work well on it. The only downside is that they’re much larger and heavier than a M-mount Leica lens or LTM lens.</p>

<p>My favorite FD lenses to use on the M-240 are the FD 15mm fisheye and FL-F 500. When I need a 35mm or 50mm lens, I use my Leica M-mount lenses.</p>

<p>My favorite lens to use on the M-240 is my old LTM Canon 50/1.2. Pictures taken between F1.2 and F2.0 are magical. Sharp, but soft, if that makes any sense. A great portrait lens."</p>

<p>Hello Flavio,<br>

I do not use FD lenses wide open anymore. The lenses are sharp when used at aperture 8-11.</p>

<p>Like most lenses they tend to be not very sharp wide open, for example my FD 200mm 2.8 IF is "glowy" at F2.8 but razor sharp stopping down once. Or my FD 100mm F2. which is razor sharp at 2.8 as well but still quite nice at F2. <br />Of course some like my FD 300mm F2.8 are super sharp wide open so it varies.</p>

<p>Raid - I actually find my 80-200 F4 L is sharper wide open but at larger apertures (about F8) the 200 F2.8 IF becomes sharper - I assume this is to do with diffraction and the additional elements in the zoom.</p>

<p>The 80-200 zoom is razor sharp, Philip. I have it too.</p>

<p>My favorite Canon lens to use on the M 240 is the 20-35/3.5 L. Nice balance and awesome images.</p>

<p>Ah, yes. The 20-35/2.8 L is one of the few FD lenses that I regret selling (although I thankfully still have an 80-200 L, as well as some prime primes).</p>

<p>I have never had a 20-35 zoom lens. </p>

<p>I took this morning a few portraits with the Canon 200/2.8,</p><div></div>

<p>Here is another snapshot.</p><div></div>

<p>This is another very recent image with this lens.</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Jim,<br>

I need such a friend who gives me a 240. :)</p>

 

<p>I would rather choose an A7II if you don't plan to use rangefinder lenses, electronic finder s better and you get image stabilisation. I am so missing the IBIS on my A7!!!</p>