Canon nFD 17mm f4 very bad performance?

<p>Hello,<br>

I just bought a Canon nFD 17mm 4 in very good condition. I own also a Tokina RMC II 17mm 3.5.<br>

The Canon was supposed to be the the upgrade for the Tokina. I did some pictures just out of my window to compare both.<br>

I was shocked how bad the Canon was. There are a lot of informations in the web and people are saying the Canon is one if the best 17mm old wide angle lens you can buy and it is much better as the Tokina. The Tokina is very bad wide open, but the Canon as well. Stopped down to f5.6 and f8 the Tokina is the clear winner in sharpness, specially in the corners. The Canon is very mushy in the corners and it´s getting even worse if I stop more down. I think it´s a really strange behavior. Maybe something is wrong with the lens.<br>

What do you think?</p>

<p><img src="/Users/janosterzing/Desktop/Tokina%20f3.5.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="/Users/janosterzing/Desktop/Tokina%20f5.6.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="/Users/janosterzing/Desktop/Tokina%20f8.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="/Users/janosterzing/Desktop/Canon%20f4.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="/Users/janosterzing/Desktop/Canon%20f5.6.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="/Users/janosterzing/Desktop/Canon%20f8.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

Jano --

 

I've heard people comment that sometimes the lenses which are in the best condition are that way because there is

something wrong with them and so do not get used. Perhaps that is your situation. Do you know any history on the lens,

like how long the prior owner had it?

 

I have the same lens and I'm pretty happy with it's performance. Via an adapter, I've used it on my Leica M240 and it

looks pretty sharp. If you're curious, I can upload some pics later today (just ask).

 

Good luck solving your mystery.

<p>Thanks Carl, the preowner board the lens from a camera store and owned it over 10 years. Maybe you´re right and it´s just a bad model. Maybe you like to check the images and let me know how they compare to your experience. I´m using the lens on a A7.<br>

Images shoot in RAW -0.7EV no editing at all. Exported with lightroom jpg 100%<br>

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jy7k27dyz0i032o/AABO3eBLPfC1GHhJHGa3h4F9a?dl=0</p>

 

<p>The scene is pretty overcast, so I'm assuming a slow shutter speed was used. Did you use a tripod?</p>

<p>I did´t use a tripod. Shutter speed was 1/320, 1/200 and 1/100, so should´t be a problem. The Tokina had the same shutter speed and is such better.<br>

Do you think faster shutter speed could improve the corner sharpness?</p>

Jano -- after moving three times in two years, I can't find the Fotodiox adapter for Canon FD->Leica M. I'll look to see if I

can find some photos I shot with the combo instead. If I can find the adapter, I'll shoot some shots and post them for you.

<p>Hi Jano - I've been using an old Tamron 17 for a number of years, and had been considering the nFD as a potential upgrade. I'll be interested in hearing about others' comparisons.</p>

<p>Hi Carl, that would be great, thank you very much. <br>

My comparison can be found here:</p>

 

 

<p>https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jy7k27dyz0i032o/AABO3eBLPfC1GHhJHGa3h4F9a?dl=0</p>

 

 

 

 

 

I heard people saying there are later versions from the 20mm and 80-200 L with better performance. They upgraded something in the production. But I can´t find informations about this in the world wide web. It´s the lenses with the late serial numbers. But I don't´know if this exists only to a few FD lenses or also to others like the 17mm.

<p>I love using my modern Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 EF IS <strong>L</strong> - It seems to outperform all current zooms and even the best primes from the past...<br>

<br>

In any case, try the "<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/flashlight-test.htm" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/flashlight-test.htm&source=gmail&ust=1478018273692000&usg=AFQjCNHxJgt0o72qVdrQQlE7_yIoayRlDA">Flashlight Test</a>" <<<<em> click </em><br>

<strong>With it's age</strong>, and because the lens utilizes Canon's Floating System, there's more mechanism that also contains lubricants that can out-gas causing "ring" like formations of fog/haze usually at element edges. This can obviously alter the imaging performance (not only at the edges). <br>

<br>

Here's a very informative internet page on this model of lens: <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/17mm.htm">Canon FD 17mm f/4</a> <<<<em> click</em><br>

As a video lens, it performs very well: Video with the <a href="

etc.</a> <<< <em>click </em></p>

Jano, when surfing Google images for FD 17mm I am seeing some really nice work produced with it on digital bodies like

the A7R. Nothing seems to suggest it's a poor performer in general, most users express lots of satisfaction.

<p>I bought mine used in excellent condition and its performance is splendid. There may be so other problem with the O.P.'s lens.</p>

<p>Thanks for all your help. I will sell it and try a new one. Sadly I leaving for Australia next week, no time left to find a new good one and test it.</p>

<p>I have been using FDn lenses professionally for about thirty years I bought my DFDn 17mm f4 lens new and it's an excellent ultra wide angle lens but the problem of buying second hand after all these years is you have no way of knowing it's history, and it sounds to me as if some ham fisted amateur repairer has had it apart on his kitchen table and ruined the collimation, because any idiot can dismantle a lens, but to reassemble it correctly and ensure all the elements are parallel to each other and line up to the same central datum line requires the use of an optical bench, and a lazer beam shining through the lens elements to ensure they line up correctly which is a job for for a camera technician.</p>

<p>https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/Canon-FD-17mm-on-M8/i-bVdnq3W/0/XL/FD%2017%20M8%20NOV-5-XL.jpg</p>

<p>I used my FD 17/4 on a Leica M8 here. I hope that it is allowed to post a pic like this.</p>

<p>I have participated on the EOS forum, but this is my first time on FD, largely out of curiosity. This post about the FD 17/4 certainly caught my eye. In 1993 I (somewhat reluctantly) switched to EOS. Having to build a whole new lens collection was a serious bummer, but for a seriously myopic little nerd autofocus seemed like manna from heaven.</p>

<p>What is relevant to this discussion, though, is the switch I made in 1973, from FL to FD lenses (and cameras.) As we are sneaking up on half a century since then, my memories may be a bit hazy, but here are my thoughts as best I can remember them. Also, every last FL and FD lens is long since gone, although there may be a 50/3.5 macro rattling around in a drawer somewhere.</p>

<p>Sometime during the switch-over I bought the 17/4 and was seriously disappointed. The lens was unsharp, it vignetted, and it had significant distortion. It is important to know, though, what the 17 replaced. It replaced the FL 19/3.5 R, which was one heck of a piece of glass. One must remember that there were two FL 19/3.5 lenses. The first one was a Biogon design that necessitated mirror lock up and an auxiliary optical finder. I know nothing about the quality of that lens in spite of the fact that I actually owned one for about ten days. That lens was replaced by the FL 19/3.5 R (for Retro-focus, or a Distagon design, in Zeiss speak, even though I seem to remember that it was Angenieux that actually invented the retro-focus wide angle formula.) The R lens was large, much, much bigger than the 17; I think it took a series IX filter. While the 17 gave me about 10% wider coverage, I found it to be vastly inferior to the 19 R. The 19 R was sharp, very sharp, and had negligible distortion and vignetting.</p>

<p>So, in conclusion, I can certainly understand the unhappiness of the OP. I considered it one of the weakest links in the FD lens line-up.</p>

<p>Chris.<br>

P.S. Please excuse me for being a bit late to the party!</p>

<p>I own a 19/3.5 non-retro design lens. It is one of my favorite wide angle lenses. </p>

<p>The 19/3.5 non-R stuck deep into the mirror box, which necessitated the mirror lock-up and the auxiliary optical finder. At the time (1969) I was using a couple of Pellix cameras. They had a fixed semi-transprent (pellicle) mirror which interfered with the non-R lens. If I remember correctly there was an oddball lens for the Pellix, the FL 38mm f/2.8 P which stuck into the mirror box but did clear the mirror.</p>

<p>The pellicle mirror largely died a merciful death with the Pellix as the viewfinder was very dark (losing about 1.5 stops compared to a regular finder.) It was used briefly in the Canon F-1 High Speed Motor Drive (for the 1972 Olympic Winter Games in Japan) and New F-1 (for the 1984 Games.) Then it resurfaced on the EOS RT and the EOS 1 N-RS. Sony also seems to be using it currently with some of their Alpha cameras.</p>

<p>The 19/3.5 non-R stuck deep into the mirror box, which necessitated the mirror lock-up and the auxiliary optical finder. At the time (1969) I was using a couple of Pellix cameras. They had a fixed semi-transprent (pellicle) mirror which interfered with the non-R lens. If I remember correctly there was an oddball lens for the Pellix, the FL 38mm f/2.8 P which stuck into the mirror box but did clear the mirror.</p>

<p>The pellicle mirror largely died a merciful death with the Pellix as the viewfinder was very dark (losing about 1.5 stops compared to a regular finder.) It was used briefly in the Canon F-1 High Speed Motor Drive (for the 1972 Olympic Winter Games in Japan) and New F-1 (for the 1984 Games.) Then it resurfaced on the EOS RT and the EOS 1 N-RS. Sony also seems to be using it currently with some of their Alpha cameras.</p>