Canon nFD 200mm F/4 s.s.c.

I've seen several threads on Canon 200mm prime telephoto lenses but apparently none about this lens. Does anyone here use one of these? I don't need the faster f/2.8 lenses or the macro as it will be used only for hand-held landscapes in good light or with a tripod. My film cameras are an A-1 and an AE-1. Any opinions or advise regarding this lens would be greatly appreciated. I'm just getting back into B&W film photography after a long lapse. The negatives will be processed in both my new darkroom and an Epson V600 scanner. I'll leave the color images to my very capable Canon T6i.

Here is a link to some info on the lens you mentioned: Older 200mm Canon FD lenses

 

In my opinion, the 200/2.8 IF nFD is honestly probably a better choice for landscape work...for a variety of reasons. First, the image in your viewfinder will be brighter making accurate focus much easier than with an f/4 lens, unless you are using an interchangeable focusing screen designed for slower longer focal length lenses. A second reason is that the lens design for the 2.8 is an improved design with less distortion and flare - important if you are looking do do significant enlargements. If you are merely looking to do web-based images, the lens you mentioned should certainly be adequate, but probably not stellar.

I did have the f4.0, but now have the f2.8. The 2.8 was not available when I got the f4.0. Bottom line is that the 4.0 took a lot of good photos. You didn't ask, but I like the balance of the 2.8 better. (I use it on F1s and an EF)

 

I never experienced flare or focusing problems. As for focusing screens, I only switch when I use my 300 f4.0 with a doubler or my 500 f5.6 FLF.

 

The big difference will be if you are shooting anything in lower light.

I like the lower weight and size of the f/4 and my 52mm filters all fit it. The bright viewfinder, balance and low light features of the 2.8 are still somewhat tempting. My enlarger limits me to 8x10s. I'm sure I will take some time to think about this. The Denver Camera club is holding a swap meet in a couple of weeks. Maybe some examples of both will be there to try out. My main concern is to get one that is in near mint condition. I'm kind of spoiled that way. Any of the Canon 200s will be better than my abilities as a photographer..

Note - if you get the FD 200mm f4.0 SCC breach lock, it takes a 55mm filter.

in that case I will of course expand my consideration to the new FD bayonet mount. Going back to FD series equipment after such a long break is like learning all over again but that's part of the fun.

For a pleasurable re-learning of the pre-EOS Canons, one of the (former?) brethern here has a book:

 

Skopec, Eric

2011 Canon Manual Focus SLRs - A Collector's Guide. ISBN 978-1463674687.

Agreed. I bought my copy last week and just about have it memorized.:) Another fine book that just came out a week and a half ago is: Retro Cameras by John Wade.

Just as a point of clarification, the lens in the title, "Canon nFD 200mm F/4 s.s.c." doesn't exist. You have the breechlock 200mm f/4 SSC and you have the New FD 200mm f/4 (with internal focusing as an added benefit), with "New FD" often being abbreviated as nFD.

 

I own both the New FD 200mm f/4 and the New FD 200mm f/2.8, both of which are IF lenses. I think the 200/4 FD is one of the best "sleeper" lenses you can buy. It is a very sharp lens and can often be picked up for peanuts on eBay and the like because it is "only" an f/4 lens, whereas the 200/2.8 typically commands 3 or 4 times the price, sometimes even more.

 

There is no denying the 200/2.8 is a great lens, but it has a bad tendency of producing a hefty amount of chromatic aberrations under certain conditions --- a deficit that the 200/4 does not share. So the 200/4 is a more flexible lens, as a result.

 

Whether you get the breechlock SSC or the nFD model with IF, I think you'll enjoy it and the images it will provide, whether shooting with film or digitally.

My only consideration now will be for a truly near mint nFD f/4. It's smaller, lighter, newer, use filter sizes that I already have and is IF. There are several on ebay including some supposed near mint and EXC+++ (whatever) examples but invariably they all have dust in the lens. How on Earth does dust get lodged inside the glass? I have four Fdn lenses that I bought brand new back in 1980 and now thirty-eight years later they are all as perfectly clear as the day I bought them with absolutely no dust or anything else untoward for that matter inside them. What does a person have to do in order to find what I want that looks like that?

Improper storage might be a culprit. Back in a previous life, I was a camera dealer, and I attended all the camera shows in and around the Los Angeles area. When I was still pretty new at the game I got the bright idea to store my lenses inside socks -- white athletic ones -- and the first show I went to after using socks to cushion my lenses, I happened to inspect a lens's internals -- and I was shocked by the amount of dust and lint particles that was inside the lens. I quickly checked some other lenses I had stored in socks and they all had the same severe problem. Fortunately I had stored only a small number of lenses that way, but I sure learned my lesson! Back to bubble wrap as cushioning material!

 

So anyway, as improbable as it may seem, it is easier than you might think for lenses to collect dust. This also reminds me of some "events" occasionally held here in the States, that I believe are based on the holiday of some sort in India, where people go around, tossing very brightly dyed powder on each other. Folks who decided to film these events discovered much to their chagrin that their lenses had been -- in some cases -- ruined by the amount of colored dust they had picked up.

I have a brilliant idea :D Instead of wading through legions of moldy, dusty, scratched, scuffed, dirty, fungus covered 200mm lenses on eBay.et al, I'll mount my absolutely pristine135mm FD lens and walk or drive a bit closer to my subject. There. Problem solved.

I have a brilliant idea :D Instead of wading through legions of moldy, dusty, scratched, scuffed, dirty, fungus covered 200mm lenses on eBay.et al, I'll mount my absolutely pristine135mm FD lens and walk or drive a bit closer to my subject. There. Problem solved.

I tried that with my 28mm instead of my 500mm for polar bears - not a good idea.

I just bought a New FD 200/4 lens for my Canon F-1n and EF film bodies. I hope it is as good as you say it is.

 

Perhaps "a little dust" is included in some descriptions by eBay sellers to avoid buyers remorse returns by chiselers.

 

Chris

I had the FDn 200/2.8 non-IF and the FDn 200/2.8 IF. Image quality was virtually identical but the IF was easier to use and took the 1.26x FD-EOS that I had at the time. In my opinion these are not heavy lenses, but perhaps that is because of the rest of the lenses that I have owned over the years.

 

 

I have to implore you to consider the Canon FDn 80-200mm f4 L. I don't care that some people say that it is poorly made, it is vastly superior to the 200/2.8 in resolution and contrast. It likely blows away any FD lens in it's range except either of the FD 85/1.2 lenses. I loved my 200/2.8 for 20 years because it blew away the typical zooms that were available at the time. As soon as I got the 80-200/L and put it up against the 200/2.8 I just about cried at the quality I had lost for those 20 years. I cannot emphasize enough how good this lens is and again it is not heavy too me, and it is a tremendous sleeper of a bargain. I would buy one again just to see if it is even better than the EF 70-200/4 L that I now have, but my better half would not be happy.

As long as we're discussing 80-200s with low dispersion glass, I feel compelled to mention the Tamron SP 80-200mm f/2.8 LD, a large push-pull zoom. At 200mm, its resolution and contrast rivals that of the Nikon AIs 180mm f/2.8 ED, an exceptionally fine lens. This isn't a cheap zoom -- typically you find them in the $300-400 range. I lucked out, found mine at KEH in BGN condition, and picked it up for "only" $250. Reason for the BGN rating? The zoom collar slipped slightly. Not a problem for me.

 

I would be very curious to find out how the Tamron compares to the Canon 80-200 L. Maybe one of these days I'll pick up one of these legendary Canon zooms and I can answer the question for myself.

I've owned both the Canon 80-200 f/4L and the Tamron SP 80-200 f/2.8LD. The Tamron, IMHO, while producing very crisp results when closed down, felt heavy and slightly unwieldly to me, and after owning it a year it sat on my shelf, whereas the Canon was a little more to my liking and produced wonderfully contrasty results. Both really good lenses!