2x extender B and FL 200 f/4.5

<p>Would this work together? Or will there be compatability issues?</p>

<p>never seen a 200mm f4.5</p>

<p>FYI Mark: <a href="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/fl/data/100-1200/fl_200_45.html">http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/fl/data/100-1200/fl_200_45.html</a>.</p>

<p>Both of my 200mm FL lenses are f/3.5 models. One has a built in hood and one doesn't. I don't know why the 2XB wouldn't fit the 200/4.5 FL. The question is why you would want to do it in the first place. You would have, effectively, a 400mm f/9 lens. Even with a plain mate or grid type screen with one of the F-1 models, focusing would be difficult. I have use the 200/2.8 New FD (1st version) with Canon, Tokina and Vivitar teleconverters. The combination with the Tokina RMC "Doubler" 2X is very good. A 400/5.6 combination is a lot easier to use than a 400/9. I did some close-up shooting with a 200/4 FD SSC and a Vivitar 2X Macro Focusing Teleconverter with good results. A tripod was used. If I did not want to spend the money for a 400mm Canon lens I still think I would get better results using a Vivitar 400/5.6 Fixed Mount or TX lens than the combination of a 200/4.5 Canon FL and any 2X teleconverter.</p>

<p>There shouldn't be any physical compatibility issues, but even if the FL lens design can stand up to the 2X factor, Jeff has a good point. Trying to use a very slow 400mm is going to test anyone's patience with difficult focusing and inadequate shutter speeds.</p>

<p>I wonder how the full aperture performance compares with the FL 200/3.5 and the FD lenses.</p>

<p>The Museum page gives this lens, and the 135mm/3.5, release dates of 1966, the same as the second version of the FL 200/3.5. I had always assumed these two lenses to be later releases because of the rubber focusing grip, since most FL lenses (and a lot of lenses from that day in general) have machined splines. Does anyone know that the 1966 date is correct? We've seen other errors on the site.</p>