canon fd 400mm f/4.5 ?

Hi all, Ive been birding for 4 or 5 years now and a year ago

enthusiastically began my new passion of bird photography. First off i

would like to briefly defend my current primary bird photography lens,

the canon fd 500mm f/8 mirror lens. If you know what you are getting

(i.e a slow lens with ring shaped out of focus highlights from the

central obstruction) this lens is also capable of taking some stunning

photos as the optics of this particular lens are quite good. I believe

this to be an excellent first lens. That being said I am now in the

market for a faster refractor lens. im looking to spend around 500

dollars. I recently purchased arthur morris' the art of bird

photography (which i enjoyed thoroughly) and learned that he began

with the canon 400mm f4.5 lens and produced some excellent shots, some

of which are included in the book. Other research however (i.e.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/ratings.html) has led

me to believe this is perhaps not the best lens to purchase. Of the

many lenses reviewed at this link, the 400 f/4.5 has got the worst

rating in the optics category. I would appreciate any advise on not

only whether this would be a good investment for around 500 dollars

for use in photographing birds, but suggestions on lenses that may be

better in this price range. The 400 f/5.6 APO seems to come up often

but the loss of just under one stop of light (more when using a TC

which i plan on using) is one deterent in my mind. I would appreciate

any input on this matter, thanks for your time,

 

James Hutchison

Art morris has a website and you can email him, I am sure he

could tell you more about that lens. Dont put too much stock

in those ratings..If you want to put a teleconverter on a

400 F5.6 lens its really gonna cut down on the quality.

The 400/4.5 wasn't a bad lens in its day, but as I recall it's not an "APO" design, i.e. it doesn't use fluorite or other soecial glasses to lower dispersion. This results in it having somewhat lower sharpness than other Canon "L" lenses which do use better glass.

 

I'm guessing that you must be using a Canon FD system. The lens you really want there is the 500/4.5L, but I don't think there's much of a chance of finding one for $500. The 300/2.8L would be good too, especially with a 1.4x to give you 420mm at f4, but again, you're going to be very lucky to find one for $500.

 

I don't think the 400/4.5 was awful, just not as good as some of the better Canon telephotos. I'm sure it's capable of yielding good results. I really don't know what a fair price for one is these days.

I just love all the advice you can get from someone with no experiance with the object being asked about.

 

I have a 400mm f4.5 nFD and I have a 500mm f4.5L S.S.C. and I can tell you that the resolution from these two lenses is so close that in a 3' X 4.5' slide projection I can't tell which lens took which photo.

 

The 400mm f4.5 is with out a doubt the best Bang for your buck you can find in a 400mm lens that will work with your Canon FD outfit.

 

I have shot with it now for a little over four years and NEVER have I been able to blame the lens for a crappy shot. If you were to ask this question over at the Canon FD group on Yahoo (the largest FD based discussion group on the net) you would be flooded with recomendations.

 

So people who don't have experiance with Canon FD would rather direct you towards what they spend their money on don't know why but I see that all the time. YOU don't have to have a $5000.00 lens to make a good bird photograph you only need a good lens and excellent technic.

 

IMHO

 

OH and I have owned the Sigma 400mm f5.6 APO and of the two excellent condition examples I had neither would produce a decent photo without an extender with the 4X6's looked like crap.

 

I currently own 14) FD bodies and over 40) Canon FD lenses and a dozen third party FD mount lenses. I have over the last 30 years owned a least 100 FD mount both Canon and third party lenses. I know this system well.

 

The best 400mm lens made for the Canon FD sytem is the 400mm f2.8L (sells for approx. $1400.00-2000.00) the second best is the 400mm f4.5 S.S.C. or nFD (the S.S.C. may need a simple modification to fit the 1.4X-A extender due to having a rectangular light baffle in the rear that interfear with the protruding front element of the 1.4X-A) The nFD version has this corrected.

 

Hope this helps feel free to email me direct if you need anything more.

Geoerge Lepp, who shot extensively with the Canon FD system and published many reviews of FD (and EOS) lenses in the 1980's and 1990's tested the FD 400/4.5 along with a bunch of other 400mm lenses.

 

The best was the Nikon 400/3.5. Next best was the Tamron 400/4 (yes, they had one, it was very good, and they stopped making it a long time ago). Then came the Canon FD 400/4.5 and finally, bring up the rear was the Tokina 400/5.6 (which basically sucked). His testing indicated that both the FD300/3.8L and FD500/4.5L outperformed the FD 400/4.5.

 

Maybe Mark has 400/4.5 that's better than average and a 500/4.5L that's worse than average. Hard to say. Projected images really don't show the difference between lenses too well as projection lenses aren't up to the job (and that includes very expensive projection lenses - I know, I've tested them!). However if you just want projected slides, and you can't see a difference bwtween lenses, then that's great and for the purpose of projection there's no need for the more expensive lens.

 

I do know one fairly well known photographer (not Art Morris!) who used to shoot with a 400/4.5 lens and swore it was great and as sharp as a tack. Then they switched to an EOS and got a 500/4.5L. They were amazed at the improvement. Of course it's possible they had a bad sample of the 400/4.5 and a good sample of the 500/4.5L. I'm just relating the story as told to me.

 

I have shot with a Sigma 400/5.6 APO and it wasn't very impressive compared to Canon "L" glass. Lepp (in another test) rated it lower than the Canon 400/4.5, but better than the Tokina 400/5.6

The question was about a lens for this guys FD camera and within that requirement I state by what I said everything I said. Yes there are sample variations there are also a whole lot of silly ways to test a lens.

 

 

Ask at The Canon Group to find out what a lot of people think about this lens not one or two people who you have no idea if ever even used it there is nothing in this review to know how or what lenses were tested. Heck some guy could have rented one for a day took it out and shot some crap with it and then offered his opinion. I have used it for years.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CanonFD/

 

where the people actually use what they recomend.

 

 

Bob I know how important you are around here BUT I know Canon FD it is my only system and the 400mm f4.5 is a very very good lens.

 

If you don't agree I suggest you find one stick it on a FD body and try it so you will have some basis for what you comment on.

I've enjoyed owning the 400mm 4.5SSC for about 3 years now. I thought for sure I'd sell it off when I got my 400mm 2.8L Nov 2003. Yes the 2.8L is an awsome optic, but it weighs 13 pounds and the last one sold on ebay sold for $2,250. Whereas the 400mm f4.5 weighs in at only 3 pounds and is well balanced and never tops $600 at auction.

 

Original list for the 4.5SSC was $1,000 so it's dropped around $400 in value in 30 years. Compare this to original list for the 2.8L at $5,400. A solid $3,000 loss over 10 to 20 years.

 

Since you specificaly stated you want to spend just "$500", the 4.5 will fit right into your budget. It would be a vast improvement over the f8 500mm mirror and keep you using FD glass made by Canon.

 

For some reason Canon Lensworks EOS III still likes to show off the 4.5SSC as a 30 year old Company milestone: lens page 38 column 2.

 

There are 2 versions of the 4.5. The "SSC" branded chrome ring mount version which does not accept 1.4x due to it's rectangle light baffle. The newer FDn or nFD version (push button lock on mount) accepts the 1.4X. It too has a sweet built in hood and in addition has an optional clamp on hood too.

 

The drop in filters are much easier to find for the 4.5 vs the 2.8L and you may already own some filters since your 500mm f8 uses the same 34mm drop-ins.

 

Lindy

I agree with Mark and Lindy. I've had the 400/4.5 SSC BL FD for a while now, and taken a few hundred candid people shots with and without the Canon brand 1.4X and 2X tele converters. (my son's marching band practice sessions)

 

The lens is outstanding. I do not regret my purchase. I don't have any other 400mm lenses to compare it to. However, it is better than my FDn 300/4. It is very sharp and has good contrast.

james,

 

The FD 400 f/4.5 uses low dispersion and not ultra-low dispersion glass so you get close to L performance. This was the world's first lens to employ internal focusing and I'm sure Canon wanted to make a splash with it. If it really needed ultra-low dispersion glass then I'm guessing they would have used it. At this time, Canon already had three other tele-photo lenses with Fluorite elements so like I said, if needed, it would most likely have gotten it.

 

This lens is sharp wide open and at f/5.6 through f/16 you will get professional results if long tele-photo techniques are used. Resolution is strong and contrast is above average. The lens is very usable wide open and at f/5.6 it's extremely satisfying. At f/8 I'm sure it is close to the limit of what a 400mm lens can do.

 

However, when attaching a tele-converter the lens will need to be stopped down. If you're using the 1.4x the lens should be set to f/5.6 and when using the 2x-A set the lens to f/8 for best performance when maximum shutter speeds are needed. Wide open performance with the 2x converter is similar to an inexpensive third party zoom so don't waist your film, just stop it down and you'll be fine. If you don't use tele-converters the FD 400 f/4.5 will be fantastic.

 

When using tele-converters with the 400 f/4.5 you will see slight color fringing, worse with the 2x-A than the 1.4x. If you project the slide or scan and Photoshop it there is no reason to be overly concerned about this. The fringing is not any worse than an ultra-wide angle lens.

 

Flare control is not as good as it could be. The built in lens shade only extends about an inch and a half. Canon made an optional lens hood extension, but good luck finding the EH-98. Probably easier to find Osama. I made an extension out of thin-wall aluminum tubing, flocking and clamp, it has helped a lot for those situations.

 

The difference in speed between f/2.8 and f/4.5 is one and a third stops. That small amount can be made up using faster film. You really don't need a faster 400mm lens unless you plan on doing night sports. The difference in price is substantial.

 

I think the review you read (at Bob Atkins' site) was close in giving this lens a 3 rating, I would rate it between a 3 and a 4 going by their criteria. If you know this lens's strengths and weaknesses, and plan on it, the 400 f/4.5 will be a very welcome addition to your 500 f/8. Even if the 300 f/2.8L and the 500 f/4.5L were already owned, the 400 f/4.5 would be a good addition. If you'd like I can send you some scanned slides with highlights cropped from 100% using this lens.<div></div>

Well, there's no subsitute for actually owning a lens. I've never owned a 400/4.5 so the guys who have have a much better view on it than I do. Last time I played with one was probably 15 years ago so my memory may be failing me.

 

BTW the ratings page on my website referenced above isn't my data. It's data provided by Grover Larkins and should be taken only as a single data point. Those ratings are his opinions, not mine.

 

The Lepp review I quoted above is from his Natural Image Newsletter vol #16, Winter 1988.

 

It is a fact that the 400/4.5 shows higher dispersion then modern "L" designs, Canon have published specs which show that. Whether the higher dispersion results in noticably softer images on film is a matter for an individual to judge.

 

The 400/4.5 is a lens that was used by a lot of nature shooters a few decades ago and worked well for them. Given the limited number of telephotos available for the FD system, it may well be your best bet for an inexpensive telephoto lens.

 

Another alternative might be the FD 300/2.8L, a very good lens. I have seen them selling for well under $1000. I saw one advertised not long ago for $800. It's possible they might be available even cheaper from private sellers, especially if not in great cosmetic shape.

Just to offer one more opinion. I regularly follow the Yahoo FD group as well as photo.net and my impression is that both Mark and Bob know what they're talking about (though I'd probably trust Mark more on FD gear--if you follow the Yahoo forum you know he's a posting guru). I also own the 400 4.5 (the first version, easily modified for 1.4x) as well as the 2x and 1.4x converters. I've never done any scientific tests, but in my own backyard tests the lense performs quite well. Perhaps in a laboratory you might be able to tell the difference between a newer 500 4.5 and a 400 4.5, but in the field, prints, slides, etc. I doubt you'll ever see the difference. It's a wonderful lense that can be used in a variety of situations and for the price there's nothing like it. Get it, go take pictures, you won't regret it or Mark will refund your money :).

Thanks for ah ah ah coming to my rescue Arron! Not sure about any money back warrenty. But it is a great lens and for the cost nothing I know of will beat it.

I just wanted to thank everyone for your responses. For my budget i think that this lens is definately a very good option from the sounds of it. I have to decide now between the 600mm f4.5 s.s.c. which i might be able to get for about 1000 or the 400mm f4.5 s.s.c. which will be about 550

The answers to this post seems to say as much about the photographers as the lenses. Because someone uses a particular brand/model why do they think it is the best just because they've spent their money on it? If I could I would use Nikon bodies with Canon lenses but, the lens is the important bit so I go with Canon. I'd say save somemore dough and get a bigger, better lens - especially as you're doing birds.

Old thread I know but I recently acquired the 400mm 4.5 FD. It is very sharp but does anyone know where I could obtain the drop in filters?