FD 200mm f/4 vs f/2.8

Aside from the one-f-stop and price difference, how do these two

lenses compare against one another in terms of image quality? I'm

looking at the S.S.C breech-lock versions. Is the f/2.8 worth the

extra expense and weight?

I am afraid that I have never had the f4 but I would not be surprised if it performs as well as the f2.8 when stopped down a little. I love the f2.8s that I have had. I've used them for stopping high speed action with slow film at f2.8 95% of the time. The advantage of the latest New FD version is that it has internal focusing for easy handling and it also accepts the Canon 1.4x-A teleconverter to give a reasonable 280mm f4 lens.

 

 

You can get the latest version for under $200 USD on eBay and if you need f2.8 it is worthwhile.

When I could not afford "L" lenses I used an FD 200mm f2.8 with a 2x-B converter to give me a 400mm f5.6 lens that provided some excellent images. A 200mm f4 with a 2x would not be as useful. I did not beat the images taken with the 200/2.8 and 2x until I got a 300/2.8 L and then a 400/2.8 L. The 400/4.5 was sharper than the 200/2.8 but still not fast enough for my needs. You can still find a few images I took with the 200/2.8 in my folder. Good luck!

I've read elsewhere on PN that the only version of the f/2.8 lens that's sharp is the more pricey internal focus one. Some people have said that the others are soft and low contrast wide open. I've barely heard any comments on the f/4.

Joseph,

 

I have the 200 ssc bl f2.8 and the 200 bl f4. I would not dismiss either because of image quality. The f4 version produces wonderful enlargements as does the f2.8. I'd use either one. I would only consider the f4 if price was the factor.

 

Why then did I get the f2.8 if I had a great f4? I needed the extra light. On my trips to the zoo, 4.0 does not work. Also the f2.8 is easier to focus. The 2.8 ssc FD bl IS LIGHTER than my 4.0 FD BL by 25 grams! (truth is stranger than fiction)

 

When I researched with 2.8 to buy, people who had both the IF and non-IF versions said the image quality was comparable. There are two advantages to the IF over the non-IF:

 

1 The IF model can use the 1.4XA teleconverter. Then non-IF can't.

 

2 The IF model's front element does not rotate when focused, making it easier to use a polarizer. The non-IF's rotates.

 

If you go the IF route (I did not believe the extra price justified it) please note that only some of the 200/2.8 FDn bayonet lenses are IF.

 

-Lance

To ID the IF version look for the diamond pattern on the rubber band on the hood.

Another approach: 100 f2.8 (or f2, or 85...)with Canon doubler.

 

If one's goal is a strong photograph more than best gizmo, very sharp will beat incredibly sharp if the bulk of a lens causes it to be left behind. My Canon doubler has paid for a lot of equipment, made certain shots possible when I didn't have a 200 with me (usually the case).

Also a great lens is the FD 200 mm F4 macro. It's very sharp and focuses down to 1/1. This lens is expensive, though.

 

I take it along on all my nature walks, together with a 2X B extender, which makes it a 400 mm F8, with very good results.

I have both an early model of the 200mm f/4 BL FD lens and the later SSC model. Both are excellent. I have used them with a Tokina 2x RMC Doubler with very good results. I also have a 200mm f/4 FDN. That lens focuses to 5 feet. If a 200mm f/2.8 FD lens is too expensive, consider a 200mm f/3 Vivitar Series 1. I have this lens in Konica mount. It is very sharp and focuses to 4 feet.

By the way I saw absolutely no difference in performance between the New FD 200mm f2.8 and the New FD 200mm f2.8 IF. Just to throw you a curve the expensive New FD 80-200mm f4 L blew both of them out of the water at f4 and beyond. However, I sold it because it did not go to f4, would not take the 1.4x, and most importanly would not take my FD-EOS 1.26x, while the 2.8 IF will. By the way the 80-200 killed my 85/1.8 at f4 too! Scary lens, if you can save a little more for it and don't mind f4 it is quite a deal.

I have an FD 200/f4 SSC breech which I selected for it's filter size and..... ahem..... it is cheaper than the 2.8. Also, the DOF (bokeh) appears sooner (f4/5.6). I like mine and have used it for years.

In the 200F4.0, I've had both the SSC and the new FD versions. The newer FD was sharper, lighter and closer focusing. I could not discern a performance difference between the 200F4.0FD and 200F2.8FD (new). Also, I liked the ease of internal focusing of both models.

 

Excellent though they are (the FD 200s), I would get either a 200 F4.0 Macro or an 80-200F4.0 FD lens (either L push-pull or non-L dual ring), because a major use IMHO of the 200mm focal length is as a macro lens. A standard fixed 200 is inconvenient to use as such.

I'll second johns recomendation of the 80-200mm f4.0L nFD I use this lens off and one (I also have the 200mm f2.8 IF nFD and a Tokina 80-200mm f2.8 AT-X) but I used it for a wedding this last weekend (first wedding I shot outdoors and first from a balcony that required the foacl range to isolate the bride and groom) I also used my 400mm f4.5 nFD to get protraits of the wedding party during the ceremony as well as closeups of things like the brie putting his wedding ring on the right hand! Gotts love that shot.

 

Anyway back to the subject the 80-200mm f4.0L using Portra the colros were to die for the resolution perfect. The keeper rate at this wedding was the highest I have ever gotten. out of 8 rolls of 36 exp I have about 15 to toss in the round file and maybe another 20 that are marginal (and most of those are due to exposure problems)

 

If you don't need the speed the 80-200mm f4.0L nFD is the best 200mm I have used (haven't tried the macro yet)available for the FD mount.