Your opinions on the two FD lenses please: Canon 75-200mm f/4.5 and Polar 18-28mm f/4.0 - 4.5

Hi there

 

I would greatly appreciate if you could please give me your opinions

on these two lenses.

 

Canon 75-200mm f/4.5 and Polar 18-28mm f/4.0 - 4.5

 

I will join my friend on a motor-bike/mountain-ranges-camping trip in

Turkey, and since cargo space is extremely tight with the camping

gear and all, I will not be taking my photo gear with me, and

instead, I will be using my friend's T-90.

 

He has a 50mm f/1.4, and I know that, regardless of the camera

system, that lens will most likely be his best lens optically. So the

50mm will be on board. My questions regards his other two lenses I

listed above.

 

Since I know nothing about the FD system, I need your help on these

two.

 

Polar 18-28mm f/4.0 - 4.5 lens: I have heard nothing about this third

party lens before, and therefore I am sceptical to begin with. Is

this one of the later manual focus era, computer designed lenses, or

is it one of those earlier designs which are horrible in comparison

to primes or zooms of today?

 

Canon 75-200mm f/4.5: Well, it is a Canon zoom, and it is a constant

4.5. Those are good. The zoom range is reasonable, unlike some x10

zoom designs. So is this one worth taking on board?

 

Obviously quality is a relative concept. Assuming that I use proper

technique with regard to camera support and focusing, my expectation

from these lenses would be to get quality enlargements of 10x16 using

Provia 100F and Reala, and 8x10 using Superia X-Tra 400 and UC 400.

 

For a comparative assessment, I am quite familiar with Canon

autofocus EF lenses and manual focus Minolta lenses.

 

Thank You very much.

I have a 75-200mm f4.5 nFD in my Kit when we traveled to Europe this last fall of the 45 lenses I have for Canon Fd it was one of the ones we took it is not the best zoom in the FD line (the 80-200mm f4.0L is)

 

But for a travel lens that is very light uses the same 52mm filters as the 50mm lenses and produces very nice color and resolution I will always have one of these in my Kit.

 

It is in my wifes camera bag all the time she really likes it.

 

As to the other I'ver never even heard of it before. But I can tell you that you would be much happier with 24mm f2.8 nFD as your travel wide then this thrid party zoom. smaller WAY better opticall faster for interiors and it will use the same filters and caps as the 75-200 and 50mm lenses

 

When traveling I really like things to work together one set of filters one extra rear cap one extra front cap one type of mounting etc. It makes life simpler and adds to the enjoyment.

 

For a list of what we took to Europe and comments I wrote about everything when we got back go to:

 

http://tinyurl.com/wu74 and http://tinyurl.com/ytbem

 

Hope this helps. We traveled by auto and therefore had more room then you would one a bike but then we also ran two KITS as both of us are into photography which in it self is a big plus as all our gear was interchangeable the back up body I tool and used for B&W would have replaced her AE-1P or my T90 just fine had something happened to eith body etc. Read my notes and you can see a photo of my part of the gear packed into a Canon 200EG backpack.

For many years I was using a Canon 80-200/4 on a F1N body and a Canon 28-50/3.5 lens on a T90 body. Sometimes, I would use a 24mm/2.8 lens or even a 17mm lens, but about 90% of the time I was happy with the 80-200 plus 28-50 zoom lenses.

The Canon 75-200 was an "economy" line lens in the FD series. It should offer decent performance, but probably not stellar. I think the 70-210 f/4.0 and the 80-200 f/4.0 zooms are more highly regarded. My subjective view is that the 70-210 is better built than the 75-200. The others are often available for about the same prices as the 75-200. In another league, at several times the price, is the 80-200L, which is a fabulous lens, quite remarkable for a zoom of that era. You may not want to travel with a lens of that value.

 

You're certainly right in saying that "quality is a relative concept." Many would consider a 10x enlargement of a 35mm frame to go beyond "quality." If I wanted that much enlargement, I'd want the 80-200L if I could possibly afford it.

 

A small factor would be the gain of a half-stop with the f/4 lenses. Shooting Provia 100, you may want all the speed you can get.

The 75-200mm f4.5 is only 1/3 stop slower then the other Canon zooms at f4.0

 

The 75-200mm f4.5 weighs only 510 gr. 123mm long and uses a 52mm filter with a BT-52B hood which is not very expensive

 

the 70-210mm f4.0 weighs in at 645 gr. and uses 58mm filters with a BT-58 hood which can hard to find and expensive it is also 79mm around with the hood stored on the lens

 

the 80-200 f4.0 weighs a wopping 765 gr and is 161mm long and also uses the BT-58 hood making it MUCH bigger then the 75-200mm

 

It might be a more consumer level lens then the others but then so is the 50mm f1.8 and I defy anyone to tell me it can't produce stunning results.

 

I suggest if you friend already has the 75-200mm f4.5 nFD you borrow it for a weekend and shoot a roll of film with it you will be able to tell everything you need to know that way.

Thank You all very much.

I bought the 75-200 many years ago. It's truly awful. The flare is unbelievable. The lens is useless. I then bought a 80-200F:4L. It's a terrific lens. Worth every penny.