Opinions on the New FD 200mm macro?

[psul_aul]

What are your opinions on this lens, the 200mm F4 macro?

I am thinking about picking one up used. Right now, I use a vivitar

70-200 macro zoom for any macro photos I might take.

 

KEH has several of these used. I like the 200mm range and the fact

that they have a tripod mount.

[User_502260]

I have never used this lens but I understand that it is quite good. If I am not mistaken, the lens has a kind of internal focusing. The lens also zooms slightly as you focus from infinity to the closest distance. At its closest focusing distance the actual focal length may be about 170mm rather than 200mm. This does not affect the results in a negative way but it means that the working distance you get at the closest distance is not as great as with a lens which has a true 200mm focal length. Results should be much better than with the Vivitar for macro work.

[pvp]

It should be a good bug lens; the added working distance will help keep skittish subjects from fleeing quite as often. OTOH, if your preferred subject matter tends toward more static things (i.e., flowers) then the FD 100mm f/4 macro might be a better choice.

[awahlster]

Well, I can safely say it is the VERY best 200mm Macro available for the Canon FD mount.

[alan_swartz]

It's a sweet lens. I find it very sharp and the working distance is great for insects. Its shallow depth of field can give you very nice blurred backgrounds in your insect photos, much like we get with the really long lenses shooting birds. At minimum focusing distance wide open, it does not have quite enough DOF for a butterfly with wings partially folded.

 

The tripod collar is indeed a big advantage. It has a long built-in hood, but also a bayonet for the BT-58 hood. The barrel extends a long way on its double helicoid, and the focusing is quite fast. A little bit of a turn of the focusing ring makes a big difference. It focuses to life-size with no extension tube.

 

It's also a perfectly good 200mm for normal shooting. If I think I'll be shooting primarily outdoors on a trip, I'll take this lens and leave the 200/2.8 at home.

 

I bought mine long enough ago that it was still quite expensive, and I have no regrets whatsoever.

[dirk_dom]

Hi.

 

I have a Vivitar 50 mm macro, the FD 100 mm macro, old version (Chrome nose) and the new FD 200 mm macro.

 

The Vivitar I use on a copy stand to make B&W negatives from prints.

 

I bought the 100 mm in 1978, and made tens of thousands of nature shots with it. I dropped it a few times, it looks banged up, but optically it's still perfect. Obviously, mechanically this lens is very well made.

 

The 100 mm is a very good lens. I was perfectly happy with it for 25 years.

 

Disadvantages of this lens are:

 

- You need to put in a 50 mm extension tube when you want to shoot in the range of 1/2 to 1/1

 

- At 1/1 you lose two stops, which makes the viewfinder image rather dark.

 

- My experience is that you can shoot insects like butterflies and dragonflies with this lens, but that you have to move very slowly and be very patient. You lose lots of opportunities while focusing because the insect becomes aware of you and flies away.

 

On the other hand, the 100 mm is perfect for flowers.

 

Optically, the 100 mm is a very sharp lens with lots of colour saturation.

 

Now, the new FD 200 mm macro.

 

I bought my 200 mm two years ago in a 2nd hand photo shop. I paid $ 600 for it.

 

The 200 mm is awesome. Since I have it, I haven't used the 100 mm a single time any more:

 

- Focuses down to 1/1, only one stop of light loss between infinity and 1/1.

 

- No more problems shooting insects

 

- When shooting flowers, you hardly have to bend over

 

- Razor sharp; You see the finest hair on flowers etc. I did shots of orchids with fuzz on the flower, and you see that to the tiniest hair.

 

- Fantastic colour saturation; I showed some 8'' by 12'' shots from colour film made by an 1 hour lab to a fellow photographer and he thought they were Cibachromes.

 

- It's a great telephoto lens.

 

- At 1:1 it's not longer than the 100 mm + extension tube at 1/1.

 

A tip: I have a Canon 2X - B extender and with that this lens becomes a 400 mm F8 which focuses down to 2/1. That opens up a whole new world: Hummingbirds, orchids in trees, flowers on the edge of a crevasse,... Aiming becomes more difficult, of course.

 

- A disadvantage, if you can call it that, of the 200 mm, is that because of the longer focal length it's a little more difficult to aim and hold steady.

- Another disadvantage is that the lens is too long for use with a bellows; The 100 mm is ideal for that.

 

The 200mm is much rarer than the 100 mm and costs a lot more money, but if that's no object, I wouldn't hesitate buying it.

 

 

Bye,

 

dirk.