FD 50-300mm F4.5 "L" lens

[michael_bizon]

I've searched through the search engine on this lens and all I come up with is it's weight and monetary

amount. The biggest lens I have in my collection is the FD 200mm f4, and I never had a desire for the

big guns 400mm, 500mm, 800mm etc, etc, money reasons and frankly I just don't shoot sports or

wildlife really, so I never needed one, but this lens could be handy in my quiver, so my question is: Just

how good is this lens?? and will it be comparable to a fixed FD 300mm f4 "L", (I don't want to compare

it to the FD 300mm f2.8 "L", since there probably isn't any)??? thanks...

[awahlster]

The 50-300mm f4.5L is an extremely rare lens many many of them having been converted to Movie camera use. They were a very expensive lens to start out with Very heavy and with the film speeds of the day hard to hand hold.

 

Image quality was outstanding for a zoom of this range a direct comparison between the 300mm f4.0 and it would have to come from an owner. I do know one FD user who after buying this lens sold everything he had longer then 85mm stating he had no need for them any more as the Zoom more then meet his requirements.

 

If you find one it will more then likely cost a lot more then a 300mm f4.0L and 400mm f4.5 would together.

 

And yes there is a 300mm f2.8 L in fact there were 3-4 different version of that lens dating back to

 

The 1974 FL300mm f/2.8 S.S.C. Florite

 

The first 300mm f2.8 in the FD line came in Oct 1975 the FD300mm f/2.8 S.S.C. Fluorite

[14mm 2.8l]

I owned a 50-300mm f4.5L for few weeks a few years ago.

 

It had terrible image quality and weighed alot and was quite large.

 

Easily the heaviest and slowest 50mm you'll ever find for FD.

 

My 300mm f4 non L had better image quality so I found a new home for the oversized 6 to 1 L Series zoom I impulse bought.

 

That said my FDn 400mm 4.5 had better image quality than the 300mm f4 so I then sold the 300mm f4 too after it spent couple years in my bag.

 

My favorite affordable and well balanced telephoto is the FDn 400mm f4.5. I like it over SSC breechmount due to fact that the 1.4x snout is made for it without any modifications to the light baffle.

 

Lindy

[awahlster]

Well there you go Lindy has had one so I bow to his hands on experience with the lens.

[alan_swartz]

I also owned one of these for a week. I collected a lot of lenses, and would probably have kept this one if not for a diaphragm problem this particular lens had. But . . .

 

It's a very impractical lens. It is long and extremely heavy. I think hand-holding would be out of the question in most instances, and uncomfortable at best (and I'm a pretty big guy). It's just awkward. It may be as much an issue of balance as weight. The 300mm f/2.8 is actually easier to hand hold, I believe. It also does not have a built-in hood, but uses a plastic bayonet hood (unique to this lens), and the front element is very, very exposed, with virtually no barrel protrusion beyone the glass.

 

If I ever found one for a steal, I'd probably add it to my collection for fun, but it's not a lens I'd enjoy much. The best instance I can think of for using it would be some event where it would stay on a tripod, but where the entire range from normal to long telephoto needed to be quickly available. I wouldn't consider it if the tripod collar was missing.

 

I can't imagine that it would be anywhere near as good as the 300/4L. I do own that one and am very pleased with it.

[w_t1]

I will be retrofitting FD lenses with image stabilization, right after I finish the FD-EOS conversion. Lol.