FD 70-210/4 vs Angenieux 70-210/3,5

[baris_john]

Anyone ever compared both? Is the Angenieux worth the premium from a

photographers point (bokeh, sharpness, rendition)?

 

These samples look pretty good to me: http://www.pbase.com/derekmak/kowloon_park

 

How about the FD?

[pensacolaphoto]

I have the Canon FD mount 70-210/3.5 Angenieux. It is a superb lens, but the Canon 80-200/4L is a better lens.

[John Crowe]

I had the Canon FD 80-200/f4 L lens and you will not find many, if any, zoom lens of this focal length that would be better. Pictures on the internet can be deceiving, especially when no direct comparison shots are available.

[baris_john]

Well, thanks, Iﾴm not looking for technical perfection in a lens but character. My feelings are that the FD 80-200 L is "just" a highly corrected telephoto. And it doesnt focus as close as the Angenieux I assume.

[John Crowe]

Can't find the minimum focus distance for the Angenieux, but the Canon is 0.95 metre.

 

 

I don't mind lenses that are "just" highly corrected, don't forget that the Angenieux for the price you pay must also be highly corrected and thus still may not provide the specific character you are looking for.

 

 

Generally speaking "character" does not come with zooms. Of course we have no idea what one person's idea of character versus another's is anyway. If smooth "bokeh" is something you are looking for it would likely be in lenses more like the Angenieux 180/2.3 APO. I can only vouch for the extreme sharpness of the Nikon 200/2 AI as well as it's superb rendition of out-of-focus areas including highlights. Sorry, never used the Canon FD 80-200mm f4 L enough to comment on it's bokeh.

[User_4136860]

One thing to consider especially if you are shooting slides , is that the colour rendition on Canon FD lenses are matched, so they all produce the same colour balance.

I bought Canon cameras so I could use Canon Lenses, I've been using them for nearly forty years and there still better lenses than I'm a photographer.

[baris_john]

Thanks Ben and John. I have a nice range from 14 to 180mm covered in FD L fixed lengths. Carrying the FD 180/1.8 L is not always an option so thats where zooms come into consideration. The collector in me wants to try Angenieux.

 

Will post samples asap.

[John Crowe]

Now I completely understand your search for a zoom! Eventually I will settle on a Nikon 80-200/2.8 L.

 

 

Please buy one of each of the Angenieux and Canon and let us know the results...wishful thinking!

 

 

Good luck.

[John Crowe]

Nikon "L" blasphemy! I meant ED of course.

[gnashings]

The 80-200 f4L is, as has already been mentioned, one of the best lenses from any manufacturer ever brought out in that length range. It also allows you to access its "macro" focusing range one-step, and through out its focal range. I doubt there is a zoom out there that you can bolt to any camera that will hands down best it, if it even beats it at all - but in the end, a "characterful zoom" is like saying "an original honda civic"... They are creatures of utility, and performance is the only applicable measuring stick.

[egoldste]

I hate to burst the bubble which the marketers have worked so hard to create, but Angenieux zoom lenses of this vintage are hit or miss to say the least. I used to shoot some in 16 mm and 35 mm motion picture production and more than one was an absolute dog. Since "character" can mean anything from a Holga to Rapid Rectilinear to an original Summicron, it is hard for me to offer you insight into the 80-200L relative to what you might be looking for, but I can tell you that it is a very well corrected and popular lens.

[baris_john]

For clarification, thats the 200/1.8 L I mentioned above, not a 180/1.8 L.

 

Whats character in a lens? Bokeh, Vignetting, transition, contrast, curvature of field. Take the Leitz Noctilux for sample, a bad lens when you look for edge to edge sharpness or resolution, easily outperformed by a Summicron 50/2 if youﾴre looking for flawless "reproduction", but utterly unique in the way it draws. Some love it, some do not.

[egoldste]

You wrote:

 

"Whats character in a lens? Bokeh, Vignetting, transition, contrast, curvature of field. Take the Leitz Noctilux for sample, a bad lens when you look for edge to edge sharpness or resolution, easily outperformed by a Summicron 50/2 if youﾴre looking for flawless "reproduction", but utterly unique in the way it draws. Some love it, some do not."

 

There is little I can say to make sense of this. Your comparisons are apples to oranges, and your criteria for character are unique to say the least. Perhaps it is best to leave it at hoping you enjoy your Angenieux zoom... I found the ones I used to be wanting on the very basic measures, much less the esoteric ones...