How do you rate the 200/4 Macro?

[ricardovaste]

Hi all!

 

I'm thinking about getting myself some FD lenses, as they seem terrific value for money in todays world. Macro

photography is something I love to do every now and then, so a play with a new macro would only be fun I'm thinking.

 

While I'm here, does anyone know of a good Canon FD lens resource? Ive found this site:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/index.htm which seems to be great

for a quick impression of a lens, but doesn't really show any sample photos...

 

Can anyone tell me how this lens performs in the way of bokeh and colour reproduction? Any sample photos? (I can

assume its razor sharp, as its a macro, right?).

 

Thanks for your time. Any info. is greatly appreciated :)

 

Rich

 

p.s. I notice this lens isn't given "L" status, any reason why?

[don_boyd3]

Rich, as well as other members of our FD forum, I am somewhat a Macro Lens-aholic. Got them all and my favorite is

the 200mm Macro. A couple of points you may be interested in:

 

(a) If you don't already own a substantial tripod you will about the second or third time you use a 200mm Macro. It's

heavy and extends a fair amount at any magnification.

 

(b) I find it very sharp but my demands are modest.

 

© Here's what Canon says about the lens (scroll down to pages 126 & 127) in the Canon Lenswork book.

 

http://www.canonfd.com/lenswork.htm

 

(d) Here's a few of my slides with the 200mm Macro from my Flickr Account. Please bear in mind these scans were

converted from TIFF (55+ MB) to JPEGs (4-5 MB) during the Flickr upload process:

 

http://tinyurl.com/67d23r

 

Don B in Hampton Roads

[don_boyd3]

Forgot in the detail of copying url's, Canon doesn't designate any of their Macros as an 'L'. I presume because no UD

glass, Asph elements, etc.

[paul_de_ley]

Hi Richard, I haven't used the 200/4 macro myself but here are some pointers to online resources:

 

http://www.ilktac.com/canonfd/

 

contains a link to FD sample shots in flickr;

 

http://canonfd.farah.cl/CanonFD_faql.html

 

is a useful FAQ but has no pics itself, the following are lists of ratings again without samples

 

http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/surveyform.jsp?filter=%22brand='Canon%20FD'%22&title='Canon%20FD'

 

http://members.aol.com/canonfdlenstests/default.htm

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/ratings.html

 

you might also check out wikipedia, although the FD entry is as yet fairly summarized

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_FD

 

and last but not least, although the manual focus lens site doesn't contain all that much FD info of its own, it

is useful

for its price info search engine with auction final bid prices from the last three years

 

http://www.mflenses.com/

[paul_de_ley]

Not sure what happened to one of the links in my previous post, here it is again but this time coded as html:

 

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/surveyform.jsp?filter=%22brand='Canon%20FD'%22&title='Canon%20FD'

">http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/surveyform.jsp</a>

[canonfduser]

A great source for used Canon FD lenses including the 200 macro which I myself would like to own someday is KEH.COM. Last I checked they had two in strock. Don't be scared away by the bgn ratings on their lenses they rate them very conservatively.

[awahlster]

Richard I have a simple question based on how you worded your Post.

 

"I'm thinking about getting myself some FD lenses, as they seem terrific value for money in todays world."

 

Are you thinking you can use this lens on an EF mount body? You will need an adapter and will loose infinity focus (which if all your doing is closeup Macro work no big deal but it will limit your working distance.

 

And if not what FD mount body bodies are you using.

 

As to the 200mm f4.0 Macro easiest way to tel you how this lens is that is is the very best 200mm FD mount lens for macro work. So if you need a 200mm's working distance it's the best lens you can get.

 

The Vivitar 75-180mm f4.5? Flat field Macro is close but has some limiting factors especially for nature work. Plus it weighs a ton,

[cc_huang]

Hi <br>

I had FD 200 macro 4 months ago and found this lens very sharp even with wide-open.<br>

Excellent performance though there is no L mark.(Because there was no fluorite or UD glasses used in this len)<br>

<br>

Here are some samples<br>

<a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/gladiac/20080520_RVP/0520rv_32.jpg">01</a><br>

<a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/gladiac/20080520_RVP/0520rv_28.jpg">05</a><br>

<a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/gladiac/20080513_RVP/0514rv_22.jpg">03</a><br>

[ricardovaste]

Hi again! Must thank you all for your quick responces and patience with me :). To say I'm new to FD mount would be

an understatement, so thank you all for politely informing me.<p>

 

Don, there's nothing wrong with a small lens buying addiction ;-). Unless it puts you at significant financial diffuculty,

then its time to stop or slow down! I like to try something new every now and then but I make an effort to buy low so

that (hopefully) I make no loss or a small profit.

<p>

Thank you for the photo samples and advise! I do have a pretty decent tripod... I can handhold my 100/2.8 Minolta

macro lens okay at 1:1, but I'm guessing thats more or less out of the question with this beast. But I guess thats

partly the idea, that the extra working distance gives you the time to set yourself up better.<a

href=http://www.flickr.com/photos/richardharrisnaps/sets/72157604045851519/>There are a few of my macro's on my

flickr site here that I recently made</a><p>

 

Paul, thanks for all the links! I will work through them when I get time, so that I can try and grasp the strengths of

this mount and where it really shines.<p>

 

Frank, I only wish it was possibly for me to use KEH.COM. But sadly, as a UK resident, import duties/taxes make it

economically impractical to buy from the US :(<p>

 

Mark, I'm going to use it on a a-mount Sony camera. I was contemplating adapting the lens properly, but seeing as

its a macro I don't see much harm in losing infinity focus. I've owned my 100/2.8 macro lens for 3 years maybe, and I

think i would really struggle to find or even recall a photo taken at the infinity mark (not a close up one atleast).

<p>

Hi cc Huang, must thank you for your sample photos also, they are much appreciated. Oh and thanks to you and

Don for clearing up the "L" status question!

[ricardovaste]

From the sample photos I am quite impressed. I can see that colour rendition is quite nice and neutral (maybe a little on the cool side? Though you can't really judge that very well with film images). One thing that does stand out to me is bokeh performance. Its no way near that of my 100/2.8 Minolta sadly. It doesnt seem to like specular highligts at all, you can see its 6 blades quite prominately in some photos. Bokeh is quite important for macro photos I feel, as you are often dealing with a big chunk of the image that is out of focus. But, im sure, with the correct lighting, I will be able to get some good results out of this lens hopefully.

 

Could someone tell me how long it is at full extension (1:1) ? I see it weighs just over a kilogram (?). This may be harder to handle than I'd first thought!

[paul_de_ley]

Hmm... the FD websites don't list nr of blades but I don't think any FD primes came with less than 8. A

recently finished listing (#250274171950) on the mother of all auction sites seems to show a diaphragm of the

200mm macro, it's a bit hard to make out if it's 8 or 9 but definitely more than 6.

 

Can anyone who owns one take a look down the barrel of their lens and tell us how many blades they see?

[cc_huang]

Hi <br>

FD 28mm F/2.8 has 5 diaphragms. lol <br>

FD 200 F/4.0 macro has 8 diaphragms which give an "octagon broken" when stopped down. <br>

<a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/gladiac/20080723_RVP100/0723rv_07.jpg">image</a> <br>

[don_boyd3]

My ever-ready flashlight shows this lens has a diaphragm with 8 blades. The Canon Museum lists length as 182.4mm (7.18"). My lens

with rear dust cap on is 9 1/2" without and 11" with the hood extended. A handful of lens.

[don_boyd3]

Pardon me, extended to 1:1 of course.

[ricardovaste]

Thanks for the comformation on the length Don. That is rather long for a lens indeed. But just something you have to live with i guess.

<p>

Paul, i was watching that auction! I knew it would go for out of my range though, seeing as it was in great condition and had the box and all...

<p>

This is strange about the blades though. Maybe you incorrectly labled one of your flickr images Don? Or they had 6 blades on an earlier version...?

<P>

<a href="http://s160.photobucket.com/albums/t185/ricardovaste/?action=view&current=20041.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t185/ricardovaste/20041.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a><p>6!<p><a href="http://s160.photobucket.com/albums/t185/ricardovaste/?action=view&current=20042.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t185/ricardovaste/20042.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a><p>But regardless of whether that is true or not, blade number of blade "shape" has little to do with bokeh performance it seems. But a circular shape is always better than an angular one I guess.

[paul_de_ley]

Thanks cc and oops! Just looked down the noses of a 20mm f2.8 = 6 blades, and a not exactly rare (ahem) 50mm

f1.8 = 5 blades. Where do they serve the crow today?

 

*blush* *blush* *blush*

[don_boyd3]

Richard, Obviously you're right. I must have used my Canon FD 100mm Macro. It has 6 blades. My only excuse is I'm

doing so many slides and there's always a lag between taking the photo and scanning it.

[ricardovaste]

Sorry, Don. I wasn't meaning to "point it in your face" in anyway, I was just trying to get to the bottom of it, to see if there maybe were some different versions with different #'s of blades out there. I know what you mean though, I probably couldn't distinguish half of my photos to specific lenses, especially the ones shot some time ago.

 

Would like to thank everyone for their help again. You have all been very polite and informative :).

 

When I get this lens, I will come back and share some photos with this forum. I'm just not sure how long it will be until that happens is all, but I promise to come back with something!

[pensacolaphoto]

I have the Vivitar "medical lens" 90-180 macro zoom, so I never tried a 200mm macro lens. I am not too happy wirth the Canon 100mm/4, and I use instead a Tamron 90mm/2.5.

[ricardovaste]

Raid, Do you have any samples from your 90-180/4.5 lens? It also sounds very interesting to me. Thank you.

[pensacolaphoto]

Richard,

I have to serach for some examples. The lens was initially marketed as a medical lens to be used for surgery images. It was too expensive and maybe too heavy, and so it failed commercially. Later on, it became a cult macro lens.

[pensacolaphoto]

Richard,

 

Here is the link to some photos [taken by someone else] with this lens:

 

http://theswampbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14484

[ricardovaste]

Raid, thank you for the information and the link to those samples. They look excellent - really detailed and excellent colours! This is a lens I will have to look out for. Thanks again!

[pensacolaphoto]

The lens is rare,and you would need to find one in the FD mount. At one point, I was looking for the 90-180 lens in any mount, with the goal to later on get a camera for it.

[don_boyd3]

Richard, I don't see any of the Canon FD Vivitar VMC 90-180mm Flat Field lenses on EBay for the moment however Kevin

Cameras has several on his site. http://www.kevincameras.com/ They're not cheap but the Viv Flat Field zooms are a

very highly regarded cult third party lens. All the ones I've ever read about were made by Kiron which is a good thing.

Wish You Luck.