FD 500/4.5 L questions

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Can anyone with experience with this lens please let me know how good its image quality is. I have a 300/2.8 L, and am hoping that the longer lens has similar characteristics. Does the 500/4.5 outperform the 300/2.8 (with a 1.4x or 2x extender), are they comparable, or is the 300/2.8 superior?</p>

<p>Guys, please let me know anything you know regarding the 500/4.5 L.</p>

[paul_de_ley]

<p>Hi Mark, Check out <a href="00LDMg">this older PN thread</a> on the same subject as your question.</p>

[feanolas1]

<p>To me, they are in the same league, so you will certainly not be desappointed.<br>

It is however more difficult to use: where I often use the 300/2.8 hand-held, I use the 500 either on a monopod or a tripod. It's not so much the weight (more or less the same), but the fact that the weight is further away from you, and of course the added magnification.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Thanks, guys. I should have mentioned in my original post that I also have an FD 400/4.5 SSC, which I've had modified to accept the 1.4x extender. Any thoughts on how the IQ compares between the 400/4.5 and the 500/4.5 L? I realize that the shorter telephoto isn't an L lens, but it's very good nonetheless.</p>

[awahlster]

<p>I own the 400mm f4.5 nFD and the 500mm f4.5L S.S.C. And the 400mm has higher resolution in fact the 400mm has near 50mm lens resolution based on tests.<br>

That said the 500mm f4.5L is capable of very very good image quality I have photo's of 5 of Saturns Moons taken with the 500mm f4.5L and a 2X. and the moons are pretty sharp.<br>

I've never owned a 300mm f2.8 so I don't know how it would compare to one with a doubler but I can tell you my Bird photos hold up very well when using a doubler with the 500mm f4.5L So if you need the lenght it's the ticket.</p>

[alan_swartz]

<p>Mark,</p>

<p>I think it's safe to say that the 500 and 300 are comparable. There's such a significant difference in focal length that technique with the 500 becomes a crucial factor in quality comparisons. My instinct, based upon the particular copies of these lenses that I own, is that the 500 has slightly less contrast than the 300. I haven't used the 300/2.8 with an extender, so I can't compare that to the 500.</p>

<p>It stands to reason that even with exotic "L" series technology, a 300 is easier to correct than a 500, so it stands to reason that the 300 would be slightly better. They both use UD and fluorite. I think it's useful, too, to look at "L" technology as a means to achieve better performance at some extreme of aperture or focal length, rather than seeing it as something like "the perfect lens." It makes for some great results, but not necessarily better than less exotic or expensive lenses in all cases.</p>

<p>Slightly off-topic, I once took my 400/2.8 to a concert hall and photographed a recitalist from the recording booth at the rear. Mark Wahlster mentioned 400/4.5 resolution comparable to a 50mm. I was struck by the "50mm look" of the slide taken with the 400/2.8. Other than depth of field and perspective, it did not look like a telephoto shot.</p>

<p>The notion of the 400/4.5 being better than the 500/4.5L has been discussed here for years. I think it depends on what you're measuring, and probably on specific examples of lenses as well. My 400/4.5 has better contrast than my 500. I don't shoot resolution targets, so I can't say there's any visible difference there. But my 400/4.5 has noticeable lateral chromatic aberration. The 500 does not. If I remember my Canon literature correctly, they stated that chromatic aberration was the primary design challenge in a telephoto, and that's what the UD and fluorite set out to correct. I recently looked at a number of photos made with the 600/4.5. I would rate them as having severe chromatic aberration (which, as an aside, makes me wonder why those lenses still sell for as much as they do). It's a clear demonstration of the benefits of UD and fluorite.</p>

<p>Someday, when I get a decent film scanner, I'd like to do a direct real-life comparison of the 400 and 500L.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Mark - it is probably 20 years since I used the 400 f2.8 and 500 F4.5 since I have never owned them. i have owned the 300 F2.8 for many years. from memory the 300 f2.8 and 400 f2.8 were noticably better than the 500 f4.5 and in my opinion the 400 f2.8 with the 1.4x was still better than the 500 but the 300 f2.8 with the 2x was inferior. I cannot recall ever compaing the 300 f2.8 with the 1.4x and have only used the 400 f4.5 a few times.</p>

[awahlster]

<p>I have to agree with Alan on the 600mm f4.5 I had one that granted was not in very good condition physically but optically it was clean and properly aligned and it basically sucked compared the the 500mm f4.5L and was the 400mm f4.5 plain blew it away.</p>