FD 200/2.8 SSC vs. FDn 200/2.8

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Does anyone know how the FD 200/2.8 SSC compares to the FDn 200/2.8 with respect to contrast and resolution? I know that the latter has IF while the former doesn't, but they appear to share the same 5/5 optical formula.</p>

<p>I had a copy of the FDn, and am thinking of acquiring an SSC. </p>

[craigd]

<p>Doesn't IF imply differences in the optical formula?</p>

<p>I haven't used the FDn version, but I have the SSC and it is very, very nice.</p>

<p>You may want to take a look at <a href="http://www.fdreview.com/">http://www.fdreview.com/</a> to see what other people have said about these lenses.</p>

[craigd]

<p>Btw, according to the FD Review site that I linked to above, there are more than one FDn 200mm f/2.8 lenses. The one with IF is described as 7 elements in 6 groups, while the non-IF version is 5 elements in 5 groups, the same as the earlier FD SSC lens.</p>

[paul_wheatland]

<p>I have a stable of FD silver breech mount lenses. IMHO they for me are better than the FDn optics, build quality as well as image quality. My assessment is based on use not optical spec's, so others may not agree.</p>

[thomas_goehler]

<p>Build quality might be better with some breechlock versions, but of course optically the new FDs were meant to be better, because of technology development, especially when it comes to zoom lenses (exceptions like the ill-fated 3,5-4,5/35-70mm prove the rule), but also the fixed focals usually have profited from new lens technologies in the 80s, so AFAIK the 2,8/200mm IF is a better performer than the SSC version.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>There are two 200/2.8 New FD lenses. The earlier one is identical optically to the older 200/2.8 FD SSC. The later 200/3.8 New FD is the IF model. I have the earlier New FD lens and like it. If the light is good I will still consider using the 200/4 FD SSC. Some people feel the IF lens is sharper. Others do not. I agree that in general the New FD lenses are not as sturdy mechanicaly.</p>

[rick_janes]

The IF version is closer-focusing than the more conventional 200/2.8s, by almost a foot. I've used the 200 IF to

photograph a P-51 Mustang's instrument panel (from outside the cockpit, of course!), and it's sharp rendering of fine

gauge detail would delight anyone!

[User_502260]

<p>I would eventually like to add the IF to my collection. In the interim, the 200/4 New FD has reasonably close focusing and the 200/3 Vivitar Series 1 focuses to 4 feet. I have that lens in Konica AR and M42 mounts. I have used the M42 miunt lens on an F-1 with an adapter.</p>

[feanolas1]

<p>I have the three actually, FD, FDn and IF... The IF is nicer to use because of the internal focus, its also slightly less bulky. Optically, it does exhibit quite some fringing, definitely more than the older design, and I did not see improved resolution. So I would rate it second on optics, but first on handling. The other two are optically identical, of course!<br>

Note that I may have a flawed exemplar of the IF, as it is not something that has been reported elsewhere.</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>I bought a New FD 200mm f/2.8 new back in 1986, and I loved that lens. Until I took it out to an environment where there were hard lines against a bright background, at which point I discovered my copy fringed like crazy. I had also bought a 300mm f/4 IF (non L) at the same time, and noticed to my great disappointment that it had the exact same problem, although the severity was a bit less than the 200/2.8's. So, I was interested in reading Jean-Bernard's remarks, which tells me that my copy was probably not just a bad copy, but might have been indicative of that lens design.</p>

<p>Now, I do find it interesting that the earlier, non-IF models don't seem to show as much fringing as the latest one does. I sold my 200/2.8 back during the early 1990s, but ever since I started shooting with Canon FD again a couple years ago, I've been interested in picking up another 200/2.8. I have the New FD 200/4 IF, and it's a tack sharp optic. But that f/2.8 is a sexy lens and gives great bokeh wide open. Looks like if I want to get one, though, I should get the older, non-IF flavor.</p>

<p> </p>

[User_502260]

<p>I think the first time I handled an IF lens was at the old Nikon House at Rockefeller Center in NY. It would have been a 300/4.5. I thought the focusing ring was a little too fast. My current IF lenses I can remember include a 300/5.6 Canon FD SSC, a 400/5.6 late Vivitar TX, a 300/4.5 MD Tele Rokkor-X, a 200/4 Canon New FD and a 200/3.5 Sigma. I found the Sigma last year at a camera show. It focuses to 4.5 feet and seems very sharp. The example I found was NOS. I have only used these lenses with film and my 200/2.8 New FD (1st version) has never shown fringing. I have read that certain IF lenses do not work as well with teleconverters as traditional helicoid focusing models. </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Thanks for sharing your experiences, guys. I had forgotten that there are two different versions of the FDn 200/2.8, IF and non-IF. And it makes sense that they have different optical formulae.</p>

<p>It sounds like the SSC I'm considering would be a fine lens, provided that it's in good condition. I already have the optically superior FDn 80-200/4 L, but an extra stop would be nice.</p>