EF 300/4 L non-IS vs. FD 300/2.8 L

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I'm thinking of picking up one of Ed Mika's adapters so I can use my FD 300/2.8 L on my EOS bodies. But since I already have an EF 300/4 L non-IS, I'm wondering whether it would be worthwhile adapting the older lens.</p>

<p>I know that Philip Wilson has posted some shots comparing the FD lens to the newer EF lens, but I'm curious as to whether anyone has compared FD lens to the older, non-IS version of the EF. (I realize that this is somewhat "apples to oranges," since the FD is f/2.8 and the EF is f/4.)</p>

<p>While I'm concerned about IQ, I realize that differences between the lenses in this regard may be merely "academic." But it sure would be fun to use the FD classic on my DSLR's.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Not much help really Mark, but I have the FDn 300 f2.8 and the EF 300 f2.8 IS, they are comparable in IQ though the EF is higher, particularly in poorer light. In high contrast bright light there is very little between them.</p>

<p>However the auto focus is so fast the keeper rate from the EF lens is substantially higher, when I use the FDn I am happy with a 10% critical sharpness keeper rate in fast moving situations, with the EF I am unhappy with less than 90% critical sharpness.</p>

<p>I have be looking for a reasonably priced FDn 800 5.6L for a couple of years now since Ed started his adapter testing, really just to play with bird and surf images.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Mark <br>

From my perspective there is little to gain using the FD lens. While the newer IS version of the EF300 may be slightly better than the older lens I am sure that the FD 300 will not beat it's IQ. That said if you can afford it get the adaptor and have fun with the FD lens. I personally found that I never used my FD300 F2.8 until I got the adaptor. When I shoot FD (rarely these days as it has to compete with MF film, and Leica / Contax rangefinders) I tend to shoot wide angle to short tele lenses (15 - 135mm range). So my big white lens sat on a shelf virtually unused. Now with the adaptor I will sometimes go and shoot it. That said it still stays on the shelf most of the time as the 300 is better when I shoot sports etc...</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>Why don't you ask Ed Mika himself? He has a stable of FD and EF telephoto and supertelephoto Canon lenses.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>If you want image quality, I don't think you'll gain any by going with the FD lens. If you want speed, then it's an obvious no brainer.</p>

<p>I have not compared the FD 300/2.8L to EF lenses, but I have compared the EF 300/4L (non-IS) to the original EF 300/2.8L (which is pretty much the same optically as the FD I think)and the 300/4L IS, and the FD500/4.5L to the EF 500/4.5L.</p>

<p>The original 300/4L (non-IS) is a very sharp lens.</p>

<p>Compared to the cost of any decent lens, the adapter is cheap. Even if the FD is no better, might still be fun to play with. It might also work better with a 2x TC (or it might not...)</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>However the auto focus is so fast the keeper rate from the EF lens is substantially higher</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is my experience as well. What good is IQ if you can't focus on the right place at the right time?</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim. </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Thanks, guys. That's pretty much what I thought. The EF 300/4 L is already quite a heavy lens, and it does of course have AF and superb optics. It's just going to be difficult to part with my FD 300/2.8 L, despite the fact that I almost never use it. :-(</p>

[philip_wilson]

Mark. Keep it and either use it on FD or buy an adaptor. Used you won't get a great price for it and it is a lovely lens.

The construction is better than the current lenses. Even get an M4/3 body and use it as an effective 600mm - it does work

so long as the subject is fairly static.