canon FD 500

[jan_vanbussel]

I am thinking of buying a canon manuel FD 500mm f4.5 for 1.100$. Is

this a good lens for birds. And wath about te price. Is it too much?

Or th little so that it will be in a bad chape? I haven't seen it and

I will not see it befor I buy it because it will be delivered by mail?

Or should I go for the canon eos 400/5.6 ( I haven't got any body's

of my own)

At this focal lengt, will I mis a lot of shots because I don't have

autofocus?

What about the bodie's? Witch one to choose? Is the T-90 any good?

Does it mis a lot of functions compared to eos?

So my quetion is; Is it beter to go for an intermediate AF telefoto

with a slower F-stop or to go for the fast but manual lens?

 

Thanks !!!!!

[david_goldfarb]

It's not a bad price if the lens is in decent shape. See if you can at least look at a picture of it. The T-90 is a good body with many attractive features built in (like an EOS without AF), but the New F-1 is more rugged, in my opinion. Go to the Canon FD forum for lots of info on these bodies.

 

Some people on this list will tell you that it's ridiculous to buy into an obsolete system without autofocus, but it is really a matter of what works for you, and what tradeoffs you are willing to make. Yes, you might miss some shots without AF, but you might miss some shots precisely because of AF or because you can't afford a long enough lens or because the AF versions of these super-teles are often substantially heavier than their MF counterparts, and you might not be as ready to carry them into the field.

 

I use an FD system with an FD 600/4.5 as my longest lens and about 10 others all the way down to fisheye. You can find some of my bird photos at www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo (go to the galleries and click on the mute swan). All the bird photos were made with FD lenses (the other images on the site were made with a variety of equipment). They are not all perfect, but I would attribute their flaws more to my own technique than to my equipment.

[bobatkins]

It is an excellent lens. In fact it is the same optical design as the EF500/4.5L. Much better than the 600/4.5 which is not an "L" series lens and does not have a fluorite element to correct for chromatic aberrations.

 

Can't really comment on the price, but $1100 sound fair to me. You can get a T90 for around $400 and as long as you don't mind manual focus you will have a professional class telephoto system, just as capable as a top of the line EOS telephoto system but without AF (or IS), but about $2000 cheaper.The FD 300/2.8L is also an excellent lens should you need something shorter.

 

If you can afford it, go the EOS route of course. If your budget is limited, you will get better optical quality for your $$$ if you go with an FD system at the expense of some loss of convenience.

[alan_woolnough]

Hi Jan,

 

Well, ive been using an almost obsolete 500 f4.5 manual focus lens for many years now, and ive probably lost a few shots by manually focusing, but probably not as many as people might think. As bird photography requires me to get quite close, even with a long lens, this means that i am only turning the focusing ring small amounts, as opposed to having to focus from infinity to closest focus, in quick time.

 

I think ive probably lost more shots by never having owned a power drive for my cameras, or a camera with built-in winder, and have had to rely on timing to get the shot, and hope the bird stays around long enough for a second or third shot.

 

Whether 500mm is long enough probably depends on the type of birds you intend photographing, and how close you can get, and whether there are any local restrictions regarding erecting a hide/blind.

 

In the areas ive always lived, ive found 500mm to be the most suitable focal length for my situation, and sometimes ive used my lens on a mamiya 645, if the situation allows. This gives me a similar angle of view to a 300-350mm lens. I have found F4.5 a big advantage over some of my previous slower lenses. Not only does the brighter viewfinder help in low light conditions, but i can use faster shutter speeds or slower film. Although many fast/long teles can be a bit soft at the edges, wide open, i havent found it to be a huge drawback with bird photography at close range, as depth of field is so small, and the subject is usually towards the centre.

 

Although i dont use Canon gear, im sure the lens you mention will give you superb results, if those crafty little feathery things give you half a chance.

 

Best of luck

[bobatkins]

Note that there is also a monster Canon FD800/5.6L lens available and it shometimes shows up quite cheap. Big and heavy and doesn't focus real close, but so far there isn't an 800/5.6 autofocus lens out there and certainly nothing close at an affordable price. There's even a highly regarded FD150-600/5.6 zoom available (I think it's 150-600, could be 100-600 or 200-600), again there's no AF equivalent at the moment.

[cecil_wormsborough_st__joh]

<p><i>There's even a highly regarded FD150-600/5.6 zoom available</i>

 

<p>Yeah it was a 150-600/5.6 although I haven't seen one in years apart from

ones in use by films crews. A lot of them were converted to fit film cameras.

[wildpicture]

Jan, the Canon FD 500/4.5L is a great lens for wildlife photography, including birds. As Bob pointed out, optically it is exactly the samen as the EF version. This also goes for the FD 300/2.8L lens.

 

These lenses can be bought at very reasonable prices these days. And they do offer very much value for the money. The nice thing is that if you can pick one up for a decent price, it won't depreciate much. I have been using a FD 500/4.5L for many years. When I finally changed to EOS this year, I was able to sell it again for just 150 dollars less then what I had paid for.

 

For bird photography there are two things you would like add to this lens. First a Canon FD 1.4x converter. I had mine on the lens nearly always. Second an extension tube. When photographing smaller birds from close distance, you'll need at least the FD25 tube.

 

In my personal opinion you don't miss too much compared to the AF system. AF is nice to have but mainly for birds in flight. For birds sitting somewhere, I still often use MF. If you are used to it, it is just as fast. For me, I like the IS feature of my present 500/4.0 much more than the AF.

 

As far as bodies are concerned, the T-90 will be a good choice. I have never used them myself, as I have always used the F-1n. But the T-90 is a very nice and still rather modern body. It has a very good metering system and great ergonomics.

 

One more tip since I guess you are from Belgium. Please visit the website of Isarfoto in Germany. It is a very trustworthy shop that specializes entirely on wildlife photography. They have several used Canon FD lenses for sale: including the 500/4.5 and the 800/5.6 !

www.isarfoto.de

[cliffcalhoun]

I will second Bob's comment on the FD 800/5.6L. However, be aware that there are 2 versions of this lens; a "L" lens, which is the best, and a "straight" 800/5.6 which lacks the flourite element.

 

Stay with the "L" rated lens for the best optical quality.

 

As others have stated, with birds, you will find yourself wanting all of the "reach" that you can get. You will probably want/need a 1.4x with the 500/4.5L most of the time. However, this can be good since you will, effectively, have two lenses: the 500/4.5L and a 700/6.3 with the 1.4x.