Canon 200 2.8 lenses

[Bill C1664885404]

<p>Does anyone 'know' how many variations of a Canon 200 / 2.8 lens Canon manufactured ?<br>

FL, FD, FDn and any/all model / build variations within those main categories?</p>

[User_502260]

<p>There are many threads on this subject and you can also consult the Canon Camera Museum website. The three basic types are the FD SSC (breech lock), the 200/2.8 New FD (helical focusing) and the 200/2.8 New FD which has internal focusing. The FD SSC and helical focusing 200/2.8 New FD are supposed to be the same optically and just different mechanically. Some people think the internal focusing New FD lens is better, some think the helical focusing New FD is better and some people think they are equally good. There was no 200/2.8 FL. The two 200mm FL lenses were an f/3.5 and an f/4.5. There was no 200/2.8 FD before the SSC model that I am aware of. Are you looking to take pictures with one of these lenses or to collect them? </p>

[Bill C1664885404]

<p>User, not a collector...I've had an IF model, currently have a Helicoid model...both FDn, lock ring and all.<br />And yes, have checked the museum and unless I'm overlooking something, the information is pretty minimal / straight forward about an FD and an FDn....doesn't go into various feature differences of 'generations' of a model...for example, Rear focusing is mentioned but not the Helicoid focusing variant.<br />So given the above I was wondering just how many variants there really might be in Canon's 200/2.8 lenses made a few decades ago.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>Rear focusing is one of the ways in which internal focusing is accomplished. Helical focusing is not mentioned specifically because it is assumed that any manual focus lens which does not have internal focusing uses a helicoid. Canon seems to have made few if any external changes to its manual focus lenses within each lens family. In 1968 Canon changed the 50/1.4 FL from six elements to seven and moved the A/M switch to the back. These were obvious changes. Another example is the 28/2.8 FD SC. The early model is heavier and has an aperture lock at the rear. The second version has the same optical formula and dimensions but is lighter and has no aperture lock at the rear. Most of the new FD lenses, made from 1979 on, stayed the same until they were discontinued. The 200/2.8 is an exception because of the two models we have been talking about. What New FD lenses look the same to me for their entire production runs? The 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/3.5 etc. I don't think you will find any more versions of the 200/2.8 than the ones you already know about. I have never seen one with the U.S. NAVY marking. It could be that there is an EP marking on some of them but that doesn't change the formula or performance. </p>

[Bill C1664885404]

<p><strong>"...Helical focusing is not mentioned specifically because it is assumed that any manual focus lens which does not have internal focusing uses a helicoid..."</strong><br>

Well, the Canon FDn 200/2.8 I currently have operates exactly like the Canon FDn 200/4.0 Macro lens....takes forever turning and turning the collar from close to infinity focus...MIR.COM refers to it as a Generation-1 variant of the FDn 200/2.8. As an aside, I actually like it because it allows very precise focusing (like the Macro lens) which suits my type of photos as they don't need fast focus...they're usually scenic and/or static objects, mushrooms, birds, etc.</p>

[awahlster]

<p>Jeff I have a US NAVY 200mm f2.8 IF nFD got it in a bundle with my USN F1N body and a couple other USN marked lenses which weren't as nice as the ones I already had so they went back to ebay.</p>

<p> </p>

[User_502260]

<p>I'm not making any kind of statement about which kind of focusing is better. My 200/2.8 New FD is also the first type. I have a number of lenses, Canon and others, which have internal focusing. Some are better damped than others. It is possible to do good work with with either type. </p>