FD 600mm f/4.5 vs Nikon 600mm f/4 AI-S

[bob_newbanks]

<p>Does anyone have opinions on the image quality differences between these two lenses? <br>

There is a decent price difference in the used market with the FD lens being approximately $1,200, and the Nikon priced near $1,500-$1,700.<br>

I have a Nikon 400mm f/3.5 that I like very much, so I am experienced with manual focus long lenses. I'm just looking for something with more reach and decently wide max aperture.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>If you're using this on an FD-mount body, of course, one major difference is that the Nikon lens with an adapter will be manual stop-down.<br>

I'd bet hard cash that any differences in IQ would be small.<br>

If you're using some kind of mirrorless camera body, personally, I'd go on price.</p>

[awahlster]

<p>I have no idea of what the Nikon lens is like or even looks like. But I have owned a 600mm f4.5 nFD in the past and wouldn't again if it was $200.00 its no where near the IQ of the 400mm f4.5 or 500mm f4.5 in my humble and experienced opinion its a DOG.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I had the Canon FD 400/4.5, Canon FD 400/2.8 L and currently use the Nikon 400/2.8 AIS. I have been pondering selling the 400/2.8 in favour of the Nikon 600/4 for years. The Nikon 600/4 is rarely available for under $2200 USD and as you say the 600/4.5 is usually under $1200 USD. </p>

<p>The two 400/2.8 lenses are virtually identical and both are extremely sharp. The 400/4.5 is extremely good for under $500 USD but no comparison to the much faster lenses.</p>

<p>Everything that I have read about the Nikon 400/3.5 and Canon 600/4.5 would point to the 400/3.5 with a TC-14B or E would be vastly superior to the 600/4.5. I just tried my 400/2.8 with a TC-301 (2x extender) on a D3300 and have always used it with a 2x on the 5D II and results were superb on both. My Nikon 200/2 AI was the sharpest lens that I have ever owned, so all in all, my opinion is that Nikon's best ED glass is some of the best available.</p>

<p>The Canon FD 600/4.5 was never an L lens and was not made with the best glass.</p>

<p>I have not pulled the trigger on a 600/4 because I worry that I will miss the f2.8, I worry about it being just that bit longer and more difficult to carry in a back pack for short hikes, and I worry that I may give up a little bit in image quality. I use the 400/2.8 with a 1.4x and 2x on a regular basis with awesome results.</p>

<p>If you go with a 600mm lens I would only go with the Nikon. As an alternative I also recommend trying 1.4x and 2x converters with your 400/3.5.</p>

<p>The other lens to consider is the Nikon 500/4 P AIS which I have seen fall back into the $1500 USD range. In all respects this lens falls directly between the 400/3.5 and 600/4. Which leads also to the Canon FD 500/4.5 L which is likely quite similar.</p>

<p>I have often considered going with the 400/3.5 and 600/4 combo instead of the 400/2.8 so be sure to let us know how you make out.<br>

</p>

 

[alan_swartz]

<p>Just to reiterate the business about the FD 600mm again, from a somewhat different angle, consider this.</p>

<p>The longer the focal length, the worse chromatic aberration becomes. Beyond 300mm it is a gigantic design obstacle. Look at the glasses used in the FD teles from 300mm up. With the sole exception of the 400/4.5, which performs better than its construction suggests it should--a lucky design outcome?--these lenses all perform as the glass dictates they will:</p>

<p>300/4: ordinary glass. Mediocre performance.<br />300/4L: two UD (ultra-low dispersion) elements. Outstanding performance.<br />300/2.8L: one UD, one fluorite. Brilliant performance.</p>

<p>400/4.5: Canon says, "Appropriate selection of glasses, including low dispersion glass...." Not UD glass, but appparently not just "glass." Performs well.<br />400/2.8L: two UD. Brilliant performance.</p>

<p>500/4.5: one UD, one fluorite. Not as stellar as the 400/2.8 despite the fluorite, but the length is catching up with us now.</p>

<p>600/4.5: has glass. Not one word from Canon about the glass. Length is now a severe problem and there is no help from exotic glass. Expect mediocre performance, and that's what it delivers. Pronounced chromatic aberration, strong purple color fringing.</p>

<p>800/5.6: one UD. Length now extreme, but the UD helps enough that performance is better than the 600. Still inferior to the 500, though, in my experience. It should be, at 1.6 times the focal length and without the benefit of the fluorite element.</p>

<p>Why wouldn't you put fluorite in the 400/2.8L? I have to wonder if it's simply because of the huge diameter. Fluorite only appears in the smaller diameter lenses. Might have been too difficult or too expensive to grow a crystal large enough. That would also eliminate the possibility in the 600. Canon was just pioneering big calcium fluorite crystals in those days.</p>

<p>Why not UD glass in the 600? I suspect a marketing decision. Let's make one supertelephoto that ordinary people can afford, the big white one for the over-the-top camera-club guys. Lots of nature and sports pros were going to use the 500 because of its focal length and slimmer physical size. It had to be great. The 600 was already going to be cumbersome, with that weird rack and pinion focusing. Never mind. But then some extreme wildlife people will want the 800, so it needs to perform. Perhaps cost precluded a second UD element in it.</p>

<p>Speculation.</p>

<p>I am absolutely clueless about the Nikon 600mm. But if they designed it as a true top-notch professional lens, and not just a filler between 500 and 800mm as Canon did, it must be the better choice.</p>

<p>I should disclaim that my opinions about lens performance are based upon my results with the single copies that I own, operated with my technique, whatever that should be.</p>

[rick_janes]

Another major optical hurdle challenging its designers was the FD 600's very fast f/4.5 maximum aperture, a trifling half-

stop slower than later models with fluorite elements and enormous pricetags! Combining the long focal length and large

aperture proved too much for that design.

 

In more conventional telephotos the absence of fluorite does not imply mediocrity: the FD and later EF 300/4 L are super

performers, and the EF 400/5.6 L is universally praised with its UD + Super UD elements...it flat mops the floor with my

FD 400/4.5.

[steven_endo]

<p>With all the FD knowledge on this site, I am a little surprised that no one has yet mentioned the FD 300mm f2.8 flourite with a dedicated 2X extender or nFD 300mm f2.8L with extender 2XB, to get the best 600mm lens from Canon. The 2X extender supposedly had no image degradation when used with the 300mm f2.8 fluorite lens and could be used with other lenses as well. IIRC, the dedicated 2X extender later became the 2XB extender, available separately.</p>

<p>It seems to me the 600 f4.5 was made available as a cheaper (consumer?)alternative to the 300mm fluorite/2X extender lens, just as the 300mm f4.0 non-L lens was to the 300mm f4.0 L lens...</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>I like FD telephotos, but I'm not afraid of calling a dog a dog. There is simply no comparison between the FD 600mm f/4.5 and the Nikkor 600mm f/4 ED. The Nikkor is a highly respected powerhouse of a lens, widely used by sports photographers around the world on a daily basis. It is a bread-and-butter lens for many sports applications. The Canon is a weak plea by comparison. Personally I don't understand why Canon never came out with a proper 600mm. If I were relegated to using Canon glass only and I wanted to shoot at that focal length, I'd use a 300mm f/2.8L with a Canon 2x teleconvertor, and just deal with the loss of one stop of light (compared to the 600mm f/4).</p>

[bob_newbanks]

<p>I'm looking to use this lens on an EOS body, a 7D Mark II to be precise.<br>

I appreciate the commentary about FD glass. I'm unfamiliar with a lot of the options and pros/cons of each. <br>

I'm planning on getting the Ed Mika adapter if I get the FD. Any comments on that?</p>