Canon FD 200mm F2.8

[Nikanon]

Has anyone used this lens or own it? What is the optical quality of this lens and is it durable? (im talking about the non S.S.C lens)

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I have used it, though not recently. It seems to good optical quality, but I'm no expert. Looks durable to me. I was quite please with it.

Jeff

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

By "non-s.s.c." do you mean pre-s.s.c., or the later type, which didn't have the "s.s.c." logo, because almost all "new-FD" mount (bayonet, as opposed to the earlier breech lock) lenses are S.S.C.? I had the late new-FD mount internal focusing version of the FD 200/2.8 for several years, and I thought it was a very handy lens. The optical quality was quite good, and I could bring the 1.4x and 2x-B extenders and have a good selection of telephoto options in a very compact package. Here's a sample shot, just walking around the city with the 200/2.8 and an extender, I forget which, handheld, probably on K64--

S.S.C. was Canon's designation for multicoated, or "super spectra coated" lenses. "S.C." was "spectra coated" or single coated. Of the new-FD lenses, only the budget 50/1.8 lens was single coated, rather than S.S.C.

 

[cooltouch]

I bought a New FD mount 200mm f/2.8 back in 1986, and thought I had at last acquired a really special lens. I should have, the durn thing sure wasn't cheap. I shoot mostly outdoor photography, and back in those days, most of what I did was motorsports. I used the lens a lot for that, and it worked very well.

Canon F-1, FD 200mm f/2.8, Fujichrome 100, exposure unrecorded:

But I feel I must point out that the lens has its drawbacks, and under certain conditions they can be quite severe. My copy had a lot of chromatic aberration that was especially evident in brightly lit situations where straight lines were present. Strong green and magenta color fringing was evident. After running into this, I found that I had to be careful under what sorts of conditions I used the lens, otherwise the shots were really wasted the CA was so bad.

My advice? Honestly, I'd recommend you buy a Tamron 80-200 f/2.8 or Sigma or Tokina equivalent in Canon FD mount, although my first choice would be the Tamron. Why? Because all three have at least one low-dispersion glass element, and are most likely much better corrected for this problem. At 200mm and f/2.8, a lens really needs the low-dispersion glass or some type of APO formula.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Every lens has some tradeoffs, and chromatic aberration is typical of most teles and tele zooms of that era.

Zoom lenses are much more complicated than prime lenses, so in the case of most still camera lenses, ED glass and such can only be expected to bring the lens performance closer to that of a prime lens, setting aside issues of barrel/pincushion distortion, which are characteristic of most zoom lenses, at least at the extremes of the zoom range and at some subject distances. Zooms for cine cameras that cost tens of thousands of dollars are another story.

The main attraction of a tele-zoom is to be able to frame in the camera and get the most out of the small format frame, and sometimes that outweighs the optical problems of a zoom, but if you're always shooting at the long end of the zoom, I'd stick with a prime lens.

 

[2F/2F]

I own three of them. One is the FDn and the other two are the FDn IF models (one of which was purchased as an "emergency" replacement after I dropped the other on a trip). They are some of my favorite lenses. Small, light, sharp, and fast. No optical problems that I have ever seen. If I need 200mm, there is no zoom I would rather use. Remember that Canon did not have their 70-200 f/2.8 back then, so the fixed-length lens is the only way to get 2.8 in a Canon lens. For how little they cost, they are a must have lens if you shoot FD and use teles, IMO.

P.S. Since I do not believe that there was a pre-S.S.C. 200mm f/2.8, I have assumed that you are talking about the FDn versions. As I mentioned above, there are two versions of this. Both seem identical in image quality to me. The IF is easier and quicker to focus, IMO.

FDn lenses were not designated S.C. or S.S.C., though they were coated. Once they introduced the FDn line, it was given that the lenses were coated, so the S.C. and S.S.C. designations were dropped.

 

[cooltouch]

P.S. Since I do not believe that there was a pre-S.S.C. 200mm f/2.8, I have assumed that you are talking about the FDn versions. As I mentioned above, there are two versions of this. Both seem identical in image quality to me. The IF is easier and quicker to focus, IMO.

The one I was referring to -- the one with the bad CA -- was an IF version. I dunno, maybe I just wound up with a bad copy. But I doubt it. I bought an FD 300mm f/4 at the same time, and it exhibited similar CA problems.

 

[cooltouch]

Every lens has some tradeoffs, and chromatic aberration is typical of most teles and tele zooms of that era.

Zoom lenses are much more complicated than prime lenses, so in the case of most still camera lenses, ED glass and such can only be expected to bring the lens performance closer to that of a prime lens, setting aside issues of barrel/pincushion distortion, which are characteristic of most zoom lenses, at least at the extremes of the zoom range and at some subject distances. Zooms for cine cameras that cost tens of thousands of dollars are another story.

The main attraction of a tele-zoom is to be able to frame in the camera and get the most out of the small format frame, and sometimes that outweighs the optical problems of a zoom, but if you're always shooting at the long end of the zoom, I'd stick with a prime lens.

David, it sounds like you're quoting the received wisdom of the late 1970s. By the mid-80s, many people in the know -- and by that I mean specifically reviewers writing for the photo magazines back then who were testing the latest releases by the boatloads -- had begun to rethink their attitudes toward zooms. By the late 80s, there were few doubters anymore -- among this same group at least -- that high-quality zooms were capable of rivaling their prime counterparts at all focal lengths in terms of sharpness and contrast. My own personal experiences, which are admittedly limited and anecdotal, conform much more closely to this more modern view. Ultimately, YMMV -- just include my comments in the dissenters column for the FD 200/2.8 when the totals are tallied. I guess I'm still to this day a little steamed over the shots that were ruined because of that lens's CA. I wish I had some examples to show you, but I threw away the slides that exhibited the really bad CA.

 

[2F/2F]

I love the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L, standard and IS. I love the f/4L standard model as well. They are some of the best zooms I have ever used. I have nothing but praise for them, as zooms. Perhaps they are some of the best zooms ever. Neither of them, however, rival my 200mm f/2.8s for raw image quality, convenience, and the combination of size, weight, and speed, however.

You can shoot test subjects and make conclusions about a lens, but it is not wise, IMO. There are reasons for and against everything. Except in certain circumstances, zooms, quite frankly, are a major drag to me, except perhaps some of the newer wide zooms, which are nice and compact and sharp (Canon 17-40 f/4L is my personal favorite, though it is slow). Even then, however, I usually have them parked at one focal length. I just do not see the point of having a zoom lens for most of what I shoot. I would rather (and do) carry multiple camera bodies than deal with a zoom. I am just not a person who finds being able to quickly change focal length to be enough of an advantage to outweigh the disadvantages...because when I am out shooting, I almost never have a need or desire to quickly change focal lengths. In other words, to me, they are more trouble than they are worth most of the time. I either have a 135 or a 200, mounted on a camera when I am shooting out in the world, usually. That is fine for what I do, and I shoot a lot of stuff where I only have one shot at getting the picture. Zooms sound great in theory, and they are fine tools, but in terms of actual use, they just drive me crazy; even the best of them (the ones I mentioned above). They are great when you are stuck in one spot. I also like Image Stabilization A LOT. I really wish they had it on the fixed-length 200mm f/2.8L and the 135mm f/2L, instead of on the bulky and expensive lenses only. This is all nothing but personal preference, of course...the most important thing, and also a thing that cannot be measured by a photo magazine.

As for the lens, I have seen a report of softness, and now chromatic aberration here on APUG, however, I have been nothing but thrilled with all of three of my copies of the 200mm f/2.8.

My suggestion is this: They are excellent. They are cheap. They are fairly common. Spend 100 bucks one one, shoot a lot with it, and print a lot of pictures taken with it. If you don't like it, sell it for 100 bucks.

 

[cooltouch]

My suggestion is this: They are excellent. They are cheap. They are fairly common. Spend 100 bucks one one, shoot a lot with it, and print a lot of pictures taken with it. If you don't like it, sell it for 100 bucks.

Ultimately good advice. Hey, I'd love to be shown that the copy I bought back in the mid-80s (the last model with IF) was atypical. I'd be quick to pick up another one, if this were the case. But just to be sure, try this some time. Find a vertical object, like say a flag pole for example, take a picture of it on a sunny day when it is brightly lit. Then examine the edges for color fringing. If you're not seeing any, great. And if you choose to sell it, let me know.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Modern zooms have certainly improved substantially since the 1990s, but largely have just traded sharpness for distortion. Without making a zoom lens unaffordable, you can have barrel/pincushion distortion or curvature of field. Sharp corners are in many cases where zooms are used more important than straight lines at the edges of the frame, so modern zooms generally correct curvature of field rather than distortion. Resolution numbers also seem to figure more importantly in lens tests than other lens qualities, so it is unsurprising that the popular magazines (which are in the business of pushing lenses sold by their advertisers for the most part, even if none would acknowledge an explicit quid pro quo) would participate in that trend.

I know that many people believe that zooms have come of age. I believe they photograph things where optical qualities other than resolution don't matter or are invisible to them. Unless one needs the specific quality of a zoom--maximizing use of the frame when it isn't easy to control the subject distance--I'd still use a prime lens rather than a zoom in most situations.

 

[Excalibur2]

****I just do not see the point of having a zoom lens for most of what I shoot. I would rather (and do) carry multiple camera bodies than deal with a zoom. I am just not a person who finds being able to quickly change focal length to be enough of an advantage to outweigh the disadvantages***

Ermm well my logic is:- that my Kiron 80-200mm f4 equals my canon 200mm f4 prime....at 200mm for sharpness, so why bother carrying the Canon around, ok the Kiron is heavier but is more versatile.

 

[benjiboy]

I have a Canon FD 100-300 zoom I haven't used for years, I prefer to carry the FD 100mm 2.8 and the FD 200mm f4 IF,they are both light and easy to handle, and It's very rare that I have a subject that needs a 300mm lens.

 

[Pumal]

I prefer primes. I've owned the 200mm f/2.8 for years and it's outstanding. (needs a Hood)(one is built in)

 

[2F/2F]

****I just do not see the point of having a zoom lens for most of what I shoot. I would rather (and do) carry multiple camera bodies than deal with a zoom. I am just not a person who finds being able to quickly change focal length to be enough of an advantage to outweigh the disadvantages***

Ermm well my logic is:- that my Kiron 80-200mm f4 equals my canon 200mm f4 prime....at 200mm for sharpness, so why bother carrying the Canon around, ok the Kiron is heavier but is more versatile.

The definition of versatility, and its usefulness as a trait of a lens, varies from person to person. Perhaps being able to change focal lengths without changing the lens is what versatility means to you in your situations. To me, versatility in a shooting situation is caused by the way you work more than your equipment. Things like simplicity, size, weight, speed, and ease of use allow me to work with more personal versatility. This is why I like old cameras with fixed-length lenses. I can carry up four of them with primes, and still feel like I am doing better and moving quicker than carrying two with zooms. Being able to change focal lengths without changing lenses or switching to a different camera would not really help me unless I was stuck on one spot and needed to provide a great amount of coverage of an event. I really never have the desire or need to quickly change focal length while using the same camera body. Fixed-length lenses have only seemed restrictive to me on the rarest of occasions (stuck in one spot).

 

[dynachrome]

I have a Kiron 80-200/4 in Minolta MD mount. For what it is, it's not bad at all. The price is low now and the build quality of the lens is good too. I would not say that at the 200 end it is as sharp as a 200/4 FD SSC. My 200/2.8 is the first version New FD model and I like it. Over the years I have read that IF lenses can have two problems. They can exhibit color fringing and they can be difficult to use with teleconverters. In the case of the Canon 200/2.8 FD IF, teleconverter use does not seem to be a problem. Several people have commented on photo.net that they use this lens successfully with a 1.4X FD. I have used my 200/2.8 with a Tokina 2X, a Canon 2X and the Vivitar 2X Macro Focusing telecoverter. They all worked well, with the Tokina 2X doing the best job.

When it comes to zooms vs. prime lenses in this range there is more than one opinion. The late 80-200/2.8 manual focus Nikkor was not considered as good at the edges as a 180/2.8 or 200/4 from that time. If you were using it for portraits then the edges were not that important. I wonder how much of the color fringing problem was due to the coating and how much was due to the IF design. I find that the 200/4 FD SSC is very sharp. It's slow and heavy, but sharp. In my collection I also have a 200/4 FD with the breech lock and black front but with no SSC marking. It's also a good lens but against the light it's terrible. There are some other choices if you are shooting with a Canon camera and need a fast 200. Soligor sold a 200/2.8 C/D lens, which is somewhat rare, and Vivitar sold a 200/3 Series 1 model. I have the 200/3 in Konica AR and M42 mounts. Before I had the 200/2.8 I used the Vivitar with an adapter. You lose auto diaphragm operation this way but retain correct infinity focus. The Vivitar focuses to 4 feet, which is handy in certain situations. You can also fit a number of 180/2.8 Nikkors to a Canon with the right adapter. Finally, if you really want to spend money you can get a 200/1.8 New FD.

 

[cooltouch]

There are some other choices if you are shooting with a Canon camera and need a fast 200. Soligor sold a 200/2.8 C/D lens, which is somewhat rare, and Vivitar sold a 200/3 Series 1 model. I have the 200/3 in Konica AR and M42 mounts. Before I had the 200/2.8 I used the Vivitar with an adapter. You lose auto diaphragm operation this way but retain correct infinity focus. The Vivitar focuses to 4 feet, which is handy in certain situations. You can also fit a number of 180/2.8 Nikkors to a Canon with the right adapter. Finally, if you really want to spend money you can get a 200/1.8 New FD.

There is also the Tamron SP 180mm f/2.5 LD in Adaptall II mount. This is a superb lens, optically on par with, if not even a bit better than, the Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 ED. Unfortunately, Tamron did not make many, thus whenever one appears on eBay, it usually sells for a fair chunk of change.

 

[Excalibur2]

The definition of versatility, and its usefulness as a trait of a lens, varies from person to person. Perhaps being able to change focal lengths without changing the lens is what versatility means to you in your situations. To me, versatility in a shooting situation is caused by the way you work more than your equipment. Things like simplicity, size, weight, speed, and ease of use allow me to work with more personal versatility. This is why I like old cameras with fixed-length lenses. I can carry up four of them with primes, and still feel like I am doing better and moving quicker than carrying two with zooms. Being able to change focal lengths without changing lenses or switching to a different camera would not really help me unless I was stuck on one spot and needed to provide a great amount of coverage of an event. I really never have the desire or need to quickly change focal length while using the same camera body. Fixed-length lenses have only seemed restrictive to me on the rarest of occasions (stuck in one spot).

Sorry it's a no brainer by simple logic:- The Kiron zoom 80-200mm f4 is about 1" longer, same width, but slightly heavier, compared to the Canon fdn 200mm F4, and my Kiron can equal my Canon for sharpness (maybe I have a bad copy) and not only that can use other magnifications and is quite good for macro work.........and I get decent bokeh and 3d effect with the Kiron.
I like Canons and have AV1, T70 and T90 and will defend FD lenses but not for the 35-70 and 70-210mm fdn cheap consumer zooms or the 200mm f4 fdn lens

 

[Pumal]

If you want Macro put a 25 Extension Tube to the 200 mm f/2.8 and you'll be surprised.