thoughts on Canon's FD manual focus lens

[David J]

I have an old manual focus Canon AE-1 Program which has been shelved in favor of a Nikon F100 and its auto focus lenses. However, I'm looking for a decent telephoto lens (300mm to 400mm) that I can afford and that sort of leaves out the Nikon. I notice KEH.com has Canon FD lenses for pretty good prices. A 300mm for around $400 and a 400mm for about $500. Is anybody out there really familiar with these lenses? Do you have any comments or recommendations? I'll be using the lenses for sports; kids soccer and some nature photography.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I have the 300/4 L and the 400/4.5 SSC, and I've been pleased with both of them. The later 400/4.5 should also be a fine lens and can work directly with the 1.4x extender. On the earlier SSC version there is a mask that interferes with the protruding elements of the 1.4x, but I just filed it out with a Dremel, and it works fine.

Here's a 300 shot--

and here's a 400--

If you want a 300/2.8 manual focus lens that should work with your Nikon or Canon, the Tamron is a really good bargain these days.

 

[tony lockerbie]

Hi David,
I have the 300mm F4L which is a really top notch lens and I find it better than my 300mm F4.5 ED Nikkor.
Unless you particularly want the shallow DOF the 300mm 2.8 is too big and way too expensive although as David indicates the Tamron should be ok, never used one though.
The 400mm might be better for your sports photography but I've not seen any for sale. There might be many more in the states and the L series are usually better corrected although Davids 400ssc looks pretty darn good!

 

[David J]

Thank you David and Tony for your thoughts. Just one final question. Do you find that these manual telephotos are harder to use due to the slow manual focusing than the auto focus lenses? In other words, is it worth the extra money for the autofocus, or is most of that fast action usually shot at "infinity" and therefore accurate focusing is not such a big deal?

 

[naturephoto1]

David,

If you decide that you need autofocus and autofocusing lenses you will have to change from the AE1 Program camera to an EOS or equivalent system.

I used the Canon FD system and lenses up until 1984 when I switched to the Leica R system. If you are going to use the lenses for sporting events and for wildlife a lot of the focusing will be less than at infinity with these lenses. As an example for wildlife photos it is generally recommended to be within about 20 to 50 feet (frequently closer). For my work, I have gotten around the need for autofocus. Autofocus has its uses and your shooting style and the "capture" of the image will depend in part upon auto or manual focus.

For many sporting events, prior to the advent of autofocus, many sports photographers had preset distances for certain locations on a sporting field, such as for baseball, they would have distances for 1st, 2nd, or 3rd base in baseball.

Autofocus, though there have been vast improvements do not solve everything. Some people swear by while others swear at it. Whichever system that decide upon, it will require practice to become proficient in the usage of the equipment.

You may wish to rent both kinds of systems to better determine for yourself whether you believe that you need autofocus or whether you would be happy with the manual focusing systems.

One thing to be aware however, it is much more difficult to manually focus an autofocus lens than it is to manually focus a manual focusing lens. Additionally, manual focusing is generally considered more accurate than autofocus when sufficient time is available.

Rich

 

[cdholden]

David,
You'll find your focusing speed will increase with practice. Mine got better with bird watching. As they move from tree to tree, try to keep them in focus... or practice on your kids at the soccer field, baseball diamond, etc. With aperture or shutter priority, you really only have two things to concentrate on: keeping the subject in focus and when to open the shutter. My FTb is a bit more work, but I like the fact it doesn't require batteries unless I want to use the meter. Your AE-1 or my T-90 would probably be better for multiple action shots.
FWIW, I've got the pre-L 300/2.8 Fluorite. It's much lighter than the L version and is black instead of white. For use over long periods of time, holding less weight to my eye has been a great help in keeping my arms from getting fatigued as easily as others.
Chris

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

Like Tony, I switched from the FD 300 f:4 to the Nikkor 300 f:4,5 and like him I have to admit that the Canon was better indeed.

 

[David J]

Thanks for the advise and insight. I think I'll rent a Nikkor 300mm f4 for my F100 and then see if I can rent a Canon 300mm FD for my AE-1 Program and I'll see which I like better. Although I have to say I also shoot a Hasselblad 503cw which is manual focus and I can tell you I've missed a lot of good photos 'cause the focus was not quite there. I hope the Canon FD lenses are easier/quicker to focus than the Hasselblad's Zeiss lenses. It's probably just me, but I find myself really hunting around for "in focus" with the Hasselblad. That's not a problem for landscapes, but my little daughter never sits still enough for daddy to get it just right.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

In general, modern 35mm lenses are usually easier to focus than comparable MF lenses, just because they are smaller and lighter, faster, and DOF is inherently greater.

 

[David J]

Well, I'm glad to hear that. I really noticed the limited DOF on my medium format camera, especially with the longer 180mm lens. It means I have to be dead-on focused otherwise I'm out of luck.