joachim
Convicted Ektachome user
Hi,
I just got given a Canon AE-1 Program by a friend who doesn't use it any more. I am looking in to getting the FD 200/4 lens (new mount, with internal focusing) - for when my 90mm Sonnar on the Contax isn't long enough (so there is some RF contents here
) It is this lens: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/nfd/data/135-800/nfd_200_4.html
I know these lenses are not of the APO or ED variety and realistically I have to expect some chromatic aberrations. Can anyone comment (or even show examples) on how much to expect?
I have a Tamron 200/3.5 adaptal, which I use on Pentax and Minolta MD in the past, though I wasn't happy with the CA on this one. Was pretty obvious, even on a 4x6 print
Thanks
Joachim
I just got given a Canon AE-1 Program by a friend who doesn't use it any more. I am looking in to getting the FD 200/4 lens (new mount, with internal focusing) - for when my 90mm Sonnar on the Contax isn't long enough (so there is some RF contents here
) It is this lens: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/nfd/data/135-800/nfd_200_4.html I know these lenses are not of the APO or ED variety and realistically I have to expect some chromatic aberrations. Can anyone comment (or even show examples) on how much to expect?
I have a Tamron 200/3.5 adaptal, which I use on Pentax and Minolta MD in the past, though I wasn't happy with the CA on this one. Was pretty obvious, even on a 4x6 print
Thanks
Joachim
raid
Dad Photographer
I have the FD 200mm/2.8IF, and I like the results from it. I have not tried out a Canon 200mm/4 FD. I suggest that you try findng a 200mm/2.8 instead. FD lenses can be bought a low prices if you are patient about it.
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
I have the FD 200/4 Macro and it renders beautifully.
raid
Dad Photographer
The 200/4 macro is not identical to the standard 200mm/4.
joachim
Convicted Ektachome user
It is big and heavy.
It is big and heavy.
Hi Raid,
thanks for the reply. I had eye-balled this one as well, though came to the conclusion that the lighter and smalller f/4 version (also IF) would serve my needs better than the faster f/2.8 version, assuming it provides good quality starting from f/4 or f/4.5.
Anyone here has used or is till using the 200/4?
Ta
Joachim
It is big and heavy.
Hi Raid,
thanks for the reply. I had eye-balled this one as well, though came to the conclusion that the lighter and smalller f/4 version (also IF) would serve my needs better than the faster f/2.8 version, assuming it provides good quality starting from f/4 or f/4.5.
Anyone here has used or is till using the 200/4?
Ta
Joachim
Last edited: