Size: FD 200mm vs Minolta 250mm - Click for larger.
The advantage of the Canon FD 200mm f4 over the Minolta RF 250mm, of course, is it's more than 10x cheaper, and sharper at the same aperture of f5.6, and it has aperture control and a faster maximum aperture of 4. On the other hand, the Minolta RF 250mm f5.6 is about 3 times lighter, almost half the size, and is 50mm longer. This version of the FD 200mm f4 lens does not have the Spectra Coating (S.C), or the Super Spectra Coating (S.S.C) of the later FD lenses. It suffers from very heavy purple fringing, a problem that the RF 250mm f5.6 does not have. As old lenses go, the FD 200mm f4 is quite sharp, although I am not to crazy about its bokeh.
There is no question which lens I would like to shoot with. I prefer the Minolta for its lightweight and small size. This is the only reason people pay crazy money for it (OK, the image quality is decent too). If I wanted to carry this much weight, there are better alternatives out there than the FD 200mm f4.
Majestic looking duck - E-M5 & Canon FD 200mm f4 @ f5.6. Click for larger.
The Dock - E-M5 & Canon FD 200mm f4 @ f5.6. Click for larger.
City of Toronto - E-M5 & Canon FD 200mm f4 @ f5.6. Click for larger.
citi - E-M5 & Canon FD 200mm f4 @ f5.6. Click for larger.
Fellow Photographer - E-M5 & Canon FD 200mm f4 @ f5.6. Click for larger.