Another Canon FD 200mm f4 Photo Set

I am enjoying the Olympus E-M5, especially when it's used with longer lenses. The in-body stabilization system is extremely effective, even with a 200mm lens (400mm equivalent). I have used the FD 200mm f4 lens a few times now and it's actually not too bad, even for this non-multi-coated version. Certainly not a small or lightweight lens, but manageable.

By the way, I have noticed that Blogspot is starting to re-compress and make changes to the pictures I upload to the blog. If the picture is dark, it tries to lighten it up and making a mess of it.  The second picture you see below is much lighter than what my original picture is.  The Pigeon picture was so badly compressed that it showed artifacts.  I had to upload that one as a png format. I guess I have to start linking my pictures from Flickr again.

Taxi - Canon FD 200mm f4 & Olympus E-M5. Click for larger.

NOT a wrecking ball - Canon FD 200mm f4 & Olympus E-M5.

Pigeons - Canon FD 200mm f4 & Olympus E-M5.

Alien Spaceship landing - Canon FD 200mm f4 & Olympus E-M5. 

The Pitfall of Ultra Precise Lens Adapter

Back in the days when lens adapters were uncommon, they were well made and precise, but expensive. Today, most cheap adapters you can buy from eBay are mass produced in China; quality is acceptable, but precision is usually not a huge consideration.  In fact, nearly all of these adapters for mirrorless cameras allow the lens to focus past infinity, and this is intentional.  In the beginning, many users found that the adapters they bought could not focus their lenses to infinity, and they returned the adapters. Manufacturers then started to make the adapters slightly thinner than the official mount measurement; this would allow the majority of lenses to achieve infinity focus, but usually slightly pass it.

To me, this is acceptable.  After decades of use, most old lenses would deviate from the original specs and they may focus closer or further than they were designed to do. If you make an adapter that’s perfect, some lenses will be blurry when the lens is focused to infinity. All Canon auto focus lenses that use UltraSonic Motor (USM), allow the lens to focus pass infinity to compensate for parameters that could affect infinity focus, such as temperature variations and manufacturing tolerance.  But, manual focus lenses do not have this luxury.

I have two relatively expensive adapters; one Canon FD to M4/3 adapter made in Poland, bought right after the G1 came out, and the other, Leica-R to Canon EOS adapter, made by Elefoto of Japan.  For whatever reason, none of my Leica-R lenses would focus to infinity with the Elefoto adapter.  I tried the 28mm f2.8 Elmarit, 35mm, 50mm, and 90mm f2 Summicrons, and two 90mm f2.8 Elmarits.  I don’t know what lenses they used as a reference when the adapter was designed, or perhaps there is a defect in manufacturing.  The Polish adapter, on the other hand, worked perfectly with most of my FD lenses on the Panasonic G1, and when lens is set to infinity, everything is sharp and clear.  I started using this adapter on the E-M5 lately and so far, found that two of the lenses are just shy of infinity focus: FD 50mm f1.2 S.S.C, and FD 35mm f2 S.S.C.  If the aperture is set to f8 or smaller, sharpness becomes acceptable, but still not quite there.  A mere millimeter could mean in focus, or not.

For this reason, I usually just buy the cheap adapters, knowing that they would at least give me infinity focus.  The only thing that worries me is the flatness of the adapter, which could cause de-centring issues resulting in one side of the picture to be sharper than the other, if tolerance not kept in check.

Smoke Break - Canon FD 200mm f4 & Olympus E-M5.

Canon FD 200mm f4 - Photo Set

obakesan wondered how the rather expensive Minolta Rokkor-X RF 250mm f5.6 mirror lens compares to the very cheap Canon FD 200mm f4 lens. I always knew a mirror lens is a compromise in design; you can have very long reach in a small package and relatively lightweight, but with a fixed, slow aperture. Since I own both lenses, I thought I would give my thoughts on these two lenses.  This post is not a direct comparison; it's my impression from use.

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.

Smashed Pumpkin

Smashed Pumpkin - G1 & Canon FD 200mm f4. Click to enlarge.

I was eagerly waiting for the Canon FD 50mm f1.2 to arrive, and I was very happy and excited when it did.  Alas, excitement and happiness was short lived.  The lens is in beautiful condition, and I would rate it mint cosmetically, but it won't stop down.  ^@&%!  But I have decided to keep it, because I bought it at a very good price, although the seller rated it e++.  Perhaps the e stood for error?  Anyways, I am hoping to have it fixed.  I took a few test shots wide open with the G1 and the lens shows promise.  Very sharp in the center, with only a hint of blooming in strong lights, but in low light, it should be beautiful.  Compared to my FL 55mm f1.2, it's a marked improvement.

In the meantime, I took out the Breech Lock FD 200mm f4 for the first time on a digital camera.  The lens is sharp enough, but  I think the sharpness of the pictures have been compromised by the very strong winds this afternoon when I took them.  Strong wind plus 400mm equivalent focal length is not a good combination.  I am quite happy.  A very usable lens wide open.

Taxis -- G1 & FD 200mm f4. Click to enlarge.