The Canon FD 500 F/4.5L

[nzmacro]

Yes it's 40 years old, but it's beautiful to manual focus with the feel and Canon nailed it for balance. The Length vs the weight is just right for hand holding. Fluorite element so CA is at a minimum. I've never had to correct it for CA. Very sharp wide open and generally that's where it stays.

On the Olympus EM-10

Favourite lens to use.

And so on. Over the years it's been an excellent lens and highly recommended from here.

All the best folks, have a good one.

Danny.

 

[John Crowe]

I was about to buy the FD when a local EF became available for the same price!

I have been using manual focus supertelephotos for sports for over 25 years but I knew the AF version would provide more opportunities. I just started bird photography with the FD 800/5.6 L, and EF 500/4.5 L, and can't imagine succeeding with manual focus for birds in flight as you have. I still haven't mastered AF! Well done!

 

[nzmacro]

I was about to buy the FD when a local EF became available for the same price!

I have been using manual focus supertelephotos for sports for over 25 years but I knew the AF version would provide more opportunities. I just started bird photography with the FD 800/5.6 L, and EF 500/4.5 L, and can't imagine succeeding with manual focus for birds in flight as you have. I still haven't mastered AF! Well done!

Yes we chatted on DPR John. The FD 800 F/5.6L is excellent but does show CA without a fluorite element in it. Still one very sharp lens. Needs a sturdy tripod and a gimbal head helps out a lot. It does get you shots that not many lens can get. Keep it all at close range and that lens comes into its own for sure.

All the best john, have a good one and good to see you here.

Danny.

 

[John Crowe]

I used to use an autofocusing converter on Nikon manual focusing lenses. I know similar adapters exist for other manufacturers now. It would be so easy for Canon to do that with the RF series and FD lenses. It would help make up for what they did to us in the late 80's! I can dream.

Yes, I thought that was you. Good to keep in touch with FD users.

 

[John Crowe]

Awseome bird/bug photos with the Sony 200-600 in the other thread. For still subjects how does the FD 500/4.5 L compare to the Sony 200-600 at 500mm?

 

[nzmacro]

Yes Canon left us high and dry. For the tele lenses they did off an adaptor, but it had a couple of elements in it and increased CA because of that. Nikon just carried on and their lenses just mount right on as is. I was shooting the F1 and ended up with two T90's. Started with the FTb. So yeah, we got strung out to dry with Canon John

I would say the Canon is still one heck of a sharp lens and competes well with the Sony 200-600 John, or any lens for that matter.

With the FD 500 F/5.6L on the old Sony NEX-7

So that's from around 20 meters (60 odd feet) and cropped on an APS-C sensor. If it's as sharp as it is here with the full image, then nothing really matters John. Comparing you won't see much difference in any lens. The EF version is optically exactly the same as the FD. They didn't change anything. Either way you have a stunning lens.

All the best John.

Danny.

 

[John Crowe]

Twenty years ago I used the Canon FD 400/2.8 L and FD 200/2.8 IF with the FD EOS 1.26x on an Elan IIe and then the 10D. Sold my original 1986 T-90 to buy the 10D. Switched to Nikon and sold the 1.26x for twice what I bought it for! I bought another recently for quite cheap that I use with the FD 800 on my 5DSR, when I absolutely need infinity focus. It is quite good optically but the EF 1.4x III is definitely better. With my slim FD EOS adapter, with no glass, I get focus to about 200 metres or so. It works brilliantly well at my local motor racing track.

I am waiting for spring to properly put the EF 500/4.5 L and EF 1.4x III up against the FD 800/5.6 L. My observations so far indicate that the 500 might just beat it. Will be interesting to see.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Yes it's 40 years old, but it's beautiful to manual focus with the feel and Canon nailed it for balance. The Length vs the weight is just right for hand holding. Fluorite element so CA is at a minimum. I've never had to correct it for CA. Very sharp wide open and generally that's where it stays.

On the Olympus EM-10

Favourite lens to use.

And so on. Over the years it's been an excellent lens and highly recommended from here.

All the best folks, have a good one.

Danny.

Such wonderful lenses need an expert hand on the tiller Danny. You do well. I don't hve the patience or skills to do birding myself.

But as you would know I bought the Canon EF 400/2.8 years ago so that I could use it in theatre shoots. Much like birding it needs a gimball head heavy tripod. But unlike birds I get a time based appointment to use it and the birds generally gather in good lights to pose for me ....

I have had less work for it since I now use a 200.2.8 lens on a M4/3 body to get the same reach. Surprisingly the slower lens even when I add the 1.4x TC does not send the ISO into overdrive. The light must be very good or I am missing something in my technical education.

Of course taking the 400/2.8 and tripod out into a public place is something that usually starts a near riot of getting noticed by curious passers by.

Sometimes such a conversation starter is not a good idea. Furthermore despite only being '400' it seems that this is one of Canon's heavier lenses at 5.5kg.

 

[nzmacro]

Howdy Tom

I would love an FD 400 F/2.8, but can't justify the cost and also love the 500mm length as you know. 400 F/2.8 with a 1,4x TC would be interesting for sure and also hand holdable, but very front heavy. The 500 F/4.5L is a perfect balance with length vs weight. The 500mm is 2.6kg, so the 400 F/2.8 is darn heavy!

The Pannie 200 F/2.8 makes a lot of sense on m4/3 and that is one lens I would be interested in if going AF on m4/3. Darn lucky to own that Tom. Yes all these types of lenses need good light. On the A7RIV at least I can boost the ISO a fair bit compared to m4/3. Man I look at your theatre shots and are blown away with what you get with long teles inside! Way out of my league mate and not something I would be any good at IMO.

At 5.5kg, that's hitting on the 800 F/5.6L territory at 6.5kg. So it's one heavy lens that 400 F/2.8L. Very nice though.

All the best over the ditch and good to see ya

Danny.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Howdy Tom

I would love an FD 400 F/2.8, but can't justify the cost and also love the 500mm length as you know. 400 F/2.8 with a 1,4x TC would be interesting for sure and also hand holdable, but very front heavy. The 500 F/4.5L is a perfect balance with length vs weight. The 500mm is 2.6kg, so the 400 F/2.8 is darn heavy!

The Pannie 200 F/2.8 makes a lot of sense on m4/3 and that is one lens I would be interested in if going AF on m4/3. Darn lucky to own that Tom. Yes all these types of lenses need good light. On the A7RIV at least I can boost the ISO a fair bit compared to m4/3. Man I look at your theatre shots and are blown away with what you get with long teles inside! Way out of my league mate and not something I would be any good at IMO.

At 5.5kg, that's hitting on the 800 F/5.6L territory at 6.5kg. So it's one heavy lens that 400 F/2.8L. Very nice though.

All the best over the ditch and good to see ya

Danny.

I have used the 400/2.8 on a M4/3 body but it theatre even from the back of the hall you don't need pictures that only show actor's eyeballs. But I have also tried it with a focal reduction adapter to get an insanely fast 280/2.0 and it worked ok (now I get heads as well ....). But it is easier to just use the heavy but manageable PL 200/2.8 with a 1.4x TC made for M4/3.

Despite my endorsement of 'equivalence' (without which credo you would die from a thousand cuts on the 'old' M4/3 forum) I am still puzzled just why my exif on my M4/3 gear shows that Mr Iso has not run away with the parlour maid and still makes reasonably good images and the ISO is ok and the noise has not raised its grizzled head to grump either.

If I am on 200/4.0 effectively using the 4/3 sensor then my mind boggles that this is equivalent to to 400/8.0 on a FF sensor. Really?

The theory is correct but a great lens is always a great lens and a fast lens is always a fast lens and my proof is in what I can get by way of actual images and not necessarily of what I have to buy and use to satisfy the theory.

Basically you know what you can do with the kit you have selected and I know what I can do if the wind is blowing form the right direction and we do what we do and get what we get without need from advice from theoretical peanut galleries. I do lots of practice but your type of work is a few long days of hard work more than this old fella can fit in