roboticspro wrote:
I just picked up a 80-200mm f4 L and 500mm f4.5 L (both with fluorite & UD glass) from an estate sale in Reno, NV. Both are in pristine condition, looks like they have only been handled, not really used outside; not even a mark on the tripod foot of the 500mm. ...
Edd
Very nice, looking forward to seeing some from the 500.
nixland wrote:
On second thought I think I'll post it here
My overall opinion so far : FL has less glow at wide open, bokeh looks the same though in several shots looks a tiny bit smoother, a bit underexposed on my Canon 5DII, the color looks bit muddy while the FD looks bit better, in some shots looks a bit sharper.
hmm the FL actually looks a bit sharper, but that could be due to wind or many other variables. bokeh looks pretty bad for both of them. i'm not feeling like i should run out and buy an FD version.
So far all my FLs have been sharper then their FD equivalents. More of that bloom when wide open but also sharper - usually just enough to be noticeable. I can't say the same about nFD vs. FL tho.
Nice GGB shot btw... I've stood on that exact same spot! Neat!
The pictures where taken with the lens that is not in the picture (in case that is not obvious).
The focus (live view * 10) was on the Tabasco bottle. Used tripod with self-timer on a EOS Kiss X4 (550D). AWB with warm compact fluoro light. Although picasaweb adds some jpeg compression you can zoom in to full size get a pretty good idea of the (fairly slight IMHO) differences.
I have to say the FL actually handles a bit nicer is more compact and the Auto/Manual switch is particularly useful. The FD has half aperture stops (not shown in this comparison) and is bulkier.
From the limited use I have with these two I have the impression that the FD is better controlled for flare and has cripier colors in daylight, but the test doesn't show that and I might simply be biased because I know it is multicoated.
