bedwardk wrote:
The EF and FD versions are optically the same from everything I've read.
This is what photozone said about it:
"Naturally it is interesting to compare this lens to the brand new EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS and ... the king is dead ... long lives the new king. The EF 70-300mm IS can match the sharpness of the L zoom at all focal length. However, the L zoom can still produce more snappy (more contrasty) results at 300mm."
The Tamron does look nice for its very low price but the images I've seen don't seem any sharper than the ones I'm getting with my Canon. The Canon is about 160g lighter as well. And virtually no aberrations or color fringing. I might pick up the Tamron at some point and compare them since it is so affordable but I think the Canon FDL is worth the extra money for a lighter lens and a better corrected image. ...Show more →
As far as the L being better corrected than the Tamron, at the time I wasn't seeing a difference between the 60-300 at 300, 300/2.8 60B, and the 180+1.4.
And I tried the af version of the 100-300L, which had inferior construction and mf to the 75-300 af tamron I had, and cost about 2x as much, used. Greatly disliked that lens.
AmbientMike wrote:
The 100-300L I tried was noticably less sharp at 300, compared to the 60-300. The Tamron was good at 300, and, as I mentioned, was a touch sharper than the 70-300 IS I tried, as well.
I took the photozone comments to mean that my opinion was more likely correct, and not the result of a poor sample, since I had the 70-300 as sharper than 100-300, as well.
I suspect the L would be fine at 200mm or less, like my 75-300 AF Tamron, which was actually sharper than my 180 Tamron at f/5.6 in the center. But the L fell off at 300mm, just like that lens.
AmbientMike wrote:
As far as the L being better corrected than the Tamron, at the time I wasn't seeing a difference between the 60-300 at 300, 300/2.8 60B, and the 180+1.4.
And I tried the af version of the 100-300L, which had inferior construction and mf to the 75-300 af tamron I had, and cost about 2x as much, used. Greatly disliked that lens.
The 100-300L is nearly an APO lens. I've seen no purple fringing and have seen only very very minor CA. Every review I've read of the Tamron 60-300 says it has bad purple fringing and CA.
The EF version has very bad functionality which is why most consider it such a poor lens, but if you're using MF lenses, the FD version isn't any worse to use than other MF lenses of the day.
AmbientMike wrote:
As far as the L being better corrected than the Tamron, at the time I wasn't seeing a difference between the 60-300 at 300, 300/2.8 60B, and the 180+1.4.
And I tried the af version of the 100-300L, which had inferior construction and mf to the 75-300 af tamron I had, and cost about 2x as much, used. Greatly disliked that lens.
I found a 60-300 in excellent condition for $38 on ebay and ordered it just now. I'll do some tests and report back. Perhaps the reviews I read were wrong.
bedwardk wrote:
I found a 60-300 in excellent condition for $38 on ebay and ordered it just now. I'll do some tests and report back. Perhaps the reviews I read were wrong.
bedwardk wrote:
I found a 60-300 in excellent condition for $38 on ebay and ordered it just now. I'll do some tests and report back. Perhaps the reviews I read were wrong.
I had the 75-300 Tamron, I think it was the 572D (which KEH says won't work with digital.) It was really good to 200mm, but fell off somewhere past 200mm. Like most/all 75-300 zooms. Usable, I guess, but less sharp than I wanted.
So I thought I'd pick up a 100-300L, it was about $350 used, IIRC, but if it was sharp at 300mm, that would be a good, inexpensive wildlife lens.
So I got one, and it was about the same as the Tamron 572D in the center at 300mm, and construction and mf was bad. Very disappointed. Later I tried a refurb 70-300 IS, which I think would have been better than the 572D in the center, but wasn't happy with it and returned it.
The 60-300 was a touch sharper than the 70-300 IS, which photozone said was sharper than the L, which is what I had found.
I'm not that sensitive to color fringing and CA, and could have missed it. But I wasn't seeing the difference between the 300/2.8 60B, 180+1.4, and the 60-300 at 300mm, in the center, at 100%.
However, the FD should have solid construction and good mf, so I could probably use it. I liked the 572D, and actually got a cover with it past 200mm, for a local organization, so I think the FD L could deliver good photos, since I considered the 572D and 100-300L similar optically. Interested in seeing your tests.
AmbientMike wrote:
I had the 75-300 Tamron, I think it was the 572D (which KEH says won't work with digital.) It was really good to 200mm, but fell off somewhere past 200mm. Like most/all 75-300 zooms. Usable, I guess, but less sharp than I wanted.
So I thought I'd pick up a 100-300L, it was about $350 used, IIRC, but if it was sharp at 300mm, that would be a good, inexpensive wildlife lens.
So I got one, and it was about the same as the Tamron 572D in the center at 300mm, and construction and mf was bad. Very disappointed. Later I tried a refurb 70-300 IS, which I think would have been better than the 572D in the center, but wasn't happy with it and returned it.
The 60-300 was a touch sharper than the 70-300 IS, which photozone said was sharper than the L, which is what I had found.
I'm not that sensitive to color fringing and CA, and could have missed it. But I wasn't seeing the difference between the 300/2.8 60B, 180+1.4, and the 60-300 at 300mm, in the center, at 100%.
However, the FD should have solid construction and good mf, so I could probably use it. I liked the 572D, and actually got a cover with it past 200mm, for a local organization, so I think the FD L could deliver good photos, since I considered the 572D and 100-300L similar optically. Interested in seeing your tests....Show more →
The FDL is much cheaper, I paid $150 in near mint condition for my copy. I've found it to be plenty sharp at 300mm. It's certainly not the sharpest lens I own at that focal length but nor is it the softest. Small herd of mule deer by brianekern, on Flickr] I took this shot at 300mm F8. Not going to win awards with it but I found it good enough to print and hang on my wall.
The Tamron should be here next week. I might also order the Tamron 2x TC and see about doing birding with it on a tripod sometime if results are as good as you say. If not I should be able to get most of my money back out of it.
bedwardk wrote:
The FDL is much cheaper, I paid $150 in near mint condition for my copy. I've found it to be plenty sharp at 300mm. It's certainly not the sharpest lens I own at that focal length but nor is it the softest. https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3935/33139235300_c9d7883a09_c.jpgSmall herd of mule deer by brianekern, on Flickr] I took this shot at 300mm F8. Not going to win awards with it but I found it good enough to print and hang on my wall.
The Tamron should be here next week. I might also order the Tamron 2x TC and see about doing birding with it on a tripod sometime if results are as good as you say. If not I should be able to get most of my money back out of it. ...Show more →
You seem to be getting nice results out of it. One thing I'll say, whether my lens is better or yours, I'd keep using it if its working for you. Which body are you using it on?
The Tamron 2x might be ok, but I doubt it. For one thing, even wide open, you're at f/11. The rule of thumb was to stop down 1 stop with a 1.4 tc, 2 stops with a 2x. So then you'd be at f/22. You might get by with the lens at f/8, but then you're at f/16 effective. Might work.
Even on the 60B, the 2x isn't that good, though I've taken at least one excellent photo with that combo. I'd rather use a 2x on a faster lens, so I can stop down 2 stops.
Used the 2x Vivitar macro with a Tamron 90mm a lot, and it was good. But I'm usually at f/11 effective. I've used it wide open, I guess it's ok, but I try to stop it down.
Lenses are usually better stopped down, so I tend to use the Tamron at f/8, as well. Curious how your test is going to go.
bur oak wrote:
If anyone has a FD 80-200mm f4 L they'd like to sell, please pm me. Having trouble tracking one down in North America.
I'm holding on to mine--it just produces great results for me. Stunningly sharp from f4, great rendering at midrange, and made great landscapes for me on my recent Christmas visit home to MT. I think it's a great lens, especially for the price.
I've had the Contax 80-200 for about six years and I've definitely gotten a lot of use out of it for the price. It has developed some haze issues when shot wide open over the last year or two so I use it mainly as a character lens or on film bodies at this point. Still one of the better $250 I've spent on photo gear over the years.
The Canon lens is far superior to the Contax lens, I've used both. Actually, the Canon lens was one of the sharpest and most contrasty lens I ever shot on 35mm film. It has a fluorite element as well as ED, iirc, and was outstanding. I would consider getting one again, but I am using the 70-300L EF lens and it, too, is outstanding. Would be interesting to do a comparison.
Another gem from the old days is the nFD 20-35mm L lens. I have found that it works great on the a7r and a7rii.
I'm holding on to mine--it just produces great results for me. Stunningly sharp from f4, great rendering at midrange, and made great landscapes for me on my recent Christmas visit home to MT. I think it's a great lens, especially for the price.
Hope you manage to grab one!
Cheers,
Daniel
Thanks for the confirmation. There is a mint copy on fleabay in Japan, but $400 seems quite steep. In my experience, mint vintage lenses tend to be bad copies that didn’t get used. I’d rather have a well used optically excellent copy. Meanwhile I picked up a Nikkor 180 ais ED for $200. I’d rather have a zoom. Maybe a waiting game. Unless someone wants to sell a copy...
PEKA62 wrote:
I had them both and sold them both. They both are good, while the Canon is a bit heavier and more bulky than the Contax. Image quality is quite similar, the Contax is easier to find and cheaper. I sold them, because I found a mint Contax 100-300 which is way better than these two and even smaller and more compact.
Try to find one of the 100-300 Contax.
Yes indeed, you have a nice copy of the 100-300, your recent images are tack sharp in the 100-300 thread
