I'm going to pick up one of the two, mostly for use on a FS mono sensor for IR and vis light mono, plus a Kolari UT modded sensor, both 42mp. While one's AF (the old, noisy ARC system, if I remember correctly) and other fully manual, they'll both be used as manual lenses, mostly for landscape. The optics are identical, and the copies of each very nicely preserved, so that can't be the deciding factor. Neither can price, since they're within a dollar of each other. The FD's a tiny bit heavier, but it's only 30g or so. Here's what I see as the major differences...
EF- has the electronic mount, so I'll get EXIF and won't have to adjust IBIS manually. I've gotten over my hatred of push-pull zooms, and this one has a focus ring I don't have to touch while zooming. It's thirty or so grams lighter (plastics!) and the 1.5m MFD across the range goes from decent to very useful. I hesitate a little because I've never had to work on an EF lens of this vintage, so I have no idea what I'd be in for if it needs help.
FD- Allows me to focus at the working aperture without checking and rechecking with the aperture preview. It has a really nice long focus turn, particularly in the macro mode. The MFD 100-199 is the unspectacular 2M, which could challenge my Minolta AF 100-200/4.5 (1.8M MFD) to the "restraining order" label, except the MFD goes down to 1M 200-300, and that's fairly awesome. It's thin and not terribly long at 100, so it'll be easy to pack. While I haven't been able to get my hands on it, I'm told the focus turn and zoom action are both nicely firm and secure in use without being too tight (no creep and no focus drift). And, while I'd have to adjust the IBIS manually when I'm hand-held, it's three-axis on a long tele, so I just have to get close. Nothing has to be exact. Mostly I need to remember not to try 300 when it's set for 100. If anything goes wrong that requires cracking it open, I know what I'm in for (and will dread it).
Canon Museum shows they were released two years apart and the optical formula is the same, including the fluorite element. I would unquestionably choose the nFD, especially if manual focus is the order of business.
Admittedly I'm not well versed about this lens. One thing that comes to mind is whether or not it's parfocal. If so, then there would be a benefit to separation of focus from zooming as with the EF version. If it's not, then you'll have to 'touch' the focusing anyway whenever you zoom it, which might benefit the FD version.
Yes, the EF lens is Canon's ancient AFD AF (Arc Form Drive). IIRC the focusing ring is disengaged unless the focus switch is set to manual. And based on other AFD lenses I have, when set to manual focus, there's a fair amount of play in the manual focus ring and it's overall not a great experience. In this regard it certainly won't be as nice as the FD version. But as you mentioned, you gain EXIF, auto aperture and automatic IBIS focal length recognition. IBIS should still have some benefit but as you likely know, its effectiveness is considerably diminished compared to shorter focal lengths and exact focal length setting may be less relevant. Auto aperture is also a nice convenience but another potential failure point. How much that should be a concern is difficult to say and may depend somewhat on whether you're looking at this as a longterm acquisition or just a relatively fleeting one. On the flip side, as you hinted at, while the FD version should be more repairable due to it being purely mechanical, serviceability of the nFD mount system includes its own set of headaches.
Watch for zoom creep on both lenses. Both have been noted that when holding the lens not level the zoom will creep on well used ones.
If you have any inkling to use a polarizer on the EF the polarizer will rotate with the lens.
As to IR use the FD 100-300L will start to show a hot spot at F11 with the B+W 092(F16 at 200-300mm) and 093 and at F8 with the Heliopan 1000 (F11 for 135-300mm).
I have many times looked at getting the EF 100-300L but finding one without zoom creep is easier said than done.
I lucked out on the FD 100-300L as I found an old unsold one sitting in storage although the case and box were not in the good condition the case was flaking on the outside the inside was good, and the lens was mint. I don't think it had ever been removed from the case other than to take a picture of it.
rscheffler wrote:
Admittedly I'm not well versed about this lens. One thing that comes to mind is whether or not it's parfocal. If so, then there would be a benefit to separation of focus from zooming as with the EF version. If it's not, then you'll have to 'touch' the focusing anyway whenever you zoom it, which might benefit the FD version.
Yes, the EF lens is Canon's ancient AFD AF (Arc Form Drive). IIRC the focusing ring is disengaged unless the focus switch is set to manual. And based on other AFD lenses I have, when set to manual focus, there's a fair amount of play in the manual focus ring and it's overall not a great experience. In this regard it certainly won't be as nice as the FD version. But as you mentioned, you gain EXIF, auto aperture and automatic IBIS focal length recognition. IBIS should still have some benefit but as you likely know, its effectiveness is considerably diminished compared to shorter focal lengths and exact focal length setting may be less relevant. Auto aperture is also a nice convenience but another potential failure point. How much that should be a concern is difficult to say and may depend somewhat on whether you're looking at this as a longterm acquisition or just a relatively fleeting one. On the flip side, as you hinted at, while the FD version should be more repairable due to it being purely mechanical, serviceability of the nFD mount system includes its own set of headaches.
Fortunately, Rolf ended the hand-wringing by ordering the FD this morning, so that's the one. I did consider doing both and returning the loser, but I'm probably better off checking out the FD first. I'll just cross my fingers that I never have to open it up.
burningheart wrote:
Watch for zoom creep on both lenses. Both have been noted that when holding the lens not level the zoom will creep on well used ones.
If you have any inkling to use a polarizer on the EF the polarizer will rotate with the lens.
As to IR use the FD 100-300L will start to show a hot spot at F11 with the B+W 092(F16 at 200-300mm) and 093 and at F8 with the Heliopan 1000 (F11 for 135-300mm).
I have many times looked at getting the EF 100-300L but finding one without zoom creep is easier said than done.
I lucked out on the FD 100-300L as I found an old unsold one sitting in storage although the case and box were not in the good condition the case was flaking on the outside the inside was good, and the lens was mint. I don't think it had ever been removed from the case other than to take a picture of it. ...Show more →
Such valuable information. Thank you so much so sharing. I'd been warned that f/8 would be my best friend for IR shooting. It's good to see some actual filter strength numbers behind it.
Do you like the Heliopan 1000? A buddy of mine has a Minolta 800/8 cat lens that's supposed to handle IR well, and I've thought about picking up one of the 39mm filters to try it for IR moon shots (on a tracker, since I think it would otherwise turn into a moon streak).
I love finding old lenses that look and feel like new. That happen with my Minolta MD 70-210/4. I picked it up for $22 off the Bay and it looked and operated like it just came out of the box.
I like the Heliopan 1000. I gets even darker blacks. Though it tends to have hot spots appear much sooner and need a longer shutter speed. The interesting thing often the image will be a navy blue, black and white image where as the B+W 092 and 093 are usually red/purple, black and white.
The heliopan 1000 is much harder to locate now that Heliopan is no more. Granted I bought all the 1000s I needed a long time ago.
I normally do a white balance off a grey card with the IR filter on and the set that to be my custom white balance when using a particular filter. Mind you I don't do it every time I change the filter. Normally I shoot each filter I plan on shooting off the grey card, then when I shoot I just make sure that particular image with that filter is used as the custom white balance. I used to do it everytime I changed the filter but I found in time unless the light changed drastically I could just use the grey shot I did earlier as the custom white balance.
I use F8 a lot especially with scenic and urban IR.
You can still pick up the Helio at B&H (62mm) and Amazon (39mm), so it does look like new stock in some sizes are still available. Or some other company is producing a "like" product after buying/leasing the brand.
The nice thing about working with the mono conversion is not worrying about WB. It's a daylight balanced sensor at that point, and I only shoot IR in daylight. I shoot vis specturm mono with the cameras otherwise, so I keep a set of color correction filters with me. I've standardized on 55mm for the color filters, so I'm hoping this, like the EF 100/2, has a larger than necessary filter size and will play well with a stop down ring.
Wow, Heliopan was a genuine mom-and-pop operation. From Google:
Core News & Company Status
Liquidation and Closure: The company entered liquidation in late 2023. The long-time owner reached retirement age and chose to wind down operations after being unable to secure a direct manufacturing successor.
Stock Sell-Off: A precision technician based in Munich bought out the company's remaining assets. As a result, the primary operations currently consist of selling off remaining old stock via authorized distributors.
Web site is blank.
That leaves B+W for brass rings. Tiffin has everything in alu except the Digital HT line (titanium finish).
