Sharper replacement to Canon FD 70-210mm F4?

[kye]

As many of you know, my setup for shooting sports is the GH5, Canon FD 70-210mm F4 zoom, and Canon FD 2X TC.  I shoot in 1080p 120fps mode. and rely heavily on the IBIS and monopod and good shooting techniques.

Normally, the 2X TC combined with 2X MFT crop makes this lens 840mm on the long end, but recently i've been experimenting with the ETC mode, which (I believe) turns this setup into a 2268mm equivalent FOV, and surprisingly i'm actually finding this focal length really useful.  Despite this being well beyond the capabilities of the IBIS, the 120p saves the day and these shots are quite usable, providing mid-shots when the action is a long way away from my position on the side-lines.  

Needless to say, the lens is not at peak optical performance when used like this, so something sharper would be really good.
Also, I am finding that the 180-degree manual focus is stupidly sensitive when focusing at these distances and the difference between in focus and not being able to even tell who a person is might only require the outer diameter of the focus ring to be moved perhaps 1mm, and that's at F8 or F11 so it's not a DOF issue.
Also also, I've noticed that it gets significantly softer at the 200mm range of it's zoom, which is the part I use the most.

So - what alternative zooms are there that would be sharper and perhaps easier to manually focus?

Obviously, cheaper is better, and smaller is also better, so no recommendations for the Canon 800mm f5.6 please.  
I shoot in daylight and am happy with the performance of the ETC mode, so I don't think I need more than a native 200mm focal length, unless it will somehow give better results to get the 2.5X extra reach some other way.

A quick scout reveals these options, but who knows how sharp they actually are?:

• Tokina 150-500mm f5.6
• Canon FD 100-300 f5.6
• Tokina AT-X 100-300 F4
• Canon FD 100-300 f5.6 L Macro

If the lens fits the FD mount then I can use my FD TC and so 200mm is enough, but if the lens goes to 400mm then I don't care what mount it is as I can just buy a dumb adapter for it.

It will be obvious to those who shoot sports, but I definitely need a zoom lens, despite primes probably being significantly sharper.

Thanks in advance...

[Trek of Joy]

The Contax Zeiss 100-300mm is known to be very sharp. Its a one touch zoom though, something I can never get used to when shooting video. Landscape shooters use it as a cheap long lens that's also reasonably sized for its reach. Here's a thread about it with comparisons to Sony's 100-400 GM, its better than the Sony until 300 where it really only slightly dips on the edges and corners. With moving subjects this won't be noticeable at all.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1501962

Chris

[anonim]

Zeiss Contax 100-300 + Contax Teleconverter 2x which is easy to find..

(As a second option maybe Tamron adaptal 200-500)

[fuzzynormal]

6 hours ago, kye said:

rely heavily on the IBIS

Does that work fast enough if you have an old manual lens on there and the camera body doesn't know what FOV you're using?  Do you take a moment to program the focal length into the camera in between different FOV shots?  Or, do you just rely on two or three focal lengths and quickly hit different custom set-ups with pre-programmed lens mm setting as you go?

[noone]

In FD mount the L versions are usually sharper (I had the 80-200 f4 L and it was the best of those sort of lenses I have had).

Another I have had and loved would be the Tamron SP adaptall 70-210 constant 3.5  model 19ah (you can use any adaptall you want including FD),     Be warned though, it is quite big and heavy.

Then there is the Canon EF 100-300 5.6 This is one of the oldest EF lenses and some are older than some FD lenses but it is a nice enough lens with the added bonus it can auto focus on your GH5 with an adapter (for stills anyway) though it can be slow depending on which adapter and your camera  (my experience was with a GX7 and Kipon adapter and the Kipon as sold was horrible but after it got a firmware update was much much better).

One I have not tried but wanted to is the Tamron SP adaptall 80-200 2.8 though that might be more expensive than you want to pay as well as being rare

As with ANY of these old lenses, how each copy has been used and abused CAN have a MUCH greater affect on results than how it was new.

I kinda disagree about sports and zooms VS primes.     A faster lens is much more important to me than being able to zoom unless you only shoot in bright light (then again, I can zoom my primes with my camera).

Why dumb adapters?    SOME AF adapters are quite cheap now (I just got a cheap adapter for 43s lenses on M43 cameras ...I just need a M43 camera again now).

 

 

[noone]

Just looking on Ebay Australia right now (I did not look at any of them, just the listings).

FD 800mm 5.6 $1100 or offer (That is a lot but it is a LOT less than these things used to go for)

FD 200mm f4 macro $699 plus postage

FD 300 2.8 L This one is an auction currently at $500 plus postage with 2 days left (if you got it for just a bit more that would be my pick if it is in good condition).

Tamron SP 200-500 5.6 adaptall with FD and Minolta adaptalls $450 or offer free postage

FD 200 2.8 $400.05 free postage That might be a good choice 

FD 200 2.8 in good condition...Auction starting at $375 plus postage

FD 80-200 f4 L $380.05 free postage

FD 200 2.8 $350 or offer plus postage

Then from $250 down to $200 is a FD 70-210 (at $250) and some 100-300 5.6 lenses (at around $200)

Then another FD 100-300 5.6  at $155 plus postage (that might be a good buy as it seems to have a box and case so might have been looked after)   A couple more 100-300 5.6 lenses cheaper still 

One oddball Sigma 50-200 3.5-4.5 though I would pass and below that slower lenses and one Tokina 60-300 though that is 6.3 at 300.

That is not a huge selection at least from Australia only (would be a lot more from japan).

I would spend just a bit more for a lens that is better (individual condition considering).

I love spending your money!

[Trek of Joy]

20 minutes ago, noone said:

I love spending your money!

LOL! That made me laugh.

Chris

[noone]

Searching "adaptall lens" (previous i used "FD lens") Brings up a couple more 

A couple of 70/80-250 both 4.5 at the long end lenses including one very cheap.

I have an 80-250 3.8-4.5 adaptall lens in really good condition and it is ok but nothing outstanding (beautifully built and cased) and also I still have a adaptall 70-350 constant 4.5 these are rare and they cost a mint when new but since it does not have any special elements (EG no ED glass) it is not that great compared to modern lenses (again really good condition really well made and kept in its own lockable trunk).     I could not recomend either unless you could find them really cheap (I have had both for years bit they were not expensive for me.

I rarely use them as my old abused Tamron 300 2.8 is light years better.

 

If you look internationally, there seems to be some reasonable bargains for adaptall lenses in the US and other places.

[kye]

11 hours ago, Trek of Joy said:

The Contax Zeiss 100-300mm is known to be very sharp. Its a one touch zoom though, something I can never get used to when shooting video.

Thanks Chris - the CZ looks great but it's a little pricey if I can find a cheaper alternative that has sufficient performance.  I'm kind of in that grey-area where I want the best images I can get but considering they're only for the family it's tough to work out where the budget limits sit!

I don't mind the one-touch-zoom (or "pump action zoom" as I like to call them) as I typically don't change focal length during a shot.  The 70-210 is a bit of a PITA in that it's not parfocal so when you do zoom you have to remember which way the focus went so you can quickly re-acquire it.  On the occasions I do change zoom and focus simultaneously they sure come in handy though.

Conversely, the focus controls are paramount as I am almost always adjusting focus during shots.  The best shots are where the subject is broadly facing the camera (within perhaps a 90-degree range, so 45 to one side or 45 to the other) and you also want some action, so that means they will be moving, and hopefully moving quickly.  All that adds up to them moving towards you, requiring the operator to engage MF-C 🙂 

11 hours ago, anonim said:

(As a second option maybe Tamron adaptal 200-500)

Wow that lens is long....  Whatever attention I am not attracting now, I sure as hell would with that thing!

6 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Does that work fast enough if you have an old manual lens on there and the camera body doesn't know what FOV you're using?  Do you take a moment to program the focal length into the camera in between different FOV shots?  Or, do you just rely on two or three focal lengths and quickly hit different custom set-ups with pre-programmed lens mm setting as you go?

I have been experimenting with setting it to 420mm or slightly shorter as a compromise and just letting it run.  I don't zoom out that much, but even if I do, I'm filming at 120p, and a 3s shot in the edit (or even a 4 or 5s shot) is less than 1s in real-time, so any movement over that period will just look like normal camera movement rather than the IBIS wobbling about, considering it doesn't wobble that fast when it does.

I typically shoot for gesture rather than to follow the game or even the individual play, so I'm not against slowing the footage down by 2x in post either, so that would make it a 10x slow motion, where camera movement looks like a graceful ballet even though it's jerky as hell when watched real-time.

3 hours ago, noone said:

In FD mount the L versions are usually sharper (I had the 80-200 f4 L and it was the best of those sort of lenses I have had).

Another I have had and loved would be the Tamron SP adaptall 70-210 constant 3.5  model 19ah (you can use any adaptall you want including FD),     Be warned though, it is quite big and heavy.

Then there is the Canon EF 100-300 5.6 This is one of the oldest EF lenses and some are older than some FD lenses but it is a nice enough lens with the added bonus it can auto focus on your GH5 with an adapter (for stills anyway) though it can be slow depending on which adapter and your camera  (my experience was with a GX7 and Kipon adapter and the Kipon as sold was horrible but after it got a firmware update was much much better).

One I have not tried but wanted to is the Tamron SP adaptall 80-200 2.8 though that might be more expensive than you want to pay as well as being rare

As with ANY of these old lenses, how each copy has been used and abused CAN have a MUCH greater affect on results than how it was new.

I kinda disagree about sports and zooms VS primes.     A faster lens is much more important to me than being able to zoom unless you only shoot in bright light (then again, I can zoom my primes with my camera).

Why dumb adapters?    SOME AF adapters are quite cheap now (I just got a cheap adapter for 43s lenses on M43 cameras ...I just need a M43 camera again now).

I only shoot in daylight, and do need to zoom out on the odd occasion, so am willing to sacrifice a little bit of performance for that ability.  Plus manually focusing at F4 is just making my life difficult for no reason, as at F8 or even F11 there is a very similar amount of background separation.  If I'm on the long end, which I typically am most of the time, then the subjects are far far away, so I'm not getting much separation anyway, but that's fine for what I do.

I do get that individual copies will be quite varied by this point.  I've previously bought straight from Japan on ebay and gotten lenses in excellent condition or where there were flaws they were always stated explicitly in the lens listing.  I also figure with an L lens it might have been looked after even better than a non-L, so I think I'm leaning towards the 100-300 L or the 80-200 L.  I hadn't seen the 80-200 L as it's not listed in http://allphotolenses.com database but other mentions of it online are also highly favourable.  I'll have to do more reading on it.

In terms of dumb adapters, there's no way that I'm trusting my GH5 auto-focus on rapidly moving subjects with an old EF lens through an adapter lol.  Seriously though, often the action has a bunch of kids all going for the ball and I want to keep focus on my son, which no AF is going to be able to do, especially when people are going everywhere and blocking line of sight much of the time.
It's quite common for me to lose track of where my son is and to have to make blind decisions about where I keep the framing and for the play to stop and for everyone to gradually disperse and for my son to be last to stand up and to have been at the bottom of the pile-on that whole time.

AF can be as dual-pixel as it likes, but unless it knows the rules of the sport and the psychology of my son, I'm better off doing it myself.

3 hours ago, noone said:

I love spending your money!

Hahaha..  It's only fair - I've spent enough of other people's money over the years!

[homestar_kevin]

Kye--I'd look at the Nikon 80-200mm 2.8's

They're more expensive than some on your list, but can be had for cheaper than the contax or canon FD 100-300mms.

The nikon has a push pull version that can be found really cheap.

There's also a 2 ring version of the lens for not a lot more.

It might be worth taking the step up to a lens like that. Nikon has a bunch of older cheaper teleconverters that would play pretty nice with it too

[ade towell]

I would 2nd the above, those Nikon zooms are great although very heavy. If you can stretch to the newer 2 touch version then you'll have one of the finest long zooms there is

[Trek of Joy]

14 hours ago, kye said:

Thanks Chris - the CZ looks great but it's a little pricey if I can find a cheaper alternative that has sufficient performance.  I'm kind of in that grey-area where I want the best images I can get but considering they're only for the family it's tough to work out where the budget limits sit!

I don't mind the one-touch-zoom (or "pump action zoom" as I like to call them) as I typically don't change focal length during a shot.  The 70-210 is a bit of a PITA in that it's not parfocal so when you do zoom you have to remember which way the focus went so you can quickly re-acquire it.  On the occasions I do change zoom and focus simultaneously they sure come in handy though.

Conversely, the focus controls are paramount as I am almost always adjusting focus during shots.  The best shots are where the subject is broadly facing the camera (within perhaps a 90-degree range, so 45 to one side or 45 to the other) and you also want some action, so that means they will be moving, and hopefully moving quickly.  All that adds up to them moving towards you, requiring the operator to engage MF-C 🙂 

What's your budget? What about some of the variable aperture M43 long zooms? Surely they're on par with your FD lens sharpness wise. Old long zooms are a tough proposition for modern levels of sharpness haha. Parfocal is a long shot.

Another thought, what about adapting old ENG lenses? They're fast aperture, parfocal, long focus throws, many have a built in doubler and so on. B4's are cheap.

Chris

[BTM_Pix]

Out of interest, have you tried taking the TC off that lens and checking the sharpness?

There aren't many vintage (or even modern) 2x TCs that aren't going to soften the image. So you may find swapping that for a 1.4x or even a 1.7x might do the trick instead of changing the lens as you seem to have a lot more range in hand with the ETC mode.

If you've got a speedbooster then there are a lot of inexpensive used EF lenses like Sigma 70-300 that are worth considering. The speedbooster will cut a bit of range but it will give you more back in light and also sharpness as well as giving you OIS and at least a little bit of AF if your speedbooster supports it. 

You also have the option of putting it on a non reducing adapter to get the full 300mm range back.

Either way, I suspect you'll end up with a sharper image from that lens than with the 70-210mm once you've got that x2 TC on it.

[kye]

On 8/3/2020 at 9:26 PM, homestar_kevin said:

Kye--I'd look at the Nikon 80-200mm 2.8's

They're more expensive than some on your list, but can be had for cheaper than the contax or canon FD 100-300mms.

The nikon has a push pull version that can be found really cheap.

There's also a 2 ring version of the lens for not a lot more.

It might be worth taking the step up to a lens like that. Nikon has a bunch of older cheaper teleconverters that would play pretty nice with it too

 

On 8/3/2020 at 9:35 PM, ade towell said:

I would 2nd the above, those Nikon zooms are great although very heavy. If you can stretch to the newer 2 touch version then you'll have one of the finest long zooms there is

Don't Nikons have the focus ring going the wrong way?  That would screw me up big time - who cares about the lens performance if I'm going the wrong way when focusing!

It seems you're right though, that they're super sharp..

On 8/3/2020 at 10:32 PM, Trek of Joy said:

What's your budget? What about some of the variable aperture M43 long zooms? Surely they're on par with your FD lens sharpness wise. Old long zooms are a tough proposition for modern levels of sharpness haha. Parfocal is a long shot.

Another thought, what about adapting old ENG lenses? They're fast aperture, parfocal, long focus throws, many have a built in doubler and so on. B4's are cheap.

Chris

My budget is when I look at a lens and don't wince and then don't worry about how to justify it to my wife!

Seriously though, I'm seeing:

• Canon FD 100-300mm f5.6 L from about USD200 / AUD300 that are clean and haze/fungus free
• Canon FD 80-200 f4 L from about USD350 / AUD450 that are clean and haze/fungus free

The reviews I read of the 100-300 said that the non-L version was soft above 200, but the (few) mentions I found of the L version said it was much better, although I didn't find anyone saying the L was specifically better than the non-L above 200mm.  Regardless, I'm currently shooting at 200 at the moment and even if the 100-300 L wasn't sharp above 200, it would be a step up as mine isn't sharp above ~135mm currently.  Also, I read that at that time (early FD) they were super selective about which lenses got the L status, and there are a number of non-L lenses that are considered "honorary L lenses" as they're sharp enough to have gotten L status by more recent standards.

In a sense, my budget is about the cost of the cheapest lens that will do the trick for me, in this case I think it's the 100-300L.

I'm not seeing any native MFT lenses below $1K and there's almost none on ebay.  Also, I already have the FD TC so that would be another expense if I moved away from FD glass.

22 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Out of interest, have you tried taking the TC off that lens and checking the sharpness?

There aren't many vintage (or even modern) 2x TCs that aren't going to soften the image. So you may find swapping that for a 1.4x or even a 1.7x might do the trick instead of changing the lens as you seem to have a lot more range in hand with the ETC mode.

If you've got a speedbooster then there are a lot of inexpensive used EF lenses like Sigma 70-300 that are worth considering. The speedbooster will cut a bit of range but it will give you more back in light and also sharpness as well as giving you OIS and at least a little bit of AF if your speedbooster supports it. 

You also have the option of putting it on a non reducing adapter to get the full 300mm range back.

Either way, I suspect you'll end up with a sharper image from that lens than with the 70-210mm once you've got that x2 TC on it.

I'll give it a go and see what effect the TC is having, but I can tell the lens is soft at the longer end.  It's easy to see in the viewfinder - when you go from 70-210 the contrast lowers, the colours wash out, the focus peaking almost stops working and only highlights the odd high-contrast edge - it's really very obvious.

I'll do some tests and see what levels of sharpness I'm getting with which elements of the system, but in a sense it's rather academic because I need all the reach I can get.  For context, this is a screen grab from full-everything at around ~2250mm or so with subjects about 100m away:

This is with me sitting on the side roughly in the middle, ie, not at either end, and a lot of the ground is that far away so it's the distance I'm working with for the majority of the game:

As you can see from the framing a drop in maximum focal length limits my options in a meaningful way.

Also note the softness and halation of the image - that's what I'd like to get an improvement on if I can.  I'm optimistic that the 100-300 L would give me a bump in performance due to it going to 300mm not 200mm and that it's an L lens.  

I guess it's worth acknowledging that shooting at over 2000mm is not a simple technical challenge, and that working with the budget I am working with it's amazing to just get the level of IQ that I am getting, or to even be able to get anything for that matter, let alone 120p, so I know I'm wringing blood from a stone.  I'd just like a little more 🙂 

[noone]

The 100-300 5.6 L has a fluorite and UD element while the two older versions of the non L do not have either.

Same applies to the 80-200 f4 L.

Don't know if you have seen it but MIR.com.my is a great FD resource.

[noone]

Rather than cover the whole field, I think you are better off just shooting shorter (I know you sit with your people though while when i do this just change ends when I like).

[Trek of Joy]

38 minutes ago, kye said:

 

 

^^^WTF is this? Is that Australian Football?^^^

I spent a few weeks there touring around in a van, tried to get rugby tickets, but it was my first time driving on the wrong side of the road and I would have needed to cross Sydney at night which is probably a bad idea LOL!

No wonder its so tough to find a lens, you're dealing with that funky shaped field haha! Good luck with your search.

Chris

[BTM_Pix]

36 minutes ago, kye said:

 

Also note the softness and halation of the image   

 

It certainly seems to be losing some detail in the faces there 🙂

Test match cricket was the longest field sport I used to shoot and it would be full frame with the 300-800mm and occasionally a 1.4X  TC but mainly the action was in the centre of the field so yes you are looking for quite the range to get mid shots at the distances you're looking at.

 

 

[noone]

33 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

It certainly seems to be losing some detail in the faces there 🙂

Test match cricket was the longest field sport I used to shoot and it would be full frame with the 300-800mm and occasionally a 1.4X  TC but mainly the action was in the centre of the field so yes you are looking for quite the range to get mid shots at the distances you're looking at.

 

 

Many fields used for Australian football in winter double as cricket grounds in Summer.    The difference is the action tends to flow from one end to the other (unless a game is lopsided but even then they change ends each quarter) while cricket action is mainly centre based.

[noone]

Kye, this thread just reminded me I have a FD mount Vivitar 2x macro focusing teleconvertor  with 7 elements I think and when the helicoid is not wound out, it acts as a 2x teleconvertor and when wound out it is a 1:1 macro convertor with some 50mm lenses (even greater with a shorter lens or lower magnification with a longer lens).

I have not used it for ages but just trying it with my Tokina 60-120 2.8, it gives me a 120-240 5.6 fully wound in and I actually think it is better than my old Tamron 80-250 at or near 250.   I might be completely off and just a feeling but a GOOD teleconvertor can still be ok and some of the 7 element ones are ok (I have three of these things, the others being a 2x 7 element in Pentax mount and a 3x one also Pentax that does degrade IQ a bit more due to being 3x rather than 2).     Macro is an added bonus with them and a further bonus is you can reverse a lens onto them for even greater macro including some quite ridiculous magnifications but as teleconvertor they can be ok and they can be found quite cheap now.   There are also 5 element ones but I would tend to avoid those.