Canon 50-300 FD

[Joshua Milligan]

I am looking at picking up a Canon 50-300 FD to adapt to my FS7II, but I had a few questions about it. I've seen over the years that a few DVXUsers have or had the 50-300, but they never really talked much about it in detail. I was curious to know if anyone here who's had or used one could tell me a little more about it.

I am wanting to know how it handles CA, how it would handle 4K resolution, if it happens to be parfocal, if the zoom is internal or external, and how is the manual focus on it?

I'm considering speed boosting it with a Metabones FD to E-mount Speed Booster to be able to have the full frame width and the lower f/stop of 3.2 vs the 4.5, so I think this could end up being a slick combo for me. But, I cannot find much information about it for modern usage and would love some insight from anyone who has experience with it. Thank you!

 

[puredrifting]

I am looking at picking up a Canon 50-300 FD to adapt to my FS7II, but I had a few questions about it. I've seen over the years that a few DVXUsers have or had the 50-300, but they never really talked much about it in detail. I was curious to know if anyone here who's had or used one could tell me a little more about it.

I am wanting to know how it handles CA, how it would handle 4K resolution, if it happens to be parfocal, if the zoom is internal or external, and how is the manual focus on it?

I'm considering speed boosting it with a Metabones FD to E-mount Speed Booster to be able to have the full frame width and the lower f/stop of 3.2 vs the 4.5, so I think this could end up being a slick combo for me. But, I cannot find much information about it for modern usage and would love some insight from anyone who has experience with it. Thank you!

How often do you shoot outdoors? For me, the FDs in general are the same as my Nikon Ai and Ais lenses, they have a nice look with good lighting but outdoors, they flare all over the place (and not in a good, interesting way, in an obnoxious 'too much' way), are super low contrast, even milky looking and the CA is off the scale. For me, these old lenses are for situations where you can craft your lighting and avoid their shortcomings. Not great for documentary, event type work, good for studio/stage situations where you are being a DP. YMMV I've only used the FD Primes, not this particular zoom.

 

[Joshua Milligan]

Hey! Thanks for the response. I actually was primarily interested in it for outdoor doc work, so basically for everything you said you don't like FD lenses for haha. The primary reason I became interested in the 50-300 FD (besides the obvious range) is the fact that I've read where a lot of people used them on REDs for video work and those that talked about it loved it. I was able to find a couple of examples of the lens in use and both were shot outdoors, but neither were shot into the sun, so I didn't get to see the flare issues you are describing. They did look good, however.

 

[homestar_kevin]

I do not have the Canon 50-300 L, but I have the Nikon AIS 50-300mm ED Ais, which from what I know is very similar to the Canon.

I love mine and it's a great performer although heavy. I mainly use it indoors for theater work/concerts, but it's very sharp and pretty clean wide open.

I don't use it outside a ton, but would not shy away from doing so with my copy of the Nikon 50-300

 

[Publimix]

I have an Nikkor 50-300 4.5 AI I like it a lot but it seems a bit soft at 300mm compared with modern lenses.

I did a quick test with a bunch of lenses I had. (at 100 mm 1 stop)

The Sony 100-400 is insanely good. But the 50-300 is worth the money.

https://vimeo.com/304257194


The Nikkor Zooms internally and is almost parfocal. Manual focus is smooth.

 

[morgan_moore]

ONce again I have the (ED) nikkor. Im assuming the FD have similar performance and character.

Big thing.. close focus at 8ft

Really only (imo) useful for exterior pop concerts, indoor theatre, conferences and the like. Jobs where you are stuck back from the subject. Being able to do a whole band and the singer or suchlike is awesome. Jobs where you roll long takes (its not parfocal)

Not really a 'daily' lens where a couple of primes will be more useful typically

50 1.8 135/2 etc.

Overall absolutely worth having one of these with and without a speedbooster. In certain situations this is the best thing you can have beyond a 2/3 camera and ENG lens (which are less 'cinematic')

==

Like a muppet I bashed the bayonette back of my nikkor and bent it. Nikon were able to deliver my a new bayonette for the 1980s lens which is pretty amazing customer service.

 

[Joshua Milligan]

Like a muppet I bashed the bayonette back of my nikkor and bent it. Nikon were able to deliver my a new bayonette for the 1980s lens which is pretty amazing customer service.

Wow, that's incredible customer service. I am surprised they were able to do that!

Thanks for the comments fellas. I have found several copies of the 50-300 FD that are in great shape, so the temptation is there. I would look at the Nikkors, but I'm so used to focusing the opposite direction of Nikkor glass, so I'm afraid that would really throw me off.

My biggest concern about the 50-300 at the moment is the close focus distance that Morgan mentioned. That could kill this lens for me. I've also been looking at Super 16 lenses that I could use on my FS7II in Center Scan mode, but I get a bit lost with that type of glass. I did find one that was very intriguing which is the Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 11-110mm T2 S16 Zoom, but the only copy I've found for sale anywhere is selling for $5,800 which I just can't do right now.

I'm trying to find an older cine zoom for doc work that has a decent range, but am pretty stuck on which direction to go. There's the Canon 50-300 FD which looks solid, but it's a little tight on the wide end and has a minimum focus distance of 8ft. There's the Zeiss 11-110mm T2 S16 zoom which looks solid for what it is, but again it's pricey for the only copy I can find. Lastly there's the Canon 28-300 L which when speed boosted becomes a f/2.5-4.0 lens. That's a great range and an acceptable aperture, but its push-pull design isn't the greatest and it's not even remotely close to being parfocal. Decisions, decisions.