[Leica] an alternative to the 280mm f/4 APO

[jhnichols at lighttube.net (Jim Nichols)]

That's pretty impressive, Doug.  Thanks for the examples.

Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA

On 9/14/2015 4:33 PM, Doug Herr wrote:
> As some of you know, for some time I've been looking for an alternative to 
> the 280mm f/4 APO for those situations where lower weight and/or higher 
> risk of loss or damage trump highest image quality.  Recent developments 
> in mirrorless cameras have made numerous legacy lenses attractive options; 
> this applies to the M(240) as well, and I know of a few LUGgers who have 
> been looking for longer lenses less costly and lower weight than the 280/4 
> APO.
>
> This search has led me to the Canon FD 300mm f/4 L.  Compared with the 280 
> APO, it's about 600 grams lighter and about US$4000 less expensive.  Its 
> minimum focus distance isn't as close as the 280/4 and the tripod collar 
> doesn't rotate as smoothly (OTOH it can be removed and reversed so the 
> lock knob may be on either side).
>
> A few features led me to this lens instead of the comparable Nikon lenses:
>
> The market value reflects the obsolete FD lens mount which can't be used 
> on current-model Canon DSLR cameras, except with adapters that sacrifice 
> either image quality or infinity focus
>
> The focus and aperture rings turn the same direction as my current Leica 
> lenses so no brain re-programming is required
>
> The images I found on the internet made with this lens, unlike those made 
> with the comparable Nikon lenses, show little or no evidence of color 
> fringes in out-of-focus areas.
>
> I've been testing the lens for a few days now.  The FD 300/4 has some 
> lateral chromatic aberration which can be corrected in ACR or Photoshop.  
> I've found that +15 green/magenta correction is about right.  
> Pixel-peeping on specular highlights might still show some magenta 
> bleeding into adjacent darker areas but it's generally manageable. 
> Pixel-peeping in the corners isn't recommended ;) but image quality 
> overall can be quite good after lateral chromatic correction.
>
> One unexpected benefit of the lateral chromatic correction is reduced 
> color moire.  The feathers of some species of birds are especially prone 
> to this artifact, even when the camera has an AA filter.  Here's an 
> example of the effect when using the 280 APO on the Sony a7II with a 
> Western Scrub Jay:
>
> http://www.wildlightphoto.com/temp/_DSC2455_moire.jpg
>
> When using the FD 300/4 after corrections the color moire is gone and only 
> a little aliasing is evident, and you have to look for it.
>
> Full image made with the Canon lens on the same camera:
>
> http://www.wildlightphoto.com/temp/_DSC2699.jpg
>
> example of the detail possible over most of the image area:
>
> http://www.wildlightphoto.com/temp/_DSC2699_crop.jpg
>
> Note that there is also a non-L version of this lens.  It will not be as 
> sharp as the L lens and will show more chromatic aberration artifacts.
>
> M(240) owners who want a long lens without a major commitment of resources 
> would do well to look into this lens.  It's not 280 APO quality but it's 
> quite good and much more affordable.
>
> Doug Herr
> Birdman of Sacramento
> http://www.wildlightphoto.com
> http://doug-herr.fineartamerica.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>