Question: Canon 200mm F4.0 Fd Macro ?

I have owned the Nikon equivalent, the 200/4 AI Micro-Nikkor. It was a decent lens, though I replaced it with the newer AF version (which goes to 1:1) and sold the AI. The AI (and similar AIS) have a mixed reputation. My experience was that the lens was far too long to be used for coins, since its working distance was absolutely huge. For Dollars, I'd need to handhold it with the coin on the floor to fill the sensor! So while not suitable for coins, this makes the 200mm macros the best lenses going for flowers and especially bugs. Note that the Canon was far less popular, and based on my tests of the 100mm Canon bellows lens (still haven't found a suitable 100 Macro) I expect the quality to be worse than the Nikon. Further note that neither the Nikon nor Canon could go to 1:1 natively, and were not mated with extension tubes like the 100mm macros were given the long extra distance required. If you want 1:1, you can add 100+ mm of extensions, bellows, or a 2x teleconverter. I specifically bought the recommended Nikon TC2 for the 200 Micro, but was never happy with the image quality of the combo.

Probably not much help but that's all I can offer...Ray

Ahh, I always thought they were direct competitors and the Canon could not go to 1:1. That's a big advantage for the Canon, and it also means the lens was probably designed for good IQ at 1:1, which the Nikon was not. I suppose I should have researched it more...

One thing I can say from experience is that while the Minolta 100mm is a good lens, it's not as good as a 105 EL Nikkor. Have you given enlarger lenses a try? The Minolta is at its best in the center between f8 and f11, but is still quite fuzzy on the edges vs the center. The 105EL is OK even at f5.6, but really shines at f8, with very flat field.