I have just found my "old" FD lenses with a Canon FTB from 1976 and am just starting to look into the use of an adaptor ring either to M 4/3 or to EF type Canon bodies. Have any of you experience with either of the alternatives and do you know the best adaptor ring? See BC, I might end up with a Canon after all <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> !!
I am amazed at and had forgot the small size of the lenses.
Thanks in advance for your input!!
Adapting FD to EF is not an ideal thing to do, due to the
negative difference in the register distance between the two
systems.
FD uses 42mm ... EF uses 44mm ... this means, you have to
hammer the lens about 2mm into the EF-Body (not to think of
the adapter).
There are adapters that use a lens to care of this, but with that,
you inherently lose image quality (they also enlare the focal length
by a factor around 1.3).
There are adapters without lens, which of course don't influence
imagequality, but with those, you lose the ability to focus to infinity.
Adapting on a 4/3-system is easier, since the register distance of
this system is much shorter than the 42mm of FD.
Just my 2cts ... Rainer
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1304704499' post='8101']
I have just found my "old" FD lenses with a Canon FTB from 1976 and am just starting to look into the use of an adaptor ring either to M 4/3 or to EF type Canon bodies. Have any of you experience with either of the alternatives and do you know the best adaptor ring? See BC, I might end up with a Canon after all <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> !!
I am amazed at and had forgot the small size of the lenses.
Thanks in advance for your input!!
[/quote]
Are they lenses that are worthwhile the effort? Some FD lenses were special (like the f1.2 versions), but not all old primes from Canon (and Nikon) are worth any investment...
As said above, you can use them on EF with an adapter which has optics to correct the flange distance difference, but they act as tele converters and their simple optics SUCK, making the whole effort not worth while.
A simple adapter from ebay WITHOUT optics is more interesting, but will lose you infinity focus. How much you lose depends on the focal length: the wider the lens, the bigger the shrinkage of focus distance.
A Sony NEX with FD adapter might be more interesting. But only if the lenses are good enough to warrant the experiment.
Thanks Rainer!! That is a start. What would happen to the angle of view to a 50mm FD lens on a GF1?
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1304713530' post='8105']
Are they lenses that are worthwhile the effort? Some FD lenses were special (like the f1.2 versions), but not all old primes from Canon (and Nikon) are worth any investment...
As said above, you can use them on EF with an adapter which has optics to correct the flange distance difference, but they act as tele converters and their simple optics SUCK, making the whole effort not worth while.
A simple adapter from ebay WITHOUT optics is more interesting, but will lose you infinity focus. How much you lose depends on the focal length: the wider the lens, the bigger the shrinkage of focus distance.
A Sony NEX with FD adapter might be more interesting. But only if the lenses are good enough to warrant the experiment.
[/quote]
There is a Canon 50mm f1.4, a Vivitar 135mm f2.8 and a Vivitar 200mm f3.5! They used to be good lenses, but I have no idea how good or bad they are with todays standards. The idea would be to buy for example a GF1 with the 17mm AF kit lens and the adaptor ring so that I would have the 50, 135 and 200mm lenses as a "free" set of lenses. What would the conversion rate to 24x36 be on a GF1? Somewhere around 1.7?
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1304714023' post='8107']
There is a Canon 50mm f1.4, a Vivitar 135mm f2.8 and a Vivitar 200mm f3.5! They used to be good lenses, but I have no idea how good or bad they are with todays standards. The idea would be to buy for example a GF1 with the 17mm AF kit lens and the adaptor ring so that I would have the 50, 135 and 200mm lenses as a "free" set of lenses. What would the conversion rate to 24x36 be on a GF1? Somewhere around 1.7?
[/quote]
The GF1 is a normal 4/3rds camera, and its crop factor compared to 135 format (35mm film) full frame is 2x.
So, the 50mm will act as a 100mm lens, field of view wise. Ands its aperture will be an 1.4 x 2 = f2.8 FF equivalent.
The 135mm a 270mm f5.6 equivalent, and the 200mm a 400mm f7 equivalent.
On a Sony NEX the crop factor is like that of your former D300, 1.5x.
The 50mm f1.4 could be worthwhile still, by todays standards. It is said to be a fine lens. Is the 135mm the macro version? That lens too has a good reputation.
Personally I'd prefer NEX over 4/3rds, even though NEX has a demented user interface, because of the 4x3 format of 4/3rds...
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1304704499' post='8101']
See BC, I might end up with a Canon after all <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> !!
[/quote]
I have 8 Nikon lenses myself, old wolf <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Actually, searching the net I find adaptor rings from FD to Nikon. No reason to go via Canon, if I can go straight to Nikon. Should be interesting to test them out! Does anyone have experience with that?<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1304798042' post='8119']
Actually, searching the net I find adaptor rings from FD to Nikon. No reason to go via Canon, if I can go straight to Nikon.
[/quote]
Actually, adapting FD to Nikon makes the situation even worse:
Look at the register distances:
FD: 42mm
EF: 44mm
Nik-F: 46.5mm
So, you already need to compensate 2mm plus adapter thickness when adapting to EOS/EF ... but you
have to compensate the additional 2.5mm on top of that to adapt to Nikon.
This means, the Adapter will even more act like a TC, and it will even more reduce the image quality.
If you want to maintain the image quality of the lens, you must adapt to a system with a
register distance shorter than 42mm ... e.g. 4/3rds.
Just my 2cts...Rainer
[quote name='Rainer' timestamp='1304844326' post='8127']
Actually, adapting FD to Nikon makes the situation even worse:
Look at the register distances:
FD: 42mm
EF: 44mm
Nik-F: 46.5mm
So, you already need to compensate 2mm plus adapter thickness when adapting to EOS/EF ... but you
have to compensate the additional 2.5mm on top of that to adapt to Nikon.
This means, the Adapter will even more act like a TC, and it will even more reduce the image quality.
If you want to maintain the image quality of the lens, you must adapt to a system with a
register distance shorter than 42mm ... e.g. 4/3rds.
Just my 2cts...Rainer
[/quote]
Thanks again Rainer for bringing me back on the straight and narrow <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> ! What does it mean in practical terms to loose focus to infinity. You focus up to a certain distance I guess and then you loose the focusing ability? Are there any rules about how far out you loose the focusing?<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':unsure:' />