EOS to FD Adapter - DPChallenge Forums

Olympus 12-45mm f/4.0 Pro

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

07/31/2006 12:41:38 PM · #1

I was wondering if these adapters work and if it would be a good thing to get since fd lenes are so cheap.

OdysseyF22

Panasonic DC-G9

07/31/2006 12:49:35 PM · #2

I seem to recall reading once that while FD lenses will work on an EOS system via the adaptor, you lose the AF funtion, and have to do all focusing by hand.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

07/31/2006 12:55:42 PM · #3

//www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=89910&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

CHIEFVOLS

Olympus 12-45mm f/4.0 Pro

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

07/31/2006 12:57:45 PM · #4

so i could get this and use fd lens but i wouldn't get auto focus....is there any adapter that would let me keep auto focus?

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

07/31/2006 12:58:39 PM · #5

no ... fd lenses don't have autofocus motors in them

Originally posted by CHIEFVOLS:

so i could get this and use fd lens but i wouldn't get auto focus....is there any adapter that would let me keep auto focus?

OdysseyF22

Panasonic DC-G9

07/31/2006 12:58:53 PM · #6

Originally posted by CHIEFVOLS:

so i could get this and use fd lens but i wouldn't get auto focus....is there any adapter that would let me keep auto focus?

Nope. Not as far as I know.

07/31/2006 12:59:59 PM · #7

Originally posted by CHIEFVOLS:

I was wondering if these adapters work and if it would be a good thing to get since fd lenes are so cheap.

In a word, no. You can either use an adapter without a glass element and you will not be able to focus to infinity. Alternatively, yoiu can use an adapter with a glass element, but it will change the effective FoV and degrade image quality.
There was a guy in Iowa that was offering to convert FD lenses to EOS mount, but at the price he needs to charge, it's a useful choice only for long, fast telephotos.
There are manual-focus lenses from Nikon, Pentax, and others that *can* be adapted and retain their desirable properties. Finding the good ones is the challenge.

CHIEFVOLS

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

07/31/2006 01:02:04 PM · #8

thanks for all of your help.....i guess i'll just keep saving for the nicer glass

thanks again

Bobster

Canon EOS-20D

08/01/2006 05:58:49 PM · #9

i looked into a FD adaptor a while back, and cheapest i could find one was for Â£500, so that nipped that in the bud pretty quick :)

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

08/02/2006 09:59:07 AM · #10

Uhh forgive my newbie naivete on this one, but wouldn't that make them pretty durned decent macro lenses?

How are they on an extension tube?

Message edited by author 2006-08-02 10:01:04.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

08/02/2006 10:02:39 AM · #11

Originally posted by eschelar:

Uhh forgive my newbie naivete on this one, but wouldn't that make them pretty durned decent macro lenses?

Can I just screw one on my normal EOS mount? or more appropriately into an extension tube?

The mounts are physically different, so you would need an adapter. Glassless adapters may be available, I haven't researched it. Yes, a good, sharp FD lens with a glassless adapter and some additional extension tubes would make a functional macro lens.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

08/02/2006 10:11:25 AM · #12

Sorry about the back-step editing kirb.

That's what happens when I read the forums too late at night. Then I reread the above posts and see that the question was answered already. Usually by you... ;)

So what is a particularly sought after, sharp FD lens? I see TONS of them kicking around in the stores around here.

mcmurma

Nikon MF 180mm f/2.8 ED AIS

08/02/2006 10:34:15 AM · #13

Originally posted by kirbic:

There are manual-focus lenses from Nikon, Pentax, and others that *can* be adapted and retain their desirable properties. Finding the good ones is the challenge.

As a manual lens affectionado, I somewhat disagree with this statement.

While its true that some lenses are real dogs, and others are so so, the vast majority of old MF lenses I have tried were very, very good... especially with regard to the primes. (some older zooms are not bad at all, but it is more of a crapshoot.)

I regularly use EOS to M42 adapters for a wide range of primes. And I also use an EOS to Nikon adapter for older MF Nikkor lenses. All the lenses I have listed in my profile are excellent, even when used wide open, and that's why I still have them. I traded lenses for several years to get to a core of lenses that performed as well as I could ever ask for optically.

Admittedly, though, using MF is a bit of a chore sometimes, and I plan to build a good set of AF lenses as soon as I can decide on a camera system. Im using Canon now, but I've used both Nikon and Sigma in the past and I just havn't made up my mind :)

//www.pbase.com/mcmurma/manual_lenses

Many of the images in this gallery are provided full size, usually with minimal sharpening. The lens and aperture used are noted in most cases.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

08/02/2006 10:50:47 AM · #14

i'm constantly thinking about whether or not i want to go manual for a macro lens and a fisheye lens. For the $400 a 100mm AF macro would cost, I could get a manual focus 100mm macro, a fisheye, and adapters for both (if they weren't both the same mount).

Just when I start to look around, I always say to myself, "you won't be happy" and bail out until 2 months later when I repeat the process.

08/02/2006 10:51:22 AM · #15

Originally posted by mcmurma:

Originally posted by kirbic:
There are manual-focus lenses from Nikon, Pentax, and others that *can* be adapted and retain their desirable properties. Finding the good ones is the challenge.

As a manual lens affectionado, I somewhat disagree with this statement.

While its true that some lenses are real dogs, and others are so so, the vast majority of old MF lenses I have tried were very, very good... especially with regard to the primes. (some older zooms are not bad at all, but it is more of a crapshoot.)...

To clarify, I didn't mean to imply that the majority of older MF primes are bad. Quite the contrary, as mcmurma posted, many are quite good, and there are some real gems out there. Most still fall just short of the best modern primes, though; time does march on.
Still, I love some of the old manual lenses. I particularly like my Zeiss 75/1.5 Biotar, which is a wonderful portrait lens. It's not optically perfect, but uses small optical imperfections to give very pleasing portrait results. Don't try to use it for astrophotography, however, the corners show pretty bad astigmatism. Same applies to my Asahi 50/1.4 Super Takumar. Great lens, and very small, but shows significant astig at the corners. The current-model Canon 50/1.4 is a better lens all-around.

mcmurma

Nikon MF 180mm f/2.8 ED AIS

08/02/2006 11:13:02 AM · #16

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by mcmurma:

Originally posted by kirbic:
There are manual-focus lenses from Nikon, Pentax, and others that *can* be adapted and retain their desirable properties. Finding the good ones is the challenge.

As a manual lens affectionado, I somewhat disagree with this statement.

While its true that some lenses are real dogs, and others are so so, the vast majority of old MF lenses I have tried were very, very good... especially with regard to the primes. (some older zooms are not bad at all, but it is more of a crapshoot.)...

To clarify, I didn't mean to imply that the majority of older MF primes are bad.

That's why I decided to "somewhat disagree" I knew what you meant :)

Kirbic, as a 5D user you have had the chance to test your MF lenses on a camera that shows the corners. Now, I have heard from several full-frame users that the corners do show obvious issues with most MF lenses, and wondered if that was your experience as well?

-Michael

mcmurma

Nikon MF 180mm f/2.8 ED AIS

08/02/2006 11:23:07 AM · #17

Originally posted by hopper:

In a wide-angle lens there is typically very little focus to mess with. Once you get down below 20mm, especially with an aperture of f5.6 or better, focus is not much of an issue because your DOF is so great.

Macro is somtimes well suited to MF because your focal point is so critical. And I could not imagine letting the lens focus for static subjects such as flowers and mosses. However, I could certainly see a need for AF with moving subjects like butterfiles or dragonflies.