Who uses FD lenses on a digital camera?

<p>The 85/1.2L is a very sharp lens with excellent coatings. Something is not coming out well here.</p>

<p>JT, while not 1.2 lenses I do have a few 1.8, and 1.4 FDn lenses and they've never shown such issues on the NEX-7...and I don't have to be at or near max aperture to get sharp photos...indeed, my experience has been the same as when I used them on my Canon A1's...stopping down produces even sharper images.<br />And to be honest, the example photo you just posted really doesn't look like it has a lot of light in the scene at all...if anything it looks like a low light shot.<br /><br />I'm no authority but if I was faced with that situation...given what I'll call a flawless marriage of all my 80's FDn lenses on the Sony NEX-7...my guess is there's something else going on there. And if you're getting those results on multiple camera bodies as you stated, then in spite of its high dollar cost, there may well be a problem with that Novaflex adapter.</p>

<p>I suspect that the adapter was not mounted firmly and completely between the lens and the camera. Could this have been the case?</p>

<p>Using FD glass on various Panasonic Lumix cameras--GF1, GX1, GH3--I have found that images can look "foggy"with my 20mm and 24mm lenses. My guess is that because of the wider angle, light is reflecting off the sensor and back onto the rear element of the lens. If someone knows better, please let's have it. All my other lenses work fine.</p>

<p><strong>@Robert</strong> That certainly sounds plausible to me.<br>

<strong>@Bill</strong> Of course the lens gets sharper as you stop down. My reservation is that fast FD lenses tend to be unacceptably soft wide open, mounted on digital sensors. Which is a shame, because I'd love to be able to use them in low light.<br>

<strong>@Raid</strong> No mounting issue. Click on the image above and look at others in the set: they go down to about f8. The ghosting/flare issue gets progressively less (and the picture *much* sharper). There are also some comparison shots taken with an EOS 85mm f1.8.</p>

<p>Well, bad problem for sure...my configurations are FDn lenses on CIECIO7 adapters on NEX-7s and have never had that problem...good luck getting to the bottom of it.</p>

Is the adapter shiny inside? That could be it.

<p>The closer the rear glass elements are to the sensor, the more problematic things can get. My 17mm lens is sharp on film cameras (Canon FD and on M6), but it "appears to be less sharp" on my M9. I do not get the shine though. It is just a perception of less sharp in the center.</p>

<p><strong>@António</strong> No. Matt.</p>

<p>I compared my FD 1,4/50 S.S.C. and my nFD 2,8/135 with my Lumix-Zooms 14-45 and 45-140. The Lumix-Zooms are much better at same aperture. The FD 50mm nearly matches the 14-45 zoom. Wide open the 1,4/50 produces a softening effect by straylight, which I like for portraiture. But both lenses are not in my MFT-bag normaly. Only the 135mm + converter 2xB is indeed a good 270mm with my stabilised OM-D.</p>

<p>The bower adaptor on the EOS SLR has a lens to correct the registration issue (FD is shorter than EOS). This adaptor (and all its ilk) is very bad in general, and absolutely unusable with fast lenses.<br>

Try the same lens on a Sony A7 with a good adapter and there is no such problem. Not to say that every FD glass is perfect on digital, but some a real good. My 2/24 is superb, so are the 1.2/55 Asph and the 1.2/85L, the 80-200L is outstanding, etc.<br>

Some feel better on digital, for example the 2.8/200IF looks better than on film, and some are less convincing, like my 2/28. Go figure!</p>

<p>In general, normal and tele lenses stay sharp on digital cameras when the adapters used do not include any glass elements.</p>

<p>I have two different FD-EOS adapters and they both deliver roughly the same performance, which is to say, poor at apertures of f/2.8 and faster and acceptable at apertures of f/3.5 and slower. So forget about using a fast lens with one of these adapters -- you will be disappointed. But once I stopped the lens down more, or was using a slower lens to begin with, image degradation was negligible.</p>

<p>But getting back to the original question, now that I have a Sony NEX so that I can use my FD glass without a glass element between the lens and the sensor, I've found my Canon FD glass to be superb for the most part. My fast lenses especially are stand-outs. I have two f/1.2 lenses and one f/1.4 lens and they've all performed admirably.</p>

<p>Like Michael found out: FD tele lenses stay sharp on digital cameras when the adapters used do not include any glass elements. They work very well as portrait lenses, say.</p>

<p>I have mostly FD lenses with my panasonic GX1, but one thing I do not like is the 2x factor, as It makes it hard to find really wide lenses. <br>

I am trying to find a good way to use M42 lenses and other mounts. <br>

I have a few Tamron adaptall's with FD mount. And some M39 and M42 lenses which can be easily adapted to FD mount first. <br>

I decided to standardize on those lenses that can be adapted to FD first, the next purchase will be a speedbooster for M43 with FD mount. So then I can use all above mentioned lenses in a more close-to original way.<br>

I am selling some stuff on auction site, and if I get lucky enough, I might buy me a Leica version too of the speedbooster, as I absolutely adore my Macro Elmarit R 60mm.. I just have not found a way to use it with its original focus length on my digital. <br>

I am keeping a Leicaflex just to be able to do that. <br>

Like others, I am looking to find that needle in a haystack : Pentax K lens to Canon FD mount Camera adapter. .. </p>

<p>Oh and I still keep my faithful AE1, and recently added a perfect T90 to my collection. I haven't been in a dark room in about 30yrs, but I might give the BW film development another try , and use My FD auto bellows with 35mm duplicator to make multi-shot negative copies and stitch them together digitally. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I use various FD lenses reverse mounted on my FD auto bellows with 5D MkII. I find the setup quite good. No sharpness, color rendering, or distortion issues. I'm quite happy with the rig. </p>

<p>I've recently picked up both the 50mm f3.5 macro and the 200mm f4.0 tele. Both were reasonably priced and in excellent condition. Using a Fotasy adapter ($15 on Amazon) and mounted on my Olympus M10. I really couldn't have been more pleased. Images are sharp..as long as I'm paying attention to getting the correct focus. The macro, in particular, really shows it's stuff when working in close..2 or 3 feet or closer..as that's where it's really corrected for. Night and day difference versus my Panny 14-42 at the same distance. Not quite so much when used further out. Manual focus in macro is sort of a natural anyway, so it's not a big deal at all..especially when you can assign a dedicated button to magnify. And with stopped down operation in aperture preferred mode, you've got a nice level of simplicity. I'm also loving the 200 with the crop factor on the M10..sharp with nice color. These lenses are a great reminder that it's all about the glass. They also bring me right back to the mid 70's when I shot Canon gear as new stuff.</p>

<p>I forgot to mention in my first post: one of the main reasons why I bought my NEX 7 was so that I could use my Canon FD and FL glass on a good digital, without having to use an adapter that has a corrective element in it. So yeah, you could say that I bought a digital so I could shoot my FD glass with it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Amen on the NEX-7.....you'd think it was designed for Canon FD lenses they work so naturally on it.<br />I use everything from FDn 24 to 400mm and it's like using them on my A1's without the film costs.</p>

<p>Anybody try a Metabones or a Lens Turbo with their NEX and FD lenses? I'm thinking about getting a Lens Turbo so my wide angles will behave like wide angles. I understand that there's a Lens Turbo II out now -- I guess it's a noticeable improvement over the original?</p>

<p>Go full frame: swap your Nex7 for an A7 and to hell with Lens Turbos!</p>

<p>These would look sooo much better on Portra......160 or 400......in a real FD body...</p>