Everything old is new again : FD lenses on new Canon EOS R system?

Can one use the manual FD range of lenses with an 'open' FD to EOS adapter (no glass element) on the recently released Canon EOS R camera body? (with one of the new EOS to R adapters of course)

I don't see why not, but it will be a far more elegant solution to wait for an FD to R adaptor to be marketed. FD lenses also work on a Sony E and Nikon Z (when someone makes an adaptor), and you get IBIS with the latest Sony cameras and Nikon Z. Edited October 10, 2018 by Ken Katz

Shoten makes an adaptor. Scroll down to see what they currently sell:

 

The first Leica M lens adapters for the new Nikon Z and Canon EOS R full-frame mirrorless cameras - Leica Rumors

Thanks guys, legacy FD lenses without the cheap glass element in the existing FD to EOS adapter should give the EOS R images a unique vintage look. Edited October 10, 2018 by matt_t_butler

Hopefully I'll have an opportunity to handle an EOS R later today. As much as anything, being able to adapt (eventually) all my legacy Canon optics to a Canon camera is exciting! Perhaps even the "Dream Lens" Canon 50/0.95 can be paired up someday.

I've been using my old FD legacy lenses on a Sony A7R (which has since been converted to IR), and since then on an A7R2. I haven't noticed any "weak" spots yet...they all seem to working just fine on the Sony bodies (I'm using a Novoflex FD/Sony E adapter). I've tested several of the lenses for hyperfocal focusing and they're spot-on with the Novoflex. I'm staying put with the A7R2 and don't see a need to upgrade it (I don't use any Sony native lenses...just my FD's)...really like the on-board stabilization, too. Not sure if I'm going to be tempted with the new Canon R...will have to wait and see. I understand the R will be able to handle the EF lenses, which I also have from my 5D and 5D2 days.

I way over a hundred lenses in a large number of mounts. Although I love to play around with converting one lens to another camera body, it makes practical sense for very few lenses.

 

Essentially, perspective control lenses and mirror lenses work as well on FD mount bodies with an adapter, as they do on the Nikon or M42 cameras they were made for.

 

FD Canon cameras are second only to EOS EF bodies in accepting alien lens mounts with adapters, but it's really for fun, not actual work.

 

When I go mirrorless, or to some other new thing, I'll wait for lenses made for those systems instead of using them with my old lenses.

 

I will admit that my new puppy is a Husky and Labrador mix, so mixes can be fun:)

Edited October 17, 2018 by JDMvW

 

When I go mirrorless, or to some other new thing, I'll wait for lenses made for those systems instead of using them with my old lenses.

 

 

I can understand that. But for my situation, I had quite a few FD lenses that were sitting around gathering dust, and I'm not one for selling off camera gear. The A7R series at least gave these lenses new life...so much so, that I've now gotten back into film shooting with them as well. Just isn't enough time in the day...

I am using Canon M39 screw mount, FL, FD, New FD, and EF lenses on my Sony A7RIII. They all work great. Some need CA(Chromatic Aberration) adjustments.

 

I am using Fotasy, Fotodiox, and K&F Concept adapters. These adapters are under $30. I have adapters for my Canon lenses and Nikon MF, Minolta MD, Olympus OM, Konica, and M42 screw mount.

 

Having Focus Peaking, EVF magnification, and IBIS(In-Body Stabilization) make mirror less cameras a great platform for vintage lenses.

 

If your lenses are in good shape then I think you will be pleased with the performance.

I have a bunch of FD lenses that I use on Canon EOS bodies with the FD to EOS adapters that have a questionable optical element to allow infinity focus.

Used wide open they result in a very hazy fog filter effect. But stopping down to f11 or so give a reasonable result - not super sharp but an acceptable 'cinematic' look.

The build quality is remarkable considering the vintage of the lenses ... and this photographer.

I'm eager to try focus-peaking with MF lenses. If it works well, along with the EVF, it could make using the Canon FL 1200 f11 a lot more fun...that lens creates a very dark optical viewfinder which renders focusing aids all but useless. The earliest Canon 19/3.5 lenses (in rangefinder and FL mounts) would also be intriguing! The FL variant required mirror lockup and the use of an accessory viewfinder, but none of that would apply if it's adapted to a mirrorless camera.

 

The EOS R’s lack of in-body stabilization does not trouble me much: about half of the EOS lenses I own are unstabilized, and obviously none of my FD-era film cameras had that feature. I still get excellent results with them, in large part because I learned the skills without that technology. It's like good spelling, what Mr. Selmer's fearsome 9th grade tests taught me makes spell checking software unnecessary.

Hard to beat something like an Olympus OM-D when it comes to the std to telephoto lenses. Nothing like using your 200mm 2.8 nFD IF with the same perspective and a 400mm and then that 400mm f4.5 nFD WOW what a bird lens with in body stabilization.

Hard to beat something like an Olympus OM-D when it comes to the std to telephoto lenses. Nothing like using your 200mm 2.8 nFD IF with the same perspective and a 400mm and then that 400mm f4.5 nFD WOW what a bird lens with in body stabilization.

 

It depends on what's important to you and what you photograph.

 

I can't live without ultra-wides, and between that and the overall "look" at more normal FLs(say 28-200mm) I don't ever see myself going big into another digital without a 24x36mm sensor.

 

If I hadn't divested most of my FD gear, I'd have been looking seriously at Sony before the new Canon came out...

It depends on what's important to you and what you photograph.

 

I can't live without ultra-wides, and between that and the overall "look" at more normal FLs(say 28-200mm) I don't ever see myself going big into another digital without a 24x36mm sensor.

 

If I hadn't divested most of my FD gear, I'd have been looking seriously at Sony before the new Canon came out...

 

Ben,

As much as I also like wide lenses and shooting in low light, as I am getting older, my ability to haul the heavy gear is decreasing. Earlier this year, I made the decision to go m4/3 as a second system, primarily as a lighter/smaller travel kit. But as the old body seems to be breaking down faster than I expected :(, I may end up switching to m4/3, just so that I can keep shooting.

I just shot a football game on Fri night, and my knee still hurts, from standing in the cold.

Ben that is why I specifically said Std and Telephoto I know very well how limited the use of full frame lenses is on a 4/3 format camera when working in the wide angle part of photography. Hard to be happy with my great 24mm f2.0 nFD being equal to a std lens. But for that I just use a proper 4/3 mount lens.

Mark, have you ever used a digital camera with a 24x36mm sensor?

using your 200mm 2.8 nFD

The problem lies in the fact that Oly has very high pixel density difficult to resolve with old glass.

Can one use the manual FD range of lenses with an 'open' FD to EOS adapter (no glass element) on the recently released Canon EOS R camera body? (with one of the new EOS to R adapters of course)

Yes but Sony has stabilization.

Mark, have you ever used a digital camera with a 24x36mm sensor?

 

 

No I have not the only digital I have capable of interchangeable lenses is my OM-D5

Sensor size does make a difference regarding optical quality. My old breechlock FD 200/2.8 shows terrible chromatic aberration when mounted on my 4/3rd Olympus OM-D (E-M5). Images taken with the same lens on my full-frame Leica M240 look almost perfect.

Just finished looking at an EOS R with RF 24-105 L IS. Held in size 9.5 hands it's compact and dense with excellent perceived build quality, neither the body nor lens felt plasticky. It's all very solid and of a piece. But far as the sizing goes I would not want it to be any smaller. Thankfully the hand grip is up to Canon's high standards which keeps it feeling secure.

 

I found the EVF very clear and crisp, with enough resolution to easily focus manually on the finer details of a subject without using its focus magnifier or focus peaking features. Functionally, it was like focusing on a high quality matte screen and that exceeds my expectations by far. I bet it will be delightful with adapted MF glass! Color me impressed.

Edited October 31, 2018 by rick_janes

Sensor size does make a difference regarding optical quality. My old breechlock FD 200/2.8 shows terrible chromatic aberration when mounted on my 4/3rd Olympus OM-D (E-M5). Images taken with the same lens on my full-frame Leica M240 look almost perfect.

 

I've owned the nFD 200/2.8 IF off and on since 1985 and one of the first things I discovered about it, when shooting slides, was that it had very pronounced CA. I ruined several slides shooting with it after I first bought the lens. After that, I learned what I could and couldn't shoot with it and it became a much more usable lens. These days one can get rid of most, if not all, of the CA in post, so it isn't nearly the problem it used to be.

 

I switched systems from Canon FD to Nikon for a while (these days I have both systems) and after becoming a Nikon user, I sold all my Canon gear and soon thereafter, I bought a Nikon AIs 180mm f/2.8 ED. It is a superior lens to the Canon 200/2.8, both in terms of sharpness and CA control, thanks to that ED glass. I have found a good substitute for the Nikon ED 180, and that is the Tamron SP 80-200/2.8 LD. At 200mm, its performance is virtually identical to that of the 180 ED Nikkor. Having wrote all that, though, I still couldn't help myself, so a couple years ago, I re-acquired the Canon nFD 200/2.8 IF. I missed it is the only reason I can give for buying another copy of it.

LensRentals sent me an EOS R kit to play with for a week. Along with the body they included the battery grip, control ring lens adapter EF-EOS R, RF 50/1.2, and the RF 24-105 L zoom. On the whole, a very sweet box o' goodies. After taking some time to get familiarized with controls, menus, and settings the fun can begin!

 

Not having a dedicated FD-RF adapter yet, I tested manual focusing first with an adapted Pentax SMC 85/2.2 soft focus lens- the camera's focus-peaking feature works great on this S/F optic which can be otherwise tricky to focus in an optical viewfinder. That's really encouraging. Next I tried an EdMika FD-EOS adapter with focus confirmation chip that's originally used with an FD 800/5.6 L. Of course, even being very thin it prevents infinity focus with most FD lenses but it still allows them to be attached and focused at closer distances. This too works well, although the still-functional focus-confirmation chip defeats the camera's focus-peaking feature. I'd rather have the latter available so just a simple chip-less FD-RF adapter would be my choice.

 

One nicety is the EVF automatically compensating for the reduced light transmission of slower lenses or stopped-down apertures. Now that is pretty slick.

Spotted on UK based MTF site ($ conversion - ouch!)

MTF's certainly the high price option, if there's a commensurate leap in quality compared to cheaper options who knows!

 

I'm going to ask them to produce an adapter which pairs the Canon 50mm f/0.95 "Dream Lens" with an EOS R. Having had both of them here to look at they would make a fabulous couple!