Canon FD aftermarket lenses website

[richard_cook2]

Somewhere on the net is a website that lists all of the aftermarket

lenses for Canon FD cameras. Please can someone remind me where it

is.

Thank you.

[mark_dyson3]

Night ot be EXACTLY what you're after but how about this one:

 

http://medfmt.8k.com/third/

 

Cheers, Mark.

[mark_dyson3]

..or even Might not be....(sorry for the typos).

[walter_degroot]

at best thisa is a "partial answer"

I was given a canon ae-1 last spring " as i needed to get into the modern world"

 

I had not followed or really been interested in canon cameras or lenses before than.

later I was given a short zoom- turned out to be an eos lens and i returned it for another similar fd lens.

 

I bought a fixed mount long zoom at auction and a fixed TX mount w.a. for a low price. ( 2 wa vivitar tx and a mount for $20.00)

 

my first long canon zoom was an interchangable mount YS lens and the whole idea was clugy ( i had other ys lenses to fit my older cameras)

 

mounts and lennes with and without mounts seem to seel at similar prices. You may wind up with an extra nikon or konica or pentax mount. at no extra price. so it's worth it to buy a lens with the "wrong mount" or " duplicate lens" just to get the lens or just the mount.

 

vivitar tx lenses seem to be fully functional on the canon fd.

the t-4 mount is for FL only has stop down metering only- not as convenient and NO "A" settings. the t-4 lenses , mine are in lighter mounts but still seem mechanically ok after 40 years.

but t4 lenses from vivitar or soligor would be better used on other, older cameras.

 

the tx lenses are harder to find , but seem to be somewhat better constructed. at least the vivitar 28 f/2.5 and 35 f/2.5 lenses are as well made as the original canon 50mm lens.

 

the fixed mount vivitar,sigma, tokina,sigma and other, sometimes less known lenses if solidly constructed seem to be usable, but may not be quite up to the quality ( sharpness and contrast)of a real canon lens.

 

do not even consider buying a lens and then having it repaired!

unless it is a rare gem. It is cheaper to buy another lens .

 

be patient you may not find what you want in a week or a month.

also search on CANNON and look for resellers who do not know what they have and give poor, inaccurate descriptions.

 

learn how to avoid the "sneaky smakes" " it's only a LITTLE sticky" or "it's only a TINY scratch on the lens"

 

lenses made 20 or more years ago were usually NOT made of plastic or other lighter and cheaper materials.

when you can buy a $125.00 to $200.00 ( original) lens for $10-$20.00 it may be worth taking a chance that it will be " as described"

 

sometimes when a really good canon lens is listed there is a "feeding frenzy" and prices go out of sight.

[james_lai]

If you're looking to buy FD mount lenses, I would suggest staying with genuine Canon lenses. Although there are some notable exceptions, older third party lenses are generally cr@ppy in comparison to the real thing, and with current prices you probably won't save much by going third party.

[walter_degroot]

i agree that 3rd party lenses are likely "less" that genuine canon lenses.

 

beware of the "feeding frenzy" as i mentioned, on auction sites.

some of the better 3rd party lenses are decent.

and my 3rd party lenses are mecanically decent and likely optically decent.

 

it's fine to be a purist, but I and many others will never afford top of the line lenses, we don't make our living taking photos.

and cannot justify hundreds of dollars for one lens.

no matter how superior it may be.

 

otherwise, all of us would be waiting to afford a leica

abd walking, not driving and starving our children.

 

I knew a man who was offered a camera by a rich uncle.

he chose a contarex, WHY? because it was the most expensive.

WRONG!

 

I don't have heavy experience with a lot of 3rd party canon lenses.

it would ne great to hear from someone who has used and compared them with canon's best.

 

even if you don't buy a vivitar series 1 lens or a top name / model lens. the 3rd party lenses should satisfy most users.

that is unless they are real mechanical or optical junk.

[james_lai]

<i>"it's fine to be a purist, but I and many others will never afford top of the line lenses, we don't make our living taking photos. and cannot justify hundreds of dollars for one lens. no matter how superior it may be."</i><p>I suppose that depends on what lens you're looking for. In the "common" focal lengths, e.g. 28, 50, 135, I see very little reason to go third party. A check of recently completed *bay auctions shows a genuine Canon FD 28 f/2.8 going for about US$20, a 50 f/1.4 SSC for just over US$30, and a 135 f/3.5 for just under US$40, all purported to be in excellent condition. Of course, with less common lenses there will be a much greater difference in price between Canon and 3rd party lenses.<p>I've bought a number of used manual focus lenses in the past five years, in Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Pentax (K & screw) mounts. I have not had one OEM lens that was a disappointment. On the other hand, my experience with third party lenses has been much more variable. Some have been fine, but I've also had several third party lenses that were complete junk, even ones that were bought new in box (see my thread <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00E2Af" target=_blank>here</a> for example).

[ben_hutcherson]

With regard to the 135 3.5 mentioned in the previous post, I've been told that its superior design and coating allows it to transmit just as much if not more light to the film than the off-brand 135 2.8s that are so common. I have not personally tested this, so can't confirm, but it does stand to reason that superior coating technology could make a very marked difference in light transmitted. If this is true, the half stop you lose by going with the Canon is more than made up for.