Canon FD to EOS even an option?

[dganger]

I am decently new to photography and am interested in

nature/wildlife. I am a college student with a pretty small budget

and was wondering if getting a FD lens and then a FD to EOS Adapter

would be a option to save some money but not lose a lot of quality

either. The manual focus doesn't bother me. The other question is,

is it even a viable option with a Canon Rebel. If you have any other

suggestions for cheaper but good quality EF telephoto lenses let me

know. All the help is very much appreciated thanks.

 

-David

[bobatkins]

It's possible but it's a pain and you will lose optical quality.

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html

[jcolwell]

Yes, you can get an adapter to mount FD lenses on EOS bodies, but it has optics to adjust for the fact that the FD register is shorter than that of EOS. The register is the film (or sensor) to lens mount distance. The shorter FD mount register means that you would have to fit the end of the FD lens inside of the EOS body to get close enough to the film/sensor. The optics in the adapter compensate for this and allow you to get the right distance at the EOS mount register. I get excellent results with a few SMC Takumar and Pentax lenses on my 20D, but they have a longer register than EOS, so it there are no additional optics. Like any optical system, I'm sure you can get some really good ones and some really poor ones. I've attached three reference sites that provide more detail on the adapter issues and options. Good luck.

 

<p><a href="http://medfmt.8k.com/bronmounts.html">Monaghan's Lens Mount Converters FAQ </a>

<p><a href="http://medfmt.8k.com/third/mounts.html">Monaghan's Interchangeable Lens Mounts </a>

<p><a href="http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mounts.htm">W.J. Markerink's Camera Mounts and Registers Page</a>

[lotsawa]

The answer is simply no. If you want to use FD lenses it might be better to get a FD body in the first place. OTOH even the FD long telephoto lenses tend to be expensive.

 

> am interested in nature/wildlife ... with a pretty small budget

 

I'm afraid these two don't go very well together ... But let's see what the experts say.

[terry_smith2]

These adapters can be found on EBay for less than $40.00. They are certainly better than nothing but you get what you pay for. These aren't the highly corrected EF teleconverters or something like that. You will get degraded optical performance compared to mounting the same lens on an FD body.

 

As far as a "cheap but good EF lens", it does not exist. The closest thing would be the old 100-300/5.6 L which goes for three to four hundred dollars or it's sister, the 50-200/3.5-4.5 L at about the same price. I suggest you pick up the cheaper Canon telezooms used, such as the 75-300 or the 80-200. Use these to build up your skills. After graduation you can move up to something better.

[nam_nguyen]

Least troublesome for you is using Nikon manual focus lenses with an adapter for EOS mount. The adapter is easily found on Ebay for $30. You mount the Nikon lens straight on, no additional glass, no loss of quality. Among the "budget priced" lenses are the Nikon 300 2.8 and Nikon 400 3.5. People are dumping these on Ebay for under a grand. I bought the 400 3.5 for $700. Works great with the EOS 1.4x too. Or you also have the choice of using Nikon's own 1.4x and 2x, which should be cheap.

[rog21]

Well, since I shoot a FD 500 4.5 L lens on my EOS-3 occasionally, maybe I can offer some insight into this for you.<br><br>

 

1) As others have said, it might be better to just pick up an inexpensive FD body if you want to shoot long lenses and especially if you want to shoot anything shorter than 300mm.<br><br>

 

2) If you are determined to use long FD lenses on an EOS body, try to find the genuine Canon FD-EOS adapter. You will know right away when looking on eBay or other sites if it's the genuine article as they sell for around $400.00+ and are VERY rare having been made to allow pro photographers with a large investment in long glass a way to make the transition to EOS a little easier. They were not available to the general public<br><br>

 

3) As you noted, you lose autofocus and auto diaphram control. Most people shoot these lenses wide open anyway as you lose a stop with the adapter to begin with. The adapter also multiplies your lens focal length by 1.26 (so my 500 4.5 is a 630 5.6 on my EOS. You set your body to aperture control and it will read 00 in the viewfinder but will expose properly.<br><br>

 

4) Yes, you do lose some quality, probably about the same as the 1.4x extender when used on FD lenses with an FD body. That said, you can get very acceptable (IMO) quality. Maybe Hans Martens will chime in here as he shot both a FD 300 2.8 and a FD 500 4.5 extensively with his EOS gear before getting the autofocus equivelent lenses.

His site is at: <a href=http://www.wildpicture.com/>this location.</a><br><br>

 

The bottom line for me is that the EF 500 4.0 is so expensive that I kept my FD lens out of financial sanity...<br><br>

 

Lastly, there is a good site at mir.com that covers what works and what doesn't with the Canon adapter (note: the non-canon $40.00 to $80.00 adapters on eBay render poor results by all accounts, don't bother with these). The address is: <a href=http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdeos.htm>Mir Site.</a><br><br>

 

Good luck!

[dganger]

Ok, i think with all that i have read i will just put some money up for a 70-300mm lens and practice with that. I can always save up for the more expensive EF lenses in the future. Thanks for all the help it was much appreciated.

[dganger]

I just got on ebay and tooled around a bit, what do you guys think of a Sigma 400mm f/5.6 APO Tele Macro HSM Lens. It looks pretty interesting and isn't a ton of cash to get. Just wondering if any of you have experience with this lens? Thanks again.

[John Crowe]

I'll add a few notes for future visitors. I have been using the Canon FD to EOS 1.26x converter on my 400mm f2.8 and 200mm f2.8 on film for a year and on DSLR for a month. The 1.26x was so much better than the 1.4x that I recently sold my T-90 and 1.4x-A. I had used the 400 primarily with the 1.4x but enlarging from the 1.26x was clearly better than the 1.4x, and I did not mind permanently losing 1/2 stop using the lens and converter on an EOS film camera and EOS DSLR.

 

 

I have switched all my other lenses to Nikon and use the cheap adapter mentioned here by someone else. I was able to buy a well used Nikon 14mm f2.8 for about 1/4 the price of a new Canon EF 14mm.

 

 

I have thoroughly tested the cheap FD to EOS converters as well with FD lenses from 17mm to 400mm. Wide open they are crap. Closed down two or three stops, in my case to f5.6, they have no noticeable optical effect.

 

 

I too highly recommend the Nikon solution and used Nikon glass is often better priced than Canon FD glass.

[wildpicture]

"Maybe Hans Martens will chime in here as he shot both a FD 300 2.8 and a FD 500 4.5 extensively with his EOS gear before getting the autofocus equivelent lenses."

 

Thanks Roger. Always nice to see your name is remembered by other forum members. :-)

 

Yes, I did use the orginal Canon FD-EOS converter a lot with the lenses you mentioned. That was on EOS-1n and EOS-1v bodies. Optically the converter worked great. At least as good as the FD1.4xA converter. I nearly always shot with the lens fully open or maybe half a stop closed. So if you get good results with a lens at full aperture, the converter must be pretty good. Besides getting a fast enough shutter speed (I used Velvia most of the time) the was another reason for shooting with the lens fully open. Otherwise you would either have stop down the aperture for each shot, or you would have to photograph (and manually focus) with a not so bright viewfinder. But as said, optically there is no problem in shooting at full aperture. If you need more DoF of course the optics are great too (maybe slightly better even), but the procedure of stopping down the lens is just a bit more cumbersome and takes more time.

 

A big drawback for me was the fact that the FD-EOS is just 1.26x whereas I was sued to having the 1.4x on my lens. Often the 500/4.5 with 1.26x (630mm) was just not enough. And you can not combine the 1.26x with another converter. That was one reason for me to start looking for an EOS replacement. Luckily I was able to sell my FD500/4.5L for the same price I had bought it for two years earlier. So finally I took the plunge and bought the 500/4 lens about 3,5 years ago. I must admit I was quite nervous about it. :-) But I never regretted it for a moment. Though sometimes I long for the small size and weight of the old FD500/4.5L lens.

[bennyboy]

From some examples I've seen posted I think most people would be amazed at what 'a loss of optical quality' equates to. And I mean this in a positive sense - <a href=http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/318418>take a look here</a><p>

 

Pay particular attention to the shots taken with the Hama adaptor.

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

One of these days i'll have to get around to offering EF mount conversions for FD lenses.I'd be innundated with work!

 

<P>Go for nikon option unless you have a particularly awsome FD lens you want to use