Need help with off brand lens for Canon digital camera

[klsphoto]

<p>I have a friend who has the following lenses which he used on a Canon AE-1 with some kind of adapter (unknown which one). He wants to go digital. Will these lenses fully function (autofocus & auto exposure) with something like a Rebel T3 or T4? <em>Hoya HMC Zoom, 35-105 mm #410339 & Tamron, 80-250 mm No. 355230. If not, what will be their limitations? I'd try them on my Canons but they are not local. Thanks for your help. </em></p>

[HenryUK]

<p>Tell him not to waste his time. You will not have autofocus or control of aperture. The adapters that are available degrade the image quality and have an additional crop factor of about 1.3.</p>

<p>Henry</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Hoya HMC is the name of the filter on the lens. You'll need to look under it to see what the lens actually is.<br /> If an "adapter" was really used on the lenses on a Canon AE-1, then the lens mount could be almost anything.<br /> On the other hand, if the lenses are actually "FD" mount, the native mount of the AE-1, then they will NOT work on a modern EOS (aka EF-mount) digital camera. (There are some adapters with optics in them for the EOS mount, but trust me, this is not a very usable solution.)</p>

<p>Old prime lenses (just one focal length, such as 50mm) are often essentially the same as newer AF versions and are sometimes worth worrying about.<br /> Zoom lens (variable focal lengths), on the other hand, have benefited immensely from computer advances and old ones are not so good that it really pays to adapt them to newer digital cameras, as a general rule.</p>

[Michael R Freeman]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Hoya HMC is the name of the filter on the lens.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not necessarily. :-)</p>

<p>There is indeed a Hoya HMC 35~105mm lens. Regardless, I would agree that attempting to adapt any off-brand FD mount lens to a modern digital camera is a complete waste of time (and money).</p>

<p><img src="http://a248.e.akamai.net/origin-cdn.volusion.com/pv3sq.92cwu/v/vspfiles/photos/PLh35-2.jpg?1335290403" alt="" /> <img src="http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4138/4905399762_3aa7760680_n.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[klsphoto]

<p>As I suspected it doesn't sound like these lenses will work. I appreciate your quick responses and useful information. Now I get to help him build a whole new kit :-) Thanks so much. </p>

[alan_bryant1]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Tamron, 80-250 mm</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That one is probably a Tamron Adaptall mount lens. If so, it can be mounted on Canon EOS with a simple adapter. Adapters can be found on eBay for quite cheap - $15 or so. Look for "Tamron Adaptall EOS". These adapters contain no glass and do not degrade image quality.</p>

<p>However, as Henry points out, it will be an all-manual lens - manual focus, manual aperture, and perhaps not worth the trouble.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I remember the Hoya zooms and they are an interesting footnote. There wasn't many of them but were might be relabeled Tokina as they look similar and the two companies have worked closely for a long time. Back in the day they were said to be optically good and build like a tank. And the constant aperture F3.5 (rare even today) coupled with 35-105 range puts this lens into wee bazooka territory. I had a Nikkor 35-70 3.5 AI from the same era and it was huge and expensive.</p>

<p>No fun on EOS but cheap and easy to adapt to micro 4/3 (no glass needed) and I bet inexpensive FD adapters will show up for the EOS-M. On M4/3 it would have the field of view like a 70-200 in FF. I've used a few of my Nikkor primes on M4/3 for still life although I probably wouldn't bother with a zoom.</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>I disagree that "attempting to adapt any off-brand FD mount lens to a modern digital camera is a complete waste of time (and money)." It all depends on the lens. As for the adapters, I have two, each one has a removable glass element. True, they essentially work as about a 1.25x teleconverter, but I've determined, certainly to my satisfaction, that they do not degrade the image AT ALL at apertures of about f/3.5 or slower. Faster than that, you get into vignetting problems resulting in a sort of ghosting flare -- the faster the setting, the worse the flare. Keeping these limitations in mind, however, they can be very useable.</p>

<p>As for good aftermarket candidates, other than Tamrons, which are my personal favorites, but which also can be used with mounts that can be adapted to EOS cameras with no loss of infinity focus, the better Tokinas are good -- especially the legendary 17mm f/3.5 and 90mm macro. The Kiron-made 105mm macro, often seen as a Vivitar S1 or a Lester Dine, is another optic worth considering, even if it's in FD mount. And there are others. Like Angenieux, for example.</p>

[fmueller]

<blockquote>

<p>attempting to adapt any off-brand FD mount lens to a modern digital camera is a complete waste of time (and money)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That answer is spot on as far as it concerns the average newcomer to photography, whose goal it is to get the best possible images out of his/her DSLR without too much pain. On the other hand, it can certainly be an interesting project for a technology enthusiast or lens collector. </p>

<p>The disconnect arises because the former group tends to ask the question in forums like this one, while the latter tends to answer it.</p>

[klsphoto]

<p>That was my thoughts, exactly. Not something for a nubie to digital photography (or photography in general, as far as I know) to be fooling around with. I'm going to suggest a whole new set up for them. Any thoughts on suggesting the mirrorless route? Is that going to be the new technology? </p>

[alan_bryant1]

<blockquote>

<p>Any thoughts on suggesting the mirrorless route? Is that going to be the new technology?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'll defer to Roger over at LensRentals.com, who has written an excellent two-part essay on this subject. Part 1:<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/mirrorless-mirrorless-on-the-wall-part-i">http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/mirrorless-mirrorless-on-the-wall-part-i</a></p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Well, thanks for the correction on the Hoya. That was new to me.</p>

[Michael R Freeman]

<p>Until about a year ago, I didn't know they existed either. :)</p>

[Michael R Freeman]

<p>And perhaps this is more universally appropriate. ;-) :-)</p>

<p>Attempting to adapt <em>most</em> off-brand FD mount lens(es) to a modern digital camera is a complete waste of time (and money) <em>for most people</em>.</p>

[fmueller]

<blockquote>

<p>Any thoughts on suggesting the mirrorless route? Is that going to be the new technology?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is going a bit outside the scope of this forum, but in my personal opinion mirrorless is indeed the new technology. My prediction would be that electronic viewfinders will eventually supplant optical viewfinders in the same way that digital sensors have supplanted film. Arguably, the best way to put a viewfinder in a film camera was the mirror technology in an SLR. As electronic viewfinders improve, they will eventually become equal or better than viewfinders in SLRs. Getting rid of the mirror has many other advantages, predominantly the ability to make smaller and lighter cameras and lenses. </p>

<p>However, right now mirrorless technology is in the early developmental stage, which you can see by an abundance of mirrorless cameras with some type of substitute optical viewfinder. In my view these cameras show, that firstly the technology is not quite there yet, and also that some people fail to really grasp the concept. That doesn't mean the cameras out there already aren't capable of delivering great images, or can't be a lot of fun to use.</p>

<p>But for somebody like your friend who is used to the bright viewfinder of a manual focus SLR like the Canon AE-1, and is comfortable with the whole concept on an SLR camera and lens system, a DSLR would seem like the way to go.</p>

[klsphoto]

<p>Again, thank you all for your interest and expertise. Since my friends will be starting over from scratch (so to speak) I thought that they might want to try the latest technology, however it sounds like it's not quite ready for prime time. In the interim, I'm going to lend them one of my older DSLR bodies (Canon 20D) & a kit lens to see if they have enough interest in photography to make the investment & commitment that a DSLR (or any other technology) takes. I'm not sure how much the SLR was used in the past--it may have been inherited from a family member. </p>