a-1 body and lenses

[gwenyth_m]

<p>Hello all,<br>

I have a couple questions. First, I inherited a canon a-1, with several FD lenses. The 75-200mm, 20mm ( I believe both of these are 2.8), and a 50mm 1.8 SSC. I know that I can get the adapter to use them on my digital body, and I understand that I lose an fstop doing so. I do not entirely understand what I “gain”, as my camera body has the 1.6 cropped sensor, and the adapter give 1.25x I think- which I think changes the mm amount- but that still confuses me. (But it is also my understanding that you can take the glass out of the Bower adapter?) The 20mm wide angle has the metal ring around the mounting area- the other two don’t (not entirely what this means for these lenses)<br>

I am wondering what you can all tell me about my new, “old” camera. I would like to keep it, because I don’t think it is worth a whole ton of money. I don’t want the lenses to go to waste, even though I know they won’t be perfect on the digital body.</p>

[tom_cheshire]

<p>I think your 20mm may be a 28mm? But, if it really is a 20mm, then it is worth the most in your outfit. The "metal ring around the mounting area" is known as a breech lock mount. Later lenses had the 2nd type of FD mount without the collar. I think your 75-200mm may be f4.5 but if it really is f2.8 then it is worth something as well. As for the crop factor, others can explain digital better than me. However, it is my understanding the sensor, because of its size, "sees" at a narrower angle so, if a lens, any lens, sees at a narrower angle it has the effect of magnifying and that makes the lens act more like a "longer" lens or telephoto. So your 50mm (x1.6) comes out to something around 80mm in effect. And so on. If you need the user manual it is probably at Butkus or Canon (archives).</p>

[gwenyth_m]

<p>I'll upload a picture later. But it is definetly a 20mm. :-) Why the difference in worth with the two types of mounting? is the breechlock older and more tried & true? You are probably right about the 75-200. I'll double check and post again when I am home.</p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>I think the adapter has an optical element in it so that you can focus to infinity. You may end up w/ a macro only lens if you take it out. The A-1 is a perfectly good film SLR. By all means, throw a roll of film in it, drop it off at Walgreens or someplace similar, and $9 and 1 hr later check out the results.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Both FD and EOS (EF) bodies will accept a huge range of other lenses wtih adapters. Ironically, the big FAIL is to try to mount FD lenses on an EOS body. As said, it will not focus to infinity without optics and when you put a ca. $20 lens in between, how much of the superb quality of the original FD lens is relevant? If you want to shoot macro only, not a problem though, since many of the adapters allow the lens to be taken out.</p>

<p><br /> Canon themselves made a converter for the sports photographers at the time of transition, but those are now extremely rare, and very expensive when you can find one.</p>

<p>Shoot those FD lenses on your A-1, but when you go to shoot digital, that collection of lenses is not relevant to deciding what new AF system lenses and cameras you want to buy.</p>

<p>I went out and bought a Canon AE-1 Program and later a Canon T90 because the lenses for them are relatively cheap, and very nice to use - on an FD-mount camera. For digital, back in 2004 I turned from Nikon to Canon EOS, at least a little bit because I could use my old non-AI Nikon lenses on the Canons. Go figure.</p>

[SCL]

<p>Enjoy using the lenses on your A-1 body, and basically forget using them on a digital body unless it is something like a micro 4/3 which can accommodate the adapter and focus to infinity without the supplementary lens. Go to www.butkus.org and get a free copy of the camera manual for your camera, and donate $3 to him, it is well worth it. Go to www.mir.com for lots of info about both your camera and the history of and line of Canon FD lenses.</p>

[tom_cheshire]

<p>Yes, the breech style is the older style which many people prefer (like myself) but that doesn't make it better. The reason your 20mm is worth something is because it is a 20mm. An extreme wide angle compared to more common 35mm or 28mm wide angles.</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>One more thing to point out about the 1.6 crop factor that Tom mentions only briefly is not just how the effective focal lengths of all your lenses are extended, but how the desirability of wide-angle lenses is largely undermined. Your 20mm renders sweeping, expansive shots with a 35mm camera, but they become only so-so on a 1.6x crop sensor camera. Your 20mm's focal length becomes the equivalent of 32mm, which is just barely wide at all.</p>

<p>It sounds to me as if you've already acquired an FD-EOS adapter. I have one also, and I actually use it. But I use it mostly for telephotos when I have the corrective lens in place, where the extra length can be interesting. I too have a Bower brand unit. And I was actually surprised to discover that there was no optical degradation at all when I was shooting at f-stops of about f/3.5 and smaller. (I conducted rather extensive tests before I was convinced) Faster than about f/3.5, and I get sort of a blooming white flare, which I believe is caused by the narrow aperture of the adapter more so than the quality of the glass. The faster the aperture setting, the worse this flare becomes, such that shooting with fast FD lenses wide open on an EOS with one of these adapters is pointless. Unless one restricts oneself to macro work, of course. Or if one has a long tele that focuses past infinity, then there can be some usefulness there as well.</p>

 

[james_turner6]

<blockquote>

<p>I too have a Bower brand unit. And I was actually surprised to discover that there was no optical degradation at all when I was shooting at f-stops of about f/3.5 and smaller.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>FWIIW, I have posted a series of comparison shots on my <a href=" stream</a>, shot with an nFD 85mm f1.2L (using a Bower adaptor and focussed in LiveView) and an EF 85mm f1.8 on my 1Ds III @ ISO 100. The observant will see that they were not shot from <strong>precisely</strong> the same point and in fact there was about 1 hr 15 mins between the two "series". But a comparison of sorts is still possible.</p>

<p>The Flickr JPEGs were created in Lightroom using no changes to the default settings, other than crops for the cropped shots (duh). Close up, the performance of the FD+adaptor combination looks inferior (to me), though stopped down to f8 the FD is roughly on a par with the EF lens at f2. The general look and feel of the uncropped pictures is at least on a par, at any rate stopped down.</p>