85L Mount Conversion

[dennis_kushner2]

Anybody do the Ed Mika mount conversion? I'm not too keen about breaking off the tab or sending out lens to have it

removed correctly as the lens too nice to sacrifice. Nor do I have any interest of using the 85L on M4/3 although the

OMD-5 interesting. Rear element probably too wide for a 42mm conversion which would be ideal. Any other

suggestions?

[John Crowe]

<p>You can google Jim Buchanan in Nova Scotia, Canada and have him permanently change the FD mount to an EF mount. </p>

<p>As far as I know the ED Mika do it yourself conversion kit is about half the price, or less considering shipping. </p>

<p>Personally, the only value I see for these lenses is for use on EOS DSLR bodies. So whether or not the mount change is permanent or not, does not matter. If one wants to collect and not use, then that is a different story, and one I fail to understand.</p>

<p>I just watched the Ed Mika video for this lens and it seems straight forward, once you remove the rear element. I have removed two Canon FD mounts, going further than what is needed for this lens adaptation, and managed to put them back in working order. I have also had to file/cut extra bits of metal from a Nikon 8mm f2.8 Fisheye and Canon FD 400mm f4.5, with no problems. </p>

<p>The tab in question to break off, is obviously made of a relatively thin and soft metal. Personally, if I thought it might not break off in the right spot, then I would simply remove the rear element, cover the rear of the lens with cloth/tape, and cut the tab off with a fine saw blade for an exacto type knife, and then file it smooth.</p>

<p>P.S. My goal is to perform the edmika conversion on an FD 50/1.2 L, 55/1.2 SSC Asph, 85/1.2 L or my ultimate preference, the 85/1.2 SSC Aspherical (which Ed is working on as we type). Then of course there is always the 800/5.6 L.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>Personally, the only value I see for these lenses is for use on EOS DSLR bodies. So whether or not the mount change is permanent or not, does not matter.If one wants to collect and not use, then that is a different story, and one I fail to understand.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p> With all due respect, John, this is a false dichotomy. Some of us actually use our FD lenses on FD bodies.</p>

[ed_mika]

<p>Jim Buchanan is actually in California (great guy too). He uses my kits for the 85L conversions (and does a great job of it too plus your lens gets cleaned and lubed to better than new condition).<br>

-Ed Mika</p>

[dennis_kushner2]

I'm getting toward the end of using the 85 L for any shooting. My experience of using manual lenses on digital is mixed, especially with fast f1.2 lenses wide open. Eyes wearing out & harder to focus on EOS

20D even with modified screens. I'll never own a FF EOS body so conversion not an option for me the

more I contemplate it. As a FD user since 1983, old habits hard to break after 20 years using 85L. Thanks

for all input.

[John Crowe]

<p>Sorry, perhaps I was a little rude. Before I sold my 4x5 camera almost two years ago I visited Henry's and Vistek in Toronto and not only could I not find 4x5 Velvia 50, I could not even find 35mm Velvia 50. I gave up on Canon FD about 6 years ago and not finding film that day just put the final nail in any thoughts I had entertained of using film in some way.</p>

<p>I seem to be wrong about someone in eastern Canada doing conversions. I know I contacted someone a year or so ago about it but can find no trace of that email or his website, or the info here on photo.net that lead me to him.</p>

<p>I have wanted an FD 85/1.2 only for those same 20 years so I guess a few more years won't hurt. </p>

<p> </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>Before I sold my 4x5 camera almost two years ago I visited Henry's and Vistek in Toronto and not only could I not find 4x5 Velvia 50, I could not even find 35mm Velvia 50. I gave up on Canon FD about 6 years ago and not finding film that day just put the final nail in any thoughts I had entertained of using film in some way.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have a friend who used to only shoot slide film; he loved Kodachrome in particular. He now uses an EOS-1Dx.</p>

<p>I use Kodak Ektar 100 when I'm shooting film, but I must confess that 95% of my shooting these days is digital. I guess we can lament all we want, but it ain't going to change reality.</p>

<p>I just wish that the dynamic range of my 5DII's sensor was a good as Ektar's.</p>

[dennis_kushner2]

More than likely, most of us shooting digital over 95% of the time. I also use Ektar 100 & Ilford XP2.

However I use mostly manual lenses on digital on Canon 20D, Oly E-330 & Pentax K10D. Unfortunately,

FD lenses still orphaned & F1N gets used for film along with Pentax LX & Leica M6. I have a converted

FD 17/4 that can be either 42 SM or EOS that I picked up 2 years ago. I don't mind shooting film as can

scan large files if needed ( Nikon good for somethings :D ) What I do like about manual lenses on digital

is that the fingerprint of cult lenses unique. Downside is sometimes hard to focus but worth it when you

nail it.

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>I stayed with FD lenses and I never wanted to try out an EF lens on an AF body, digital or on film. This lens rocks.</p>

<p>Raid</p>

[User_4136860]

<p>This is just another person trying to plunder the analogue technology that digital imaging has all but destroyed, so they can achieve their ends on the cheap, Canon FD lenses work best on Canon FD cameras</p>

[ed_mika]

<p>In response to Ben Myerson, As there are so few film shooters left, there is a dramatic over abundance of great FD lenses out there that can continue to be appreciated but rather in the digital world. As much as possible, respecting the vintage gear I ensure all my EOS solutions retain original imaging characteristics of the lens while retaining the ability to be reverted back to FD at some point in the future. Very few people have the patience or the money to afford to shoot film. My long term business goal is to develop a full frame sensor that fits into the envelope of a 35mm film canister allowing full original imaging systems to be used. -Ed Mika</p>

[dennis_kushner2]

Ed, hate to bust your bubble, but your goal of a FF sensor in a 35mm film canister was vaporware from

days of 2MB sensor chips. Only good for fooling us on April 1st. http://tinyurl.com/6jolwm6 latest version.

I may convert my 55 ASPH if no one does a Leica R conversion for use on M240. Noctilux performance

at 1/10 price & only FD worth doing R Mount. Reason why this lens will be the only FD I will keep for film

use with F1N. As long as 100 ISO still available & local lab processing.

[ed_mika]

<p>@Dennis K, I am well aware of both of those examples of the concept. I was on the preorder list back in 1999 for efilm by Silicone Film. I'm still holding out that it can be realistically done and perhaps I'll be the one to do it in time.</p>

[j._steven_ueckert]

<p>@ Ben Myerson "This is just another person trying to plunder the analogue technology that digital imaging has all but destroyed, so they can achieve their ends on the cheap, Canon FD lenses work best on Canon FD cameras"</p>

<p>What prevents the use of an EdMika EF mount adapted FD lens on an EOS film camera?</p>

<p>I have adapted both a FL 55/1.2 and FDn 400/4.5 with EdMika kits to the EF Mount. I love these lenses and regretted Canon never offering them in the EF mount. I find, in use, the EOS-3 about the same as the T-90, likewise, the 5D2 is not too dissimilar, in use, to the T-90.</p>