larry h.

Thank you everyone for your answers. You've given me much to think about., especially whether the 14 millimeter lenses were designed for full frame

cameras (I think they were).

 

I guess my final question is does anyone know for *certain* if Nikon F mount (pre-AI, AI, or AIS) lens to Minolta MC/MD mount adapters were or are still

being made? I think that if there's any chance at making my original plan work, that will be my secret weapon.

Cory, for a second I thought you had something there. But then I

realized that what I would need is a Canon EOS EF lens to Minolta MC/MD body adapter. I actually have a lens less adapter that I bought, I think, from someone on this forum (maybe Frank Mueller?), that is a very very thin adapter but it still would kill infinity focus at 7 mm of thickness on a 14 mm lens.

 

So I guess I wasn't really clear about what I want or need. The

register distance for MC/MD and EF lenses are almost identical:

Canon EF lenses have a register distance of 44.0 mm and Minolta

MC MD lenses have a register distance of 43.72 mm. So any

adapter is going to be way too thick to work.

 

Theoretically, any lens with a register distance greater than is

needed by a camera body can be adapted without a lens getting in

the way. So, I think my best bet is to find a Nikon lens to Minolta

MCMD body adapter. Nikon's register distance is 46.5 mm. That's

why that Nikon lenses are easily adapted to Canon EOS bodies. I

have one of those adapters now, attached to a 20 mm Nikon lens

which gives me an effective 32 mm lens on my cropped camera

body, i.e. not so wide. A 14 mm lens by Samyang that would

become a 22.4 mm lens on my Canon EOS body, but most

importantly would be an amazing 14 f2.8 lens on my Minolta body.

 

So does anyone know where I could get a Nikon lens to Minolta

MC MD camera adapter? I doubt that they're made new now. But I

imagine someone must have made them way back in the day.

 

Thanks again for your help. Larry

 

PS - one of my main uses for an ultra wide lens will be for astrophotography, so infinity focus will be important.

I haven't been on this forum for a while. It's great to see that it's still

going strong.

 

Recently I've been ogling the new lenses being offered by Bower,

Pro optic, Rokinon, and Samyang. (I *think* that they're all identical,

but for all I know, they may have different quality coatings or

mechanics or something. Anyone else know about that?) In

particular, I'd love to put the 14 mm f 2.8 lens on my Minolta SRT

102.

 

I also use the canon EOS system. I know you cannot put a Minolta

MD lens on a Canon EOS camera because the register

distances are incompatible. But theoretically that should mean that

you should be able to put a Canon lens on a Minolta MD/MC

camera, assuming you had the correct mechanical adapter and a

way to change the aperture.

 

So do any of you know if such a mechanical adapter exists to put a

B, P, R, or S lens with a Canon EF mount onto my beloved SRT 102?

Those companies also make most of their lenses in Nikon, Pentax

K, Olympus 4/3rds and Sony/Minolta AF mounts. Are any of those

adaptable to Minolta MC/MD? My first choice among those is

Nikon, because it is also adaptable to Canon EOS.

 

Thanks!

Larry

<p>Just to clarify, yes, I definitely know that salamanders are amphibians, not reptiles. My reference to Douglas was that many people interested in reptiles are also interested in 'herps' (including amphibians) in general.</p>

<p>Hi Greg. I hope I'm not too late with this response for you to see it, but...</p>

<p>Following up on this statement of yours, "I'm particularly interested in finding locations in the southeast US," and Douglas's post, are you aware that the Southern Appalachians, and particularly the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, are *THE* worldwide hot spot for salamanders! Where do you live?</p>

<p>Thanks everyone. I've borrowed a friend's 70-200/2.8 IS and 2x II teleconverter. The two really do not do well together at all. Comparing the 70-200 mkI + 2x mkII vs the 70-200 mkII + 2x mkIII on the-digital-picture.com, to my eye, there's no contest whatsoever. The latter combo is far, far better. In fact, it's almost as good as the 100-400 by itself, but gives you more flexibility.</p>

<p>So, my friend & I will just have to rent the 2x III to test ourselves. I know a LOT of the improvement has to do with the new lens itself, and the lens and 2x III were optimized for each other. But upgrading the TC is a WHOLE lot cheaper than upgrading the lens if there's any improvement to be gained at all.</p>

<p>Has anyone here tested this combination? Does anyone know of a reputable review online that does? I'm wondering if there's anything to be gained by upgrading the teleconverter only w/o spending big bucks for upgrading the lens. How about the 1.4x III as well?</p>

<p>I tried searching, but could never get the search terms to be specific enough. Thanks.</p>

<p>I am confusing myself... I know I understood this in the past, but can't wrap my brain around it now.</p>

<p>Shouldn't it be possible to adapt older short focus flange distance manual focus lenses to EF-S bodies even if they cannot be adapted w/o losing infinity focus on EF mount bodies? For instance, if it's possible to mount Minolta MC/MD Rokkor lenses onto 4/3 format cameras, why not EF-S?</p>

<p>This shot ain`t perfect by any means, but I couldn't resist the tongue action. ;-)<br>

Besides, it was the first cheetah I'd ever seen (at the St. Lois Zoo on Oct. 26).<br>

Sorry I haven't been active this fall, but I just started a PhD program (in my early 50s) and, besides having no time, I didn't have decent photo editing software on my new laptop till recently.<br>

Canon 60D, 55-250mm @ 229mm, 1/160s, f/5.6 & ISO 400.</p><div></div>

<p>Linda, you said, "I am a senior with a bit of arthritis in my hands, I have a good tripod that I will use." I am not quite the same age (early 50's), but I too have arthritis AND a condition that causes a tremor. So, if there EVER may be a situation where you'll be hand-holding the lens (e.g., portraits and/or, like I do, hiking with family & friends and wanting to shoot the Turk's Cap Lily that happens to be blooming), IS will come in VERY handy.</p>

<p>Two other lenses to consider: The older Sigma non-OS 150mm/2.8 HSM macro and the newer 150mm/2.8 OS HSM macro, both of which have stellar reputations. To me, losing 30mm in length (16.7%) is worth gaining 2/3 of a stop. Be aware, though, that the OS model is a lot heavier, bigger and more expensive than the non-OS model.</p>

<p>Finally, when I rented the non-OS Sigma 150mm and compared it to adapted manual focus 90mm and 55mm macro lenses, I found the 150mm simply too long to use indoors on a tripod shooting a subject on the floor about the size of a dollar bill. So, if you do choose the longer focal lengths (150/180mm), you may find yourself also wanting a 50/55/60mm macro as well. (I've had my eye on a Tamron 60mm/2.0 that can sort of replace both my 50mm/1.4 and my 85mm/1.8.)</p>

<p>Hope this helps. -- Larry</p>

<p>Red-Footed Boobies are the least common of the three booby species in the Galapagos Islands. They are only found on Isla Genovesa (aka Tower Island), and *I think* a couple of the smaller islands in the north. I had seen the Blue-Footed and Nazca (Masked) Boobies in 1990, but not the Reds. Next week, I hope to post a shot of the Blue-Footed Booby mating dance, featured on my son's T-shirt that says, "I Love Boobies."</p>

<p>Manual Exposure, Auto ISO, Evaluative Metering. F/7.1, 1/160s, ISO 250. 100-400L lens @ 170mm.</p><div></div>

<p>Something a lot of people don't mention that is of major concern to me is trying to keep a consistent set of filter sizes on the lenses I buy. I actually use three now (58mm, 67 & 77), but I'd prefer to keep it at two or even one.</p>

<p>Another set of questions are a) are you ok with buying used lenses, b) will you consider lenses based on decent quality yet somewhat out-of-date designs, c) will you consider good-quality 3rd party lenses, d) does your coupon(s) limit you to a particular store, and e) do you happen to live in the US? If the answers are yes, no and yes, look into buying from keh.com (aim for 'bargain' rated lenses that include the hood in the selling price). So, some other **options** not yet mentioned (none really better than the others) are:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>52mm filter size: Canon 28mm/2.8 lens + keep your 50mm/1.8 lens + either the original 100mm/2.8 macro lens, or the 135mm/2.8 soft-focus lens (least expensive option). Note that all these are fixed focal length, non-USM, non-IS lenses.<br /><br /></li>

<li>58mm v.1: Canon 24mm/2.8 lens (non-USM) + 50mm/1.4 lens USM (sell or return your 50mm/1.8) + either the 85mm/1.8 USM, 100mm/2.0 USM or 100mm/2.8 macro USM (make sure you get the USM and non-L 58mm filter model) lens. All these lenses are non-IS.<br /><br /></li>

<li>58mm v.2: Canon 24/2.8 + 50/1.4 + 70-300mm/4.0-5.6 USM IS zoom lens.<br /><br /></li>

<li>52mm + 67mm: Canon 24-85mm/3.5-4.5 USM lens + keep your 50/1.8 + 70-200mm/4.0L IS USM zoom lens. This option will run over your budget. You could also save money by buying the non-IS 70-200/4, but once you get this long of a telephoto, IS becomes more important.<br /><br /></li>

<li>52mm + 72mm: Keep your 50/1.8 + Canon 28-135mm/3.5-5.6 IS USM zoom (VERY inexpensive -- a good temporary measure while you figure out what you REALLY want). Also, if you go a little over budget, you can add a Canon 20mm/2.8 USM and a Canon 200mm/2.8L USM (no IS), then save up for Canon 1.4x and 2x teleconverters AND a decent tripod.<br /><br /></li>

<li>52mm + 77mm v.1: Canon 20-35mm/3.5-4.5 USM lens + keep your 50/1.8 + either a new Tamron 70-200/2.8 zoom (no USM or IS) or a Sigma 70-200/2.8 zoom (USM equivalent, but no IS -- see <br />http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-EOS-Non-Mfg-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-CE09999102840R?r=FE)<br /><br /></li>

<li>52mm + 77mm v.2 (over your budget but maybe worth saving for): Canon 17-40mm/4.0L USM lens + keep your 50/1.8 + either a new Tamron 70-200/2.8 zoom (no USM or IS) or a Sigma 70-200/2.8 zoom (USM equivalent, but no IS)<br /><br /></li>

<li>52mm +77mm v.3: As many others have suggested, probably your best bet for the time being -- keep your 50/1.8 + Canon 24-105/4.0L IS USM.</li>

</ol>

<p>Sorry, I'm ending here. I've spent way too much time that I don't have trying to brainstorm ideas.</p>

<p>This question is prompted by a comment by Tom Mann on Marco Palladino's thread below. My question basically shows my ignorance...</p>

<p>How do you read Exif data on photos posted on photo.net or any other site? In particular, how do you find focus distance? I cannot even find focus distance while looking at Exif data on my own images in Canon's Zoombrowser software. In fact, when I convert and/or shrink a photo to post on photo.net, I seem to lose most Exif data on my own computer. Thanks, Larry</p>

<p>Galapagos Penguin. 100-400L IS Zoom @ 400mm. Manual Exposure/Auto ISO. 1/250s, f/5.6, ISO 400.</p><div></div>

<p>This is not really a question, but a recommendation. It came to mind because of Doug's question about binoculars, and like his question, closely related to nature photography. Also like his question, moderators please feel free to delete this thread if appropriate.</p>

<p>So, I read in Outdoor Photography Magazine just before taking a trip to Ecuador that Kenko has released updated versions of the telephoto lens/spotting scope eyepiece adapters that they made years ago. I bought one with the intent to use it when trying to spot wildlife in the rainforest for photography, but the guide had one we were using. Anyway, I know Kenko makes them in Nikon & Canon mounts, but maybe others, too.</p>

<p>The adapters they made years ago did not have a good reputation, but the one I bought worked great with the Canon 100-400L zoom. Maybe the eyepiece is a new, better design or maybe it's the much better quality of zoom lenses vs. 25 years ago.</p>

<p>The only time I got to use it was looking at the Southern skies at night (10,000' elevation and clear, dark skies also helped). My feeble attempts at wide-field astrophotography taught me that the acid test for testing a lens is photographing point-source stars. Well, I was very impressed! The Omega Centauri globular cluster (and lots of other beautiful southern objects) looked great, but then again, I'd never seen it before. Sometime soon, I hope to set it up next to my TeleVue Ranger 70mm scope for a real comparison. But, it sure was nice not having to take a separate telescope as I have had to in the past.</p>

<p>I'll try to use it on birds in the yard in the next couple of days. I'll report back if anyone is interested. -- Larry</p>

<p>My observations:</p>

 

<ol>

<li><em><strong>Maximum Auto ISO setting up to 6400.</strong></em> This helps in two ways. First, it gives me an extra stop when I absolutely need it. Second, it can be used as a sort of a workaround for something I would have wished for -- some sort of user-selectable IS-awareness setting. For instance, if a 200mm lens (x1.6 = 320) has a rated 3-stop IS capability, I wish there were a way to set the camera so that it allows for a conservative 2-stop shutter speed advantage in AV mode used in conjunction with Auto ISO, i.e., 1/80s in the above example. As it is, the 7D has 'ruined' some of my pictures because it raised ISO two stops instead of lowering SS two stops. (The camera insisted on 1/320s, f/2.8, ISO 2500 when shooting a Resplendant Quetzal Bird in dark rainforest cover when I would have preferred 1/80s, f/2.8 & ISO 640. The action was too fast to fiddle with the controls.) #2 below is related.<br /><br /></li>

<li><em><strong>No EC capability in Manual/Auto ISO mode</strong></em> -- as Keith mentioned. It would be nice to be able to set a 3-shot burst of exposure bracketing in Manual/Auto ISO (thereby bracketing through ISO). Set in combination with high speed drive, it causes the camera to take exactly three shots within a quarter second. AV/Auto ISO brackets by varying SS, TV seems to bracket different ways based on light level.<br /><br /></li>

<li><em><strong>RAW+JPEG Buffer Increase</strong></em>. Far more important **to me** than the RAW-only buffer increase (+67%) is the increase in burst limit in RAW+JPEG mode (+183% from 6 to 17). Where did someone see the part about needing a 128 GB card? I see the blurb about UDMA 7 running at 6 speeds, but not the size limitation. (BTW, what speeds are UDMA 6 & 7?) -- Never mind. For other folks wondering the same thing, look at the EOS 7D Firmware Compaison Page someone referenced above.<br /><br /></li>

<li><em><strong>File Name Customization</strong></em>. Nice to have but not huge for me. I file my photos by date and my cameras are nowhere near each other in file name number.<br /><br /></li>

<li><em><strong>GPS</strong></em>. I don't much follow Nikon camera features, but isn't GPS built-in (for free w/no bulky attached device) on their prosumer models?</li>

</ol>

<p>Rest in Peace, Lonesome George.</p>

<p>Lonesome George was the iconic symbol of the Galapagos Islands. Discovered on Pinta Island in 1972, he was thought to be about 100 years old at the time. He was the last surviving member of the Pinta subspecies of the giant Galapagos Tortoises. Efforts to have him mate with two first-generation hybrid subspecies, in order to preserve his genes, were unsuccessful. He died of unknown causes earlier this week. Always remember: Extinction Is Forever.</p>

<p>For a decent in depth article (beyond a mere press release), see: <br>

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/18604240</p>

<p>If you've ever seen the movie ET, you've seen Lonesome George. Thus, he was loved by millions more people than ever had the chance to see him in person. I thank my lucky stars that I got to see him twice, once with my wife in 1990 and again earlier this month, on June 2, 2012, this time also with my 18-year old twins. One of life's unforgettable memories.</p>

<p>Shooting data: Manual Exposure/Auto ISO. 1/160s, f/7.1, ISO 320, evaluative metering, Canon 100-400L lens at 400mm.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I tried a variety of solutions, none of them satisfactory. The key was that I also did not want to have to carry a 4th size CPL filter (72mm + 58, 67 & 77) on a trip. I figured a 72mm -> 77mm step up ring would help matters, but it didn't really.</p>

<p>I tried a telescoping rubber hood, but it vignetted at 15mm. My son helped me surgically remove the rubber part from the metal part, which eliminated the vignetting, but made the hood just plain unworkable. I also tried an ingenious rotating, screw-in hard plastic petal-shaped hood (by Kalt?), but it too was too long and caused vignetting. I was all ready to sand it down to the proper length when I realized that the major use I had in mind (use with a CPL filter) would cause the petals to rotate, also messing up the photo.</p>

<p>You know, Canon for a while was standardizing on just three filter sizes -- 58, 72 & 77mm -- with a few legacy 52mm lenses. Now, they've added 67 & 82mm sizes. So, if anyone can recommend a good plastics fabricator, I've got an idea to make some money.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your suggestions. David, in particular, I regret not returning to this thread earlier, but I just returned from a vacation in Ecuador. The origin of my question was that the rainforest lodge I was going to be staying at (Sacha Lodge -- highly recommended) has a Mariposarium (Casa de las Mariposas?). As it turned out, though, our busy schedule while there caused me to prefer taking a siesta around dusk rather than shoot the butterflies. (We were always out and about by dawn.)</p>

<p>A few years ago, I did fairly well at the butterfly house at Callaway Gardens, GA, with an option no-one mentioned -- a 70-200 with a Canon 500D diopter. That was following Bob Atkins's advice that diopters tend to work better on zooms whereas tubes tend to work better on primes. The advantage was that I got used to approaching the flutterby no farther away than 0.5 meter (~20") from the front of the lens, then used the zoom function to change magnification.</p>

<p>This time, I was hoping to take advantage of both the 100L macro's improved IS system, as well as the 7D's ability to microfocus rapidly using macro (Canon only?) lenses. Sigma's 150/2.8 OS macro really would be better, but again, it is so big (as are Canon's white zooms), that it may scare away the prey. As usual, there's never a perfect answer. But, I think another trip to Callaway Gardens may be in order.</p>

<p>Thanks again for everyone's help. -- Larry</p>

<p> Transit of Venus from near Volcan Chimborazo in Ecuador. June 5, 2012, 5:33:27 pm local time. Coordinates: 1 degree 19 minutes 03 seconds South, 78 degrees 53 minutes 04 seconds West, elevation 13,162 feet. Canon 60D, 100-400L @ 400mm, 1/125 s, f/7.1, ISO 320, manually focused using LCD screen zoomed in. Thousand Oaks Solar Filter.</p>

<p>The original was a little more orange in color, but I do not have good editing software with me. This image was merely cropped (hopefully) to exactly 700x700 pixels. I hope it comes out OK.</p><div></div>

<p>Quick question and hopefully a quick answer...</p>

<p>I have an EF 100mm/2.8L IS Macro. My goal is to be able to catch butterflies on the wing. For this, the longer the focal length the better, even at the cost of some aperture and sharpness. Thus, I'd like to add a 1.4x teleconverter to the lens. (Using a Canon 1.4x and a short extension tube "works" but has such a short max focus distance to make it useless on butterflies.)</p>

<p>I have a Kenko-Tokina 1.4x Teleplus Pro 300 converter (the higher quality one). It works great on my 40D and an 85mm/1.8 lens to add a little focal length. Now I have a 7D and the 100mm macro (I also still have the older combo) and hoped that it would be ideal for butterflies. Well, the 7D/macro/1.4x combo struggles to focus at all. In addition, the 7D/85mm/1.4x also struggles to focus as does the 40D/macro/1.4x combo. The 40D/85mm/1.4x still works fine and makes a great combo.</p>

<p>Any ideas? There used to be a trick to make slower f/5.6 autofocus with TCs. What was that and would it work here? For that matter, does it still work with newer cameras/lenses or has Canon programmed in something to prevent it from working now?</p>

<p>(BTW, the new Sigma 150mm/2.8 OS HSM Macro would be ideal for butterflies, but Sigma added so much weight and size to the OS lens over it's predecessor that it has become useless, even if I wanted to spend the money. Similarly, what was Sigma thinking when they made the APS-C 50-150mm/2.8 OS HSM lens as big as and very nearly as heavy as both the Canon 70-200/2.8L IS II *and* its own equivalent 70-200 lens?)</p>

<p>Thanks everyone. I may just go get an EW-78B now. Also, Geoff, do I understand you correctly that you use the 24-105L hood on the 10-22? If so, I'm there, too! I use an old 17-35L hood on the 10-22 because the proper one is huge and looking at the angles at which it's mounted, it can't be any more effective than the 17-35L hood. If the 24-105L hood does not vignette at all, it would be MUCH more effective. -- Larry</p>

<p>I just had another thought: If the adapter is purely mechanical, would any of the adapters for other brand MF lenses also work for auto-aperture control and/or focus confirmation?</p>

<p>Thanks everyone. I suspected that the focusing screens were different, but I was not sure. KEH had two UC-21 split-image/microprism focusing screens available (EX-$33 & BGN-$19) that I thought might be worth a try. I have the 45mm/2.8 manual focus lens and just ordered the 150mm/3.5 lens now that the prices have settled back down after the initial rush when the 645D came out. They're still not as low (BGN-$126 now vs. $90 something pre-645D). The 150/2.8 was what I wanted, but its price, when available, is still sky high. But since the AF confirmation works, it's not too bad. My eyes just won't work focusing on the matte screen. Was there ever a 645N split-image/microprism screen made?</p>

<p>The question about the mount adapter was actually based on the possibility of getting a 67 165mm/2.8 lens and adapting it to the 645N. But at about $250 for the original pentax adapter, it's not worth it. Out of curiosity, though, has anyone done this? Any other 67 lenses that might be worthwhile using? I can understand how a purely mechanical adapter works in manual and aperture-priority exposure (as with my EOS cameras), but not how it would work with program or shutter-speed priority.</p>

<p>BTW, here's the link to the 3rd party adapter:<br>

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Adapter-for-Pentax-PT-67-6x7-lens-to-Pentax-645-PT645-/260779199331?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3cb7a6cb63 </p>

<p>Thanks again, Larry</p>

<p>Anyone know whether the EW-78B lens hoods for the 28-135 IS lens will physically fit or vignette on the EF-S 15-85 lens? They are both -78 hoods, made for wide angle (28mm vs 24mm effective, and Canon hoods tend to be too conservatively designed). I can get a used EW-78B for a lot less than a new EW-78E. Thanks in advance.</p>