philip_wilson

<p>I also shoot straight architecture in the main but posted the miniature images when i was testing long lenses on a mirex adapter (several were shot from the top of a mountain). The architectural and non distorted TS images are under the other sections - e.g. Italy or Landscapes.</p>

<p>Lenses have got a lot bigger over time as electronics (AF and controls) have been added. If you compare the old Canon FD 50 F1.4 to the new EF 50 F1.4 it is considerably smaller (an better built). As they do not need to deal with the space required for a mirror box lenses designed for mirrorless bodies should be smaller than SLR lenses. If you put a Leica or Zeiss 50 F1.4 (in Zeiss' case it is an F1.5) next to the SLR lenses they are much smaller. Being smaller does not make them lighter and indeed MF lenses are usually more solid feeling than their AF counterparts (as the mechanical parts need to be designed for a lot of use).<br> I would differ on battery life to some extent with Edward as my Leica M240 has excellent battery life and while not as good as my EOS 1 series bodies betters my 5 series for battery life. In terms of response I would generally agree that mirror less respond slower than a good SLR but of course I am comparing expensive top of thee range Canon SLRs with my Nikon 1 and M43 bodies which are a lot cheaper. I have not shot Canon's consumer models but the difference may be a lot less. By the way the Nikon 1 has very good and quick AF for the price. It lacks the flexibility of a top SLR AF but seems to focus quite quickly. Of course the small sensor and slow lens makes focusing a lot easier on the nikon. A 100mm F5.6 lens on this sensor (about 270mm equivalent) has a Depth of field of 9 feet 6 inches whereas my Canon with a 300 F2.8 at F2.8 has a DoF of 1 foot 5 inches at the same distance. Despite the the Canon will focus faster. Of course it is a $12000 Rig verses a $700 rig I was given.</p>

I will say that while I love my M240 I think I prefer the simpler handling and look of the older. CCD bodies (M8 and 9). The older bodies allow you to almost ignore the rear LCD and digital bits whereas the M240 does not. I spend a lot more time looking at the back of the M240 than I do my M8. In terms of the. CCD I find there is something more film like about the colours and image than with the CMOS of my M240. That said the M240 produces more accurate colours, is much better at higher ISO but shadow noise is not as pleasant.

A mode is quite useful in casual situations where you simply point, focus and shoot. With the M240 you have great bracketing and so for situations like weddings or parties using A with a bracket of 1 ev each way can provide a lot of convenience. Put a wide angle lens on roughly refocused and are f5.6 or f 8 and you can even get good shots when you had the camera to someone whose photography experience is limited to an iPhone

Tim. The lens works fine on digital but there are three challenges. First digital cameras are not as easy to focus manually as the old film bodies. The viewfinders are designed for AF and even the optical ones are dimmer ( I would suggest my EOS 1 series bodies are about a stop darker than the new F1). EVF and LCD approaches work well zoomed but I find they are not as accurate as I would like with very shallow DOF like the 85 produces at f1.2. If you use a PC dies play and live view there is no focusing issue but this is a rather restrictive set up. Secondly I find that light leakage into the lens can cause a loss of contrast. I have spent some time trying to understand what happens but this is what I have found. Shooting towards the sun you can get a situation where the sun is outside the field of view of the camera but inside that of the lens - especially with smaller sensors. If you examine a digital lens it is coated with an anti reflective coating on the film sensor side of the rear element. Film lenses like the FD ones do not have this coating. I suspect light comes in through the lens, reflects off the sensor ( film is a lot less reflective) , then off the rear lens element and back onto the sensor causing a loss of contrast. This is not a major issues and is only when the sun is writhing the viewing angle of the lens ( or another strong light source). It just takes care to avoid the situation The third issue is that I think the sensor ( especially full frame digital) is a lot more critical of the lens than film was. The film has a finite depth whereas the sensor is a surface. Thus any minor issues with field curvature are not noticed on film but can be seen on digital. In the real world this is usually not an issues as for most common shots the edges of an image taken at f1.2 will be well out of focus. If your hobby is shooting test charts at F1.2 however then you will see lens imperfections on digital. By the way Gabriel I think you will really enjoy the lens but to get the most from it buy a film body with the weight and feel to match the lens. Leica excepted I find that modern bodies ( even to some extent EOS) lack the tactile qualities of the old film bodies. The best handling FD body is the T90 (in my opinion) but the one with the best feel is the first F1 body although you do need to buy a battery conversion for about $20. I still love to shoot the F1 with the 85 f1.2 just for the feel and the simplicity.

<p>They just estimate the F stop based on the light the see through the lens. You set the camera to A and it will chose a shutter speed based on the light the meter sees (remember the Leica lens is stopped down all the time unlike an SLR lens). If you look at the EXIF data you can see this as the F stop is quite often not the one you shot at - indeed it may not be an F stop the lens can have!<br> For clarity the lens coding is not electronic - in essence the body looks for whet reflections on a coded lens with photo sensors - thus you can "code" non Leica lenses with a sharpie! although the ink can rub off. With some CV / LTM adapters this can cause issues as the camera can think there is no lens attached.</p>

<p>Rangefinder lenses (even the CV ones) are very good - in general better than SLR lenses which have a design compromise as they need to make room for the mirror box. At longer focal lengths this is not an issue but for wide angles this is a big deal. The problem with them is that the rear element of the lens gets very close to the sensor and can cause a number of issues. Initially Leica said that this meant a full frame digital body was not possible. They make full frame now but they have a specially adapted sensor to take advantage of this fact. Except for optical coating issues the good FD lenses are still excellent and clearly better built than the newer AF lenses. In general (and I do not use Sony lenses) the newer mirror less lenses are not as good.</p>

<p>I still love this lens - my favorite FD lens. I have even shot it on Leica M (although focusing is tricky) and on EOS (with the Ed Mika adapter you can focus at portrait distances with care. Wide open it is not especially sharp on digital compared to modern lenses but on film it is fantastic. The thickness of the film seems to give some tolerance to field curvature etc... If you do shoot it on digital it is the edges where you have issues - that said I love the way this lens draws. I keep debating the EOS version but the AF does not work well on this lens. With the exception of Leica M and the Fuji GX680 180 F3.2 (about 80mm F1.2 equivalent) this is an amazing portrait lens. <br> I think you shoot on NEX so be aware it is very hard to focus wide open base on my experiences with Leica M, EOS and M4/3. At least on my bodies the focus peaking (on those that have it - even Leica) is not good enough and live view / EVF is not really sharp enough unless you subject is very still and you use a tripod. When I use the lens on digital I sway slightly forwards and backwards and focus bracket. When I get to my main PC I will post an image taken wide open with this lens. The other great lens (but a bit long for digital) which is not L series but should be is the 135 F2. By the way if you do get the 85 F1.2 try and get the lens hood - especially if you use it on digital. The front element captures a lot of light and reflections between the sensor and the rear element can cause a loss of contrast and IQ. This is especially true if the digital body is a smaller sensor as the light source may be out of the shot but still be seen by the lens.<br> My comments seem negative but this is a fantastic lens - I have owned two (I dropped the first one!)</p>

<p>Pity the 24 F2.8 pancake is not a full frame lens. I quite like the 40 and it is ridiculously cheap given it's IQ. I wonder how much of an improvement the new 400DO is. I have shot the older one and quite liked it (but went down the 300 F2.8 route).</p>

<p>Yes I use M645 lenses quite a bit on a Mirex adapter. The set up works very well although exposure needs care. While the Mirex adapter is expensive (and you have to wait a while to get it from Germany) it is exceedingly well made and worth the price. If you have the M645 lenses it is a very attractive option (even if you don't it is still very cheap). I have posted a number of images over the years on Mirex and M645 lenses on this site and I am very happy with the results.<br> The lens I use most is the 35mm (which Canon made as TS for FD but not EOS) and it works very well. I have also used the 45mm, 55mm and 80mm (I have even played with the 120, 150 and longer lenses and posted a few images here). There is no focal length change with the M645 lenses and the IQ is much better than you may expect. There is a (myth) than MF lenses are lower resolution but I have not found this to be the case. The 25mm and 45mm lenses are a bit soft at the edges (the 35mm can only take think filters / filter holders when shifted) but still very good. The 55 and especially the 80 are excellent. I even played with the 500 F5.6 and found it was remarkably sharp (as good as some L series lenses when used without a tilt shift). <br> Interestingly I am not alone in this observation SLR lens tests found the 35 and 45 to be soft but in a group test (not available for free on their site any more) they found the 80 F1.9 to be about as good as the Canon 85 F1.2 and the Zeiss 85 F1.4! They were not testing in a tilt or shift mode. This article may help http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/lenses/m645-shift.html<br> here is a link to Mirex http://www.mirex-adapter.de/tilt_shift_adapter.htm<br> I was able to use the adapter for longer lengths and just buy the 17 F4 (which makes a 24 with care and the 1.4x TC). Since I already had the M645 system from years ago this was a cheap solution. While the Mirex adapter is expensive I strongly recommend it as it is remarkably well engineered and is not much more fiddly to use than Canon's own lenses.</p>

<p>I did the same experiment as JDM (and my 17 has done a lot of traveling on planes and up mountains). I found no lateral shift.</p>

<p>I like the 17 F4 it is one of the better Cannon FD ultra wide lenses. The other lens I like a lot (although not as wide) is the 24 F2. The 24-35 and 20-35 zooms are not as good as the primes. With the FD lenses the F2 versions of the 24 and 35 are sharper (slightly) than the F1.4 versions. getting to very wide lenses like the 17 may cause pink edges and the like on your Sony digital. I know on my Leica M 240 if I have sunlight shining across the front element of my 17 F4 or my fisheyes I have to take a lot of care. While the Sony is not full frame it does not have the sensor design of the Leica which allows light to hit the pixels at high incident angle. Other lenses you may want to consider for the Sony are the Voigtlander M mount 12mm and 15mm lenses. These lenses are very sharp (much better than the Canons) and not that expensive. I am not sure how well they work on the Sony given the sensor design. I would suggest that the Internet will help you here.</p>

<p>I have not tried my 35-105 on my M240 yet. This is probably because I have the Leica R 35-70 F4 which I have used instead. The Leica 35-70 F4 is a very great lens (better on my EOS bodies than the Canon 24-70 F2.8). This is to be expected as it was always regarded as a close second to the F2.8 R zoom but at a fraction of the price. If you have not tried the 50 F3.5 on your M do so as this is a great lens. The other lenses I like using on my M are the 35 Tilt shift and the Fisheyes (15 and 7.5) ad there is no Leica equivalent of these lenses.</p>

<p>Robin - I have not used the new 24 IS but the TS is remarkable. I did set up the digital picture test of the two lenses and the TS lens is still sharper but of course considerably more expensive. Here is the DP side by side</p> <p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=788&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=486&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0</p>

<p>Rick on the FL 19 F 3.5 I would be very careful. It may be OK on NEX but I know that my Contax G wide angle lenses (21 and 28mm) will touch the sensor of M4/3. You have an extra 6mm of Flange distance with NEX so you may be OK but take care.</p>

<p>Paul - if your question is how do you use FD lenses on a film body it is the same as digital but the issue of Flange distance still remains. The other issue with film is focusing. On a digital body the EVF or LCD allows easy and reasonably accurate focusing on an FD lens. On a film body with optical viewfinder this is not the case. The challenge of FD is that it has the shortest flange distance of any SLR system (I think the Konica AR mount was shorter but this was never a volume seller). Thus an FD body can easily accept a wide range of lenses from other SLR manufacturers - indeed the same is true of the EF mount which is only 2mm longer. <br> So without a glass based system and FD lens can only go on "mirror less" systems. In my case for digital I use them on my Leica M240 (the M8 and M9 only have an optical viewfinder - no EVF or Live View) and Panasonic / Olympus M4/3. <br> I have used FD on film - the lenses will work on Leica but you obviously have to focus using the distance scale on the front of the lens. In essence this means using a wide angle lens. So while I rarely use FD lenses on Leica ( as the Leica wide angle lenses are much better) I do use the fisheye lenses on Leica bodies. Thus my statement on digital was meant to exclude the Fisheyes (7.5 and 15) which I use on Leica (there is no Leica Fisheye) and I will use on film as focusing is not an issue with these lenses.</p>

<p>In general I find I use the 17F4, 24 F2, 35 F2 and 50 F3.5 the most on a digital body.</p>

<p>It really depends on what you shoot - for general photography you should probably not own one. They are useful for landscapes, architecture and product photography. They can also be used as excellent normal lenses - but manual focus. The 17F4 and 24 II are both great lenses even before you use tilt / shift. I only own the 17 F4 but have shot the 24 II. The 24 II is probably Canon's sharpest 24mm lens. I actually use longer lenses but I use old Mamiya M645 lenses on a Mirex adapter. This solution works very well and gives a 35mm lens (Canon made a 35 TS for FD but not EOS - indeed it was their only FD TS lens). <br> You should also be aware that the prisms on some bodies (e.g. My 7D) can foul the lens or its controls - this is not an issue for the 5 or 1 series bodies which is what I generally shoot them with. <br> It takes a lot of time and effort to become adept at using TS lenses and even then you can still get the odd random bad results (exposure is difficult in tilted mode!). This fact plus the much slower workflow may be why people buy them and later sell them. Just like any sport or hobby people will buy equipment that is not necessarily useful to them and discover this later. </p>

<p>Three things you may want to consider<br> Quality - adding glass into the adapter will have an impact on IQ. This will obviously depend on the quality of the glass. My only experience with adapters with lenses is the FD to EOS adapters (except the Ed Mika glass-less ones that only work on a few lenses that focus past infinity) are appalling and at least for me unusable. I cannot comment on the metabones one as I have never used it but there may be quality issues.<br> Focus - again this may not be an issue but in general they are harder to focus and cheap ones can suffer from mechanical issues that impact focus. While many cameras have focus peaking I have found it a bit hit or miss depending on what you aim to do. For example my Leica M240 is fine with a 24 F2 FD lens at F5.6 but I am not happy shooting an FD 135 F2 at F2 and relying on focus peaking.<br> Handling - first the FD lenses have an aperture set by the body which is likely to make handling interesting (I have only used adapted lenses where the lens has an aperture ring). This fact not withstanding adapted lenses do not handle as well as native ones.<br> I am not saying there is anything wrong with what you want to do - merely pointing out some of the challenges you are likely to face. You may want to consider buying a "glassless" adapter as well as the Metabones one and see how it performs. You obviously will suffer from crop factors but they can be quite cheap.</p>

The 35 - 105 F3.5 is better. By the way while I agree with Alan on the usefulness of 135mm lenses the old FD 135 F2 is a great lens while not L series it is probably second only to the 85F1.2 in the FD range

I found my Metz 45 worked much better on my A1 and F1s than the Canon flashes - either the older ones or the 300TL. The 300TL works fine but I found the big Metz gave better lighting and was easier to nail the exposure with - especially bounced than the smaller shoe mount flashes. The 300 TL works great on the T90 it was made for and the T90 is a much better flash camera. I like my T90s more than myA1 and find I use them more. Indeed I find the T90 and the original F1 the best handling cameras Canon has made - much better than the EOS bodies or the New F1 s which I love but are rather clunky.

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

<p>I have the old (and rather poor) 14 F3.5 which works on film bodies including 1V but not on digital although me digital are all DIGIC. You can use it on newer bodies by switching it from a old body to a new but you only get one shot before you can only shoot wide open. Since the lens is bad wide open I never bother.</p>

Not used the Pentax system much but the Mamiyas are very easy to focus. The Pro or Pro. TL are the bodies to go with if you can afford them. With the standard split screen and either of the two prisms or the waist level finder you should have no problems. If you are talking about the later AF models they are not as good in. MF as the earlier bodies

Best low light Canon zoom is the 70-200 f2.8. But it is big and expensive. There are 3 versions the old non IS, the MkI Is and the current MkII IS. All three are very good - especially the current lens. The 70-200 f4 IS is also a great lens and half the weight of the f2.8 lens. In terms of sharpness it is pretty much as good as the F2.8. I have not used the 70-300 L but the only one I am aware of is the variable aperture model which for most of its range is f5 or slower.