physiognomy
Confirmed RF addict...
Hi,
Please excuse my ignorance... I have played around with an AE Program that takes FD mount lenses, but know nothing about FL mount lenses... Can someone please fill me in as to the difference... (will FD's will also mount to LTM RF's with an adaptor? I'm guessing not). I didn't know there were any canon slr lenses that were usable with the LTM RF's until I saw this listing:
Canon RF 19mm f 3.5 Lens for SLR & Leica Screw
Not that the 19mm needs to be, but would any FL lens be RF coupled when using the adaptor. My guess is no, but I may be wrong.
Thanks!
Peter
Please excuse my ignorance... I have played around with an AE Program that takes FD mount lenses, but know nothing about FL mount lenses... Can someone please fill me in as to the difference... (will FD's will also mount to LTM RF's with an adaptor? I'm guessing not). I didn't know there were any canon slr lenses that were usable with the LTM RF's until I saw this listing:
Canon RF 19mm f 3.5 Lens for SLR & Leica Screw
Not that the 19mm needs to be, but would any FL lens be RF coupled when using the adaptor. My guess is no, but I may be wrong.
Thanks!
Peter
bmattock
Veteran
physiognomy said:
The adapter you are looking at with this lens is not rangefinder-coupled. It is designed merely to hold the lens the correct distance from the film plane to maintain correct back-focus distance. The lens is a non-retrofocus design Canon FL lens - 19mm, which is very wide. It is the nature of the wide lens that depth-of-field is very deep at almost every aperture. So, focusing is not as critical with a 19mm lens. And you must 'scale focus' with this lens mounted on a LTM camera. Measure or guess the distance to your subject, and set the lens manually to that distance. You will have no rangefinder coupling.
You could use this adapter with any Canon FL or FD mount lens (those are the old non-autofocus lenses, not the modern EOS lenses). But you'd have to scale focus all of them, and distance becomes more important with the longer ones.
The 19mm lens you see in the listing is an interesting one. It was designed specifically for the Canon Pellix, which was an early Canon SLR that had no mirror to flip up - instead, it used a pentraprism that partially passed light to the film, and partially passed light to the viewfinder. Hence, no blackout when the shutter was tripped, and since there was no mirror box, all that room was available for a non-retrofocus lens design that was superior to most modern retrofocus designs, which are compromises using negative lenses to balance out the math.
The 19mm lens you see CAN be used on a more modern Canon such as the AE you mentioned, but only in 'mirror lockup' position, with an external viewfinder, which kind of makes your SLR into a point-n-shoot.
As a final note - all Canon FD cameras can mount and use FL lenses - and vice versa, as far as I know. The FL series came first and does not have an aperture sensing mechanism, so the camera does not 'know' what aperture you've set. You have to stop to meter, and then the camera takes care of stopping down during shooting. As long as you remember that your meter setting is wrong when you use the FL mount lens on a FD mount camera, you'll be fine - as long as you stop down, that is.
FL lenses did not have the superior Canon S.S.C. coating that came later on some of the FD mount lenses. Probably only the Pentax SMC and Fuji EBC - and Zeiss T* were superior to S.S.C., and the Canon FD-mount 50mm f1.4 S.S.C. was one of the top ten lenses ever built.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
physiognomy
Confirmed RF addict...
Hey Bill,
Thanks for your reply... I really appreciate all the info! Learning about the posibilities regarding lens mounts/adaptors etc is pretty interesting to me.
OT: I am surprised how cheaply FD lenses seem to sell for on ebay, but will have to read more about which ones are noted for their quality... I have noticed that the wides do command a reasonable price though. I think there is a FD 28mm f/2.8 sitting in a draw in our lab, so I might look for an adapter....
Thanks again!
Peter
Thanks for your reply... I really appreciate all the info! Learning about the posibilities regarding lens mounts/adaptors etc is pretty interesting to me.
OT: I am surprised how cheaply FD lenses seem to sell for on ebay, but will have to read more about which ones are noted for their quality... I have noticed that the wides do command a reasonable price though. I think there is a FD 28mm f/2.8 sitting in a draw in our lab, so I might look for an adapter....
Thanks again!
Peter
harry01562
Registered semi-lurker
Bill M. has covered most of the subject, but I'll add a couple of points. For practical reasons mentioned, only the wide lenses would be usable, and would have to be scale focused. Under normal outdoor conditions, the depth of field stopped down to f8 or smaller is huge. The lens would be interesting for street work, if you don't have anything else in that range.
The problem is the size of most of the lenses. Both the FL and FD series are much larger than comparable RF lenses. They can intrude into the viewfinder, and make framing difficult. I'll try and take a couple of shots of wides mounted on both early and late Canon RF models, with the proper adapter in place. That'll give you a better idea what things would be like if you went this route. I think the only practical lenses would be the 28 and the 35, but I'll try wider, as well.
Check back for some results in a while...
Harry
The problem is the size of most of the lenses. Both the FL and FD series are much larger than comparable RF lenses. They can intrude into the viewfinder, and make framing difficult. I'll try and take a couple of shots of wides mounted on both early and late Canon RF models, with the proper adapter in place. That'll give you a better idea what things would be like if you went this route. I think the only practical lenses would be the 28 and the 35, but I'll try wider, as well.
Check back for some results in a while...
Harry
harry01562
Registered semi-lurker
eBay prices on the FD's and quality issues
eBay prices on the FD's and quality issues
The prices on much of the SLR equipment is very depressed, with the switch to digital and the amount of stuff on the market. The price on the better lenses is holding better than the other stuff, however. The 17 and 20mm lenses are very good, and the 24/2.8 is a little gem. The 35/2 has 2 configurations. One has a concave front element, and is excellent with B&W, very sharp and contrasty, with good bokeh. The 28/2.8 is probably the weakest of the late wides, but many people like it. It is cheap, as is the 35/2.8.
I wouldn't get too involved in this, unless you anticipate buying a Canon SLR as a backup or second system. If that's the case, the A-1, EF and the AE-1P are fine choices, as is the F-1 (3 models, see Canon Museum website). These are all fairly cheap, but some will need a CLA which would make things expensive.
I've collected/used the Canon RF and SLR gear for years, and may be able to answer questions, if you need help on specific choices.
Harry
eBay prices on the FD's and quality issues
The prices on much of the SLR equipment is very depressed, with the switch to digital and the amount of stuff on the market. The price on the better lenses is holding better than the other stuff, however. The 17 and 20mm lenses are very good, and the 24/2.8 is a little gem. The 35/2 has 2 configurations. One has a concave front element, and is excellent with B&W, very sharp and contrasty, with good bokeh. The 28/2.8 is probably the weakest of the late wides, but many people like it. It is cheap, as is the 35/2.8.
I wouldn't get too involved in this, unless you anticipate buying a Canon SLR as a backup or second system. If that's the case, the A-1, EF and the AE-1P are fine choices, as is the F-1 (3 models, see Canon Museum website). These are all fairly cheap, but some will need a CLA which would make things expensive.
I've collected/used the Canon RF and SLR gear for years, and may be able to answer questions, if you need help on specific choices.
Harry
bmattock
Veteran
physiognomy said:
You're welcome, Peter. I have a soft spot in my head for FL lenses, and I've got a bunch of them. Little-known secret - the Canon FL mount 55mm and 58mm f1.2 are the cheapest f1.2 lenses you can buy on eBoy. They typically go for less than $50 US. Tell me where you get a nice pristine 50mm f1.2 for that money today. Only the Canon FL. And I could be mistaken, but I think the LTM Canon 50mm f1.2 was a very similar design.
I lived in Denver from 1973 to 2002, roughly. Graduated from Golden HS in 79, Red Rocks in 1990. Lived mostly in Lakewood.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
physiognomy
Confirmed RF addict...
Harry, Thanks for the added info... I would like to see how these lenses look mounted on Canon RF's... I'm guessing they would be more feasable on the larger/latter models, which I do like... I had my eye on a VT Deluxe at a recent camera show here, but wanted to take another look at the Bessa's and make sure I really wanted to spend $$$ on a 'classic' RF over a more modern option. I am still undecided, and people here drooling over their M3's are not helping... I guess we'd all have one of each if possible!
I thought the FD 28 f/2.8 was poorly regarded as the prices do seem very low. I have an AE-1 Program available to play with... The shutter (mirror ?) is a little squeeky, but it seems workable otherwise... Obviously these wouldn't be RF options, but I also have a 50mm f/3.5 macro & 100mm f/4 macro lens (both in FD) that I'd like to try... These seem to sell for more... Are they good lenses? I haven't done much macro work so far, but I might make use of this kit to start...
Bill, thanks for opening my eyes in regard to the Canon FL lenses... I have lived here in Denver since early 2002... I came over from Oz to do my phd at DU... It's nice to meet another person on RFF who knows the city. I'm into hiking/mountain biking, so landing here was nice... When I leave I will definitely miss the mountains! Speaking of which, I have to be up before 6 tomorrow so I can catch a ride with some mates to go snowboarding at Loveland... Time for bed.
Cheers!
Peter
I thought the FD 28 f/2.8 was poorly regarded as the prices do seem very low. I have an AE-1 Program available to play with... The shutter (mirror ?) is a little squeeky, but it seems workable otherwise... Obviously these wouldn't be RF options, but I also have a 50mm f/3.5 macro & 100mm f/4 macro lens (both in FD) that I'd like to try... These seem to sell for more... Are they good lenses? I haven't done much macro work so far, but I might make use of this kit to start...
Bill, thanks for opening my eyes in regard to the Canon FL lenses... I have lived here in Denver since early 2002... I came over from Oz to do my phd at DU... It's nice to meet another person on RFF who knows the city. I'm into hiking/mountain biking, so landing here was nice... When I leave I will definitely miss the mountains! Speaking of which, I have to be up before 6 tomorrow so I can catch a ride with some mates to go snowboarding at Loveland... Time for bed.
Cheers!
Peter
airds
Well-known
Canon lens mounts
Canon lens mounts
To mount FD/FL lenses on LTM bodies you need the Canon lens mount converter B.
It all works fine, but you have as has been previously mentioned use 'zone focussing'/guesstimates, although for example, the depth of field with a 24mm at even just f8 is ~1.3m - infinity.
But due to the lens being mounted further forward, you have to compensate for the magnification factor (which is dependant on focal length)
Likewise, you can mount LTM lenses on the older Canon bodies, with converter type A. Got a PDF of the instruction sheet for both - if you want a copy p.m. me. (I sent a note to Christian Rollinger to see if wanted to include on his www.canonfd.com site last Autumn but never got a response.)
Here's my 24mm FD f2.0 on the VI-L, in the RFF gallery. I found framing and cutoff isn't really an issue through the camera, since the sensible thing to do is use a wide angle auxiliary finder .....
Interestingly, myself and a friend easily noticed the difference in the 'colouring' of prints produced from the VI-L body with a Jupiter12 and then the FD 24mm f2.0
I should really try my FD 300 mm tele
b. rdgs
Canon lens mounts
To mount FD/FL lenses on LTM bodies you need the Canon lens mount converter B.
It all works fine, but you have as has been previously mentioned use 'zone focussing'/guesstimates, although for example, the depth of field with a 24mm at even just f8 is ~1.3m - infinity.
But due to the lens being mounted further forward, you have to compensate for the magnification factor (which is dependant on focal length)
Likewise, you can mount LTM lenses on the older Canon bodies, with converter type A. Got a PDF of the instruction sheet for both - if you want a copy p.m. me. (I sent a note to Christian Rollinger to see if wanted to include on his www.canonfd.com site last Autumn but never got a response.)
Here's my 24mm FD f2.0 on the VI-L, in the RFF gallery. I found framing and cutoff isn't really an issue through the camera, since the sensible thing to do is use a wide angle auxiliary finder .....
Interestingly, myself and a friend easily noticed the difference in the 'colouring' of prints produced from the VI-L body with a Jupiter12 and then the FD 24mm f2.0
I should really try my FD 300 mm tele
b. rdgs
bmattock
Veteran
Remember that if you use the LTM->Canon FD adapter to mount LTM lenses on a FD mount Canon, they are macro only - no infinity focus. However, the 39mm screw thread will also mount FSU M39 Zenit, etc, lenses (assuming anyone wanted to) or Braun Paxette lenses, which have a similar lens registration distance (again, assuming anyone wanted to do so). I've tried it, the results were not impressive. Much more interesting to mount FL and FD lenses on an LTM camera body.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
harry01562
Registered semi-lurker
promised jpegs of gear
promised jpegs of gear
I've put up a few jpg's of what the gear looks like with FD wide angles added to a Barnack-type Canon IIf, a later model VI-T and the last model 7s. The lenses do intrude about 1/4 to 1/3 into the viewfinder, but it isn't really an issue, since an auxiliary finder must really be used. The lenses shown are a 35/2, a 24/2.8 and the 20/2.8. The finder shown is the Acall, which really doesn't cover the range, only ranging from 35-200. There aren't many finders for the 24 or shorter, and they usually are expensive.
It's an interesting thought, and they certainly look wild enough, but not very practical. The 24 on the 7s is OK, and the 35 can be used with the cameras frame lines. The same applies to the VI-T. The earlier models are swamped, because of the size differential.
Sorry, the photos aren't art, just quicky to show the equipment detailed.
Harry
promised jpegs of gear
I've put up a few jpg's of what the gear looks like with FD wide angles added to a Barnack-type Canon IIf, a later model VI-T and the last model 7s. The lenses do intrude about 1/4 to 1/3 into the viewfinder, but it isn't really an issue, since an auxiliary finder must really be used. The lenses shown are a 35/2, a 24/2.8 and the 20/2.8. The finder shown is the Acall, which really doesn't cover the range, only ranging from 35-200. There aren't many finders for the 24 or shorter, and they usually are expensive.
It's an interesting thought, and they certainly look wild enough, but not very practical. The 24 on the 7s is OK, and the 35 can be used with the cameras frame lines. The same applies to the VI-T. The earlier models are swamped, because of the size differential.
Sorry, the photos aren't art, just quicky to show the equipment detailed.
Harry
harry01562
Registered semi-lurker
more shots
more shots
A couple more shots to try and show size ranges...
Harry
more shots
A couple more shots to try and show size ranges...
Harry
venchka
Veteran
What are the other 9 lenses?
What are the other 9 lenses?
Bill,
I just happen to own a functioning (as long as the mercury batteries last) Canon EF. I've found a Canon 50/1.4 S.S.C. lens for $50 or less. Assuming the lens is is in good working and optical order, is it as desirable as you say? Do you have any experience with the FD 24mm lenses?
What are the other 9 lenses?
bmattock said:
Bill,
I just happen to own a functioning (as long as the mercury batteries last) Canon EF. I've found a Canon 50/1.4 S.S.C. lens for $50 or less. Assuming the lens is is in good working and optical order, is it as desirable as you say? Do you have any experience with the FD 24mm lenses?
David Murphy
Veteran
bmattock said:
I've owned the FL 58mm F1.2 and it was soft as warm butter wide open -- scary almost! It was a beautifully made optic mechanically though.
I then tried the FL 55mm F1.2 which I now own, and it is excellent wide open! I can only imagine how fine the 50mm F1.2 FD must be. This is typical Canon: steady improvements over time.
FYI the FL 58mm F1.2 is radioactive.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
I'm not Bill, but I do have a Canon EF! Nice camera. The Canon 50/1.4 SSC is indeed a fine lens, and "correct" for the vintage of the EF, though I do believe the later bayonet mount FD lenses, including the 50/1.4, might be better -- better coatings, mainly. (The SSC, and the other earlier FD lenses, had the breech mount, which I find rather tricky to use when I'm in a hurry. And they are heavier.)
There are a lot of people who say the SSC 50/1.4 is a great lens, and I'll agree, but I don't know if it's one of the "top ten." You can't go wrong with the 24/2.8 FD either, though again I'll say the bayonet mount version benefits from improved lens coatings. I don't know anything about the 24/2, though I'll bet it's a fine lens.
There are a lot of people who say the SSC 50/1.4 is a great lens, and I'll agree, but I don't know if it's one of the "top ten." You can't go wrong with the 24/2.8 FD either, though again I'll say the bayonet mount version benefits from improved lens coatings. I don't know anything about the 24/2, though I'll bet it's a fine lens.
photodog
Well-known
harry01562
Registered semi-lurker
venchka said:
Just reading old posts, and saw this. Good news on the EF: it was the only one of the period that had a built in voltage regulator, so it works normally with the 1.5v batteries available now. I use silver whatever(oxide?) type, as the discharge curve is close to the mercury, but not sure that is even necessary..
The EF is also one of the nicest looking/functioning SLR's that Canon ever made. No wonder it was called the "Black Beauty" when it was new. I use mine fairly often, when an SLR is needed.
Harry
airds
Well-known
Rangefinders with Canon SLR lenses
Rangefinders with Canon SLR lenses
Wide angles ?!?!?!
Easy ! Try this !
Rangefinders with Canon SLR lenses
harry01562 said:
Wide angles ?!?!?!
Easy ! Try this !
Attachments
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
IIRC it was the other way round - the Pellix had a fixed pellicle mirror that passed 70% of the light to the film and 30% to the pentaprism viewfinder. There was a non-retrofocus 19mm for Canon cameras with mirror lock-up, that's the one in the picture, and a retrofocus 19mm for use on the Pellix, because the fixed mirror couldn't be moved up to make room for the rear element.
The Pellix should be a pretty silent SLR with its cloth shutter and fixed mirror.
Philipp
John Shriver
Well-known
There's also Lens Mount Converter E for Exakta/Topcon lenss, and Lens Mount Converter P for Pentax/M42 lenses.
AV-1 is a good (and dirt cheap) body for all the convertors, since it's aperture priority.
AV-1 is a good (and dirt cheap) body for all the convertors, since it's aperture priority.
harry01562
Registered semi-lurker
John Shriver said:
There is also the scarcer Converter N for Nikon lenses, that, with the others mentioned, gives one a vast choice of glass to use. Read the short article on Cameraquest about the adapters for more information.
Harry