Canon LTM Canon RF vs. FD prices

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
S

ScottS

Established
Local time
8:03 PM
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
174
I hadn't bought any FD gear for a while, so I'd kind of forgotten how much of a price discrepancy there is between Canon RF lenses and their FD counterparts.

I just bought an FD 50/1.4 w/ matching hood, skylight filter and an FTb body for $45. The glass is in perfect shape, and the body is in good working order (don't know about the meter yet as I need a battery for it, but at this price I don't really care if the meter works). Even a CLA seems to be totally unnecessary in this case (but I won't know that for sure until I put some film through it)

In the RF world, the 50/1.4 with body (V, VI, P, or 7) would run more than 10 times this -- especially if you include the lens hood too.

Scott
 
Even better - I am a fan of the older Canon FL-mount lenses. I paid $25 for a mint 55mm f1.2 that mounts on my Canon FX. Wowzer. One of my favorite lenses of all is a Canon FL-mount 135mm f2.5 wide-open as a portrait lens.

But I also have the Canon FTbN (black) and a nice 50mm f1.4 S.S.C. lens. Very sharp. Very cheap.

A few months ago, I was buying Canon RF lenses for cheap - not anymore! Glad I stocked up early. I believe I paid $85 for my 50mm f1.4, somewhat less for my 50mm f1.8. But it was my Canon RF 135 and 85mm lenses that were really cheap. I think the 85mm f1.9 is a real sleeper - nobody digs it, the price stays low. It is a GREAT lens, IMHO! I don't need another, but it hurts when I see them go for $65 on eBoy lately.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Bill,

You happen to mention the only two FL lenses I own -- 55/1.2 and 135/2.5. I haven't really used the 135 much, though. I paid more than $25 for the 55/1.2 but still a bargain compared w/ current RF prices -- I bought it with an FT body a few years back and it was my preferred low-light lens until I got the RF 50/1.2.

Scott
 
I agree with the previous posts. The Canon FL lenses are very well made. Here's an idea for some: There's an old adapter made by Canon to mount FL/FD lenses on Leica screw mount camera bodies with infinity focus. The item is called "Canon lens mount converter B". A similar item exists for Nikon F lenses. That item is made by Novoflex and is called LEINIK. Unfortunately if you want to use the Novoflex adapter on a M mount body(with a screw mount adapter) it won't work because of a clearance problem with the lens release button.
 
ScottS said:
Bill,

You happen to mention the only two FL lenses I own -- 55/1.2 and 135/2.5. I haven't really used the 135 much, though. I paid more than $25 for the 55/1.2 but still a bargain compared w/ current RF prices -- I bought it with an FT body a few years back and it was my preferred low-light lens until I got the RF 50/1.2.

Scott
Click to expand...

Oooh, the 50 1.2 RF! I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy! Seriously, I'd love to have that lens.

I've been slowly trying to collect all the prime FL mount lenses. Currently:

28mm f3.5
35mm f2.5
50mm f1.8
50mm f1.4 (both series)
55mm f1.2
58mm f1.2
85mm f1.8
100mm f3.5
135mm f2.5
200mm f3.5

I need to replace the 28mm, it was described as mint and it is fungus'd up. I don't have the 50 or 100 macro. And beyond the 200mm, prices get high. Same for the 19mm - not cheap.

My budget for stuff is shot, though. So I'll be sitting on what I have for the forseeable future. By and by, though, I'll buy and buy. Gotta win that lottery. Oh wait, NC doesn't have one. Shucks.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
photodog said:
I agree with the previous posts. The Canon FL lenses are very well made. Here's an idea for some: There's an old adapter made by Canon to mount FL/FD lenses on Leica screw mount camera bodies with infinity focus. The item is called "Canon lens mount converter B". A similar item exists for Nikon F lenses. That item is made by Novoflex and is called LEINIK. Unfortunately if you want to use the Novoflex adapter on a M mount body(with a screw mount adapter) it won't work because of a clearance problem with the lens release button.
Click to expand...

I used to try to convince my fellow SLR lovers (I can love SLRs and RFs at the same time, dang it!) that the FL lenses were very good. Not getting a lot of love. Fair enough, it keeps prices low - nobody wants 'em.

I don't have Adapter B, but I have Adapter A - going the other way. Of course, you can only do macro with LTM lenses on an FD/FL body. But it's cool. I'd like to get an Adapter B if I ever manage to land a FL19mm f/3.5R (retrofocus). The non retrofocus, as I'm sure you know, can only be used with a Pellix (I think) or with the mirror locked in the up position, and so would not work on any LTM camera body.

The Pellix was an interesting SLR, don't you think?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
bmattock said:
I don't have Adapter B, but I have Adapter A - going the other way. Of course, you can only do macro with LTM lenses on an FD/FL body. But it's cool. I'd like to get an Adapter B if I ever manage to land a FL19mm f/3.5R (retrofocus). The non retrofocus, as I'm sure you know, can only be used with a Pellix (I think) or with the mirror locked in the up position, and so would not work on any LTM camera body.

The Pellix was an interesting SLR, don't you think?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
Click to expand...

I got the adapter B for free (along with a Cine-LTM adapter) with a cheap Komura 105/2.5 for FD/FL -- all attached to the lens. I'm not sure the seller knew they were separate (sellable) items.

Actually, the non-retrofocus 19mm lens should work fine on the LTM bodies, as there's no mirror to get in the way in the first place -- the retrofocus version seems to be more common, though. THey still seem to go for $300+, but that's less than the LTM 19 (which seems to be more like $900+ with finder).

I'd be interested in getting a pellix if I can get a cheap one in good condition -- which means I'll be waiting a while. The cheap ones tend to have problems with the mirror (dim spots, etc.), and since the mirror doesn't move for exposures, mirror problems are likely to result in loss of image quality as well.

Scott
 
Fortunately I use Canon FD gear for my SLR kit and can take advantage of the great prices out there. My favourite lens is my 85/1.8, which can be got for around $100 in like-new condition. Other gems are my 24/2.8 and 50/1.4, all bayonet. The RF 35/2 gets great reviews, but to be honest, I'm not a fan of my FD 35/2; it just doesn't excite me.

You have to love FD bodies, too. The FTb that you mention is a great solid old number, and nothing compares to my New F-1 for build quality and good looks. The T-90 is fun for all its features, like multi-spot metering.
 
I have a Pellix, "Very Interesting". It is about as loud as the Canon 7. Mine was under $100 with an 50mm F1.4 lens and case. It is near mint, and the mirror is perfect. I think there is a 38mm F2.8(?) made for the Pellix. I guess the flipping-up of a typical mirror could hit the back of the lens on some Canon's, and not the Pellix. A non-retroficus 19mm would hit the mirror; if it is anywhere near as deep as my Nikkor 2.1cm F4 in F-Mount.
 
I have been using FD stuff since it was new. besides an AE-1P and an A1 I have had since new I just got an absolutely fabulous F1n. I use the
28 f2.8
50 f1.2 L
50 f3.5 macro and 1:1 adapter
135 f2.8
200 f2.8 L
300 f2.8 L
600 f4 L
Thinking of getting an 85 after talking to Ray_G
I just also bought a NIB Sigma 400 f5.6 APO with all warranty cards, case and box, never mounted for $120 I also bought a Tokina 30-70 f2.8 and a Tokina Pro 70-210 f2.8 for $50 each. I hope the digital age continues and I can start an FL collection
 
Schweet! L lenses make me go schwing. But I'm skint - no lenses at the moment, let alone L lenses.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
The reason all those FD and FL lenses are less expensive than the RF versions is not that they aren't good -- it's simply that the supply is much larger relative to the demand.
 
I don't generally like zooms, but I have to put in a word for the 80-200/4 L. Not too heavy, not to large, but awfully good. The 35/2 chrome nose with concave element is incredibly sharp, and is great for b/w. Those two make a nice travel kit.
 
Just out of curiosity, how exactly does the Adapter B work? It looks to be of significant thickness. Does this affect the focusing of the lens?

John
 
JohnS said:
Just out of curiosity, how exactly does the Adapter B work? It looks to be of significant thickness. Does this affect the focusing of the lens?

John
Click to expand...

John,

The way it works is this...

Every lens mount has a 'flange to film' focal distance, meaning the distance, usually measured in millimeters, between the back of the lens and the film surface itself. The Canon FD mount registration distance is 42mm. The distance for a Leica screw-mount lens is 28.8 mm. This is generally because the Canon SLR (and every SLR) has a mirror box and has to make room for it - rangefinders do not. So, the math says that if you add a spacer that is 13.2mm thick exactly, the lens will be 'in register' with the film plane. In other words, with such an example, if you set the lens to be in focus at say 3 feet, it will be correctly focused for 3 feet, even on the Leica.

When mounting a LTM lens on a Canon FD (the reverse of what we've been discussing), you can only get macro - no infinity focus possible. That's because there would have to be an adapter that went INTO the Canon body far enough to keep the back of the LTM lens 28.8 mm away from the film and it can't (due to the mirror box).

Of course, you can't focus the FD lens mounted on a LTM camera by using the rangefinder - there is no rangefinder tab sticking out the back of the lens to actuate the rangefinder. So you're stuck with guestimating the distance (or measuring with an external rangefinder) and setting the lens that way.

With an ultra-wide lens of 24mm or wider, you can be spared focus errors, because ultra-wide lenses are blessed with ultra-deep depth-of-field - so things tend to remain in acceptable sharpness even if you're pretty far off on the distance. With a 50mm or longer lens, distance-guessing would be critical. Or you'd have to stop down a bunch.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Thanks Bill. I didn't realize that there was as much of a difference in the flange to film distance b/w a RF and an SLR.
 
Ah, the dulcet tones of the clunk of the shutter releas of my old solid FP (no meter) or the squeek of the mirror of my A-1.

The FD's are classics with lenses that are very well built indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom