Canon wide angle FD to LTM &/or M body

[venchka]

This is one of those "what if" questions that circulates in my brain and won't go away. It's also a cross forum topic so I hope the folks from the Canon forum join in.

Reference topic: Canon FL to LTM body

Sooner or later I will buy a Canon FD 24mm 1 : 2.8 lens. The late slim and trim version for my Canon EF SLR body. That's a given, when funds & a good example at a decent price comes along. I have wanted one since the first time I used a 24mm lens back in the Dark Ages.

This particular lens has the same diameter as the CV 35/1.2, over an inch shorter and half a pound lighter. It's shorter then the CV 75/2.5 I own.

You see where this is going right? 😀

I know it can be done. The Canon converter "B" + LTM-M adapter I already have puts the Canon 24mm lens firmly on either my Canon VI-T body or the M5. I reckon the 24 could live almost permanently on a VI-T with the 28mm finder I already have. Or it could be used interchangeable on the M5. I know I will be scale focusing and shooting stopped down to cover any focus erros. That part bothers me, but I will have the EF. Or not.

Here's the problem: just because something CAN be done, is there good reason why it SHOULD be done. We aren't talking about a whole lot of extra cash. Only the cost of the extra converter. I really need to hear from folks who use this setup a lot. In practice, is it practical? Or is it a novelty that soon wears off? The converters aren't cheap and that money might be better spent toward a real 24mm-25mm lens. Trouble is, those little rascals are expensive!

I may have already answered my question. It probably makes more sense to leave the SLR lens on EF.

What say ye?

Thanks!

 

[venchka]

Ps:

Ps:

I also own a Watameter rangefinder if the focusing issue ever becomes critical.

All of which is to say that's a lot of fumbling and stumbling and bumbling around to avoid using the lens on the body it was designed for.

On the other hand, I can pare everything down to 1 body and 24-50-90 lenses on occasions.😀

I am terminally confused. 😱

 

[Mackinaw]

I have all the necessary converters that allow me to mount Canon FL or FD optics to my Leica M. Yes it works and yes it's kind of cool to see a Canon SLR lens on my Leica, but, operationally, it sucks. Scale focusing is a pain and the physical size of an FL or FD lens kind of negates one of the advantages of using a rangefinder. So, my converters sit in a drawer and I use LTM or M mount lenses on the Leica.

Jim Bielecki

 

[rxmd]

It's efficient only for real wideangles < 21mm IMHO where you would have scale focused anyway. With a 20mm Flektogon or a 19mm Canon FD lens I'd give it a try, but not with a 24mm (I've got the RMC Tokina 24/2.8 for FD, which is a very good lens and possibly a much cheaper alternative to the Canon lens).

Any size advantage usually gets lost with the adapter, as it has to compensate for the different lens registers. Even a FD lens will get 14mm thicker when mounted on a rangefinder.

Philipp

 

[venchka]

...Any size advantage usually gets lost with the adapter, as it has to compensate for the different lens registers. Even a FD lens will get 14mm thicker when mounted on a rangefinder.

Philipp

I had not thought of that. Thanks!

Sounds like I should start putting money away for a 24/25mm lens. I can start with the $50-$90 for the Canon converter!😀