Leica M9 with Canon FD 17mm/4

raid

raid

Dad Photographer
Local time
2:03 AM
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
36,567
I used this morning my M9 with the old Canon FD 17mm/4 via some adapters (Canon Adapter B-ltm, plus ltm-M). The images here are not changed via any software such as PS. I may have added some contrast and saturation to some of the images.
link: https://raid.smugmug.com/Leica-M9-FanonFD-17mm-OCT2021/

CanonFD-17-M9----54-X2.jpg

CanonFD-17-M9----70-X3.jpg

CanonFD-17-M9----43-X3.jpg

CanonFD-17-M9----41-X2.jpg
 
Nice bunch of images. I had a FD 20mm once, but (foolishly) sold it. Always wish I had the FD17mm. Why is the one fishing boat partially submerged?

Jim B.
 
There is no RF coupling, but you don't need it with a 17mm lens. The depth of field is huge. I use the M9&17mm lens like a phone camera. Just point the lens and set the distance to 3m most of the time with f8.
 
Mackinaw said:
Nice bunch of images. I had a FD 20mm once, but (foolishly) sold it. Always wish I had the FD17mm. Why is the one fishing boat partially submerged?

Jim B.
Click to expand...

Thanks Jim. I never got the FD 20mm lens. Was it a good lens for you?
The damages are from Hurricane Sally a year ago. Uninsured fisherman cannot pay for boat removal. It is too costly. FEMA may not be paying either. So we have half sunken fishing boats. Rich people replace sunken yachts.
 
raid said:
Thanks Jim. I never got the FD 20mm lens. Was it a good lens for you?......
Click to expand...

Honestly can't tell you. I probably sold it in the mid-80's, and have little memory of it. Back when I bought it, I was shooting mainly scenics and the lens sat largely unused. That's why I sold it. Now I shoot more street photography, and that focal length would come in handy. But I do have a Leitz R 21mm that I use on my M240, so all is not lost.

Jim B.
 
The FD 20/2.8 sells for about $300~$500. I used the 24/2.8FD for many years, in addition to the 28-50/3.5 zoom. I depended in later years on my Canon ltm 19/3.5 and the Rokkor 21/4 for my M RF photography with film. These non retrofocus lenses do not work with digital M cameras. .
 
Ed Schwartzreic said:
Just a bit of susceptibility to flare, like most older WAs, but really nice images, Raid. The key is to get very close to the main subject and avoid getting flare.

Ed
Click to expand...

Thank you Ed. Yes, I have no lens hood for this lens, and it is large in size, so it catches the sun rays. The key is getting very close to the main subjects.
 
I have one of those around here somewhere. Never used it. Your images look good though Raid. Surprised the corners aren't smeary... I was going to sell it but maybe I ought to take it out.
 
I took additional photos with this lens just before/during sunset at Pensacola Beach yesterday. I added some contrast to each image here.I had a few minutes only to take these photos, and then we realized that the waiting line at this restaurant (just behind me in these images) was too long for us, so we left.

CanonFD-17-M9.--9-X3.jpg

CanonFD-17-M9.--8-X3.jpg

CanonFD-17-M9.--7-X2.jpg

CanonFD-17-M9.--6-X2.jpg

CanonFD-17-M9.--5-X3.jpg

CanonFD-17-M9.--4-X3.jpg

CanonFD-17-M9.--3-X3.jpg

CanonFD-17-M9.--2-X3.jpg

CanonFD-17-M9.--X3.jpg
 
I hope I stumble on this lens someday. 17mm is growing on me as I just picked the 17mm lomography atoll and loved the images from the first and only roll I’ve shot so far.
 
There was no PS used. The deep blue is out of the M9. The wide lens (17mm) did not display any smudges or purple smears at the edges.
 
The images are a little low in contrast, but this can be used to your advantage, and then when needed, contrast can be added with PS. This lens works also very well with film. I used to use it with my M3 and M6 for a while.
 
I've always admired this lens and this thread got me thinking about buying one. I checked KEH and found one in "ugly" condition for $430.00. I passed. I had no idea this lens is worth so much. For now, I'll sit on the sidelines.

Jim B.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom