FrankS
Registered User
I have a couple of Nikkor 20mm lenses but am thinking about a 17mm lens for my Canon EF body. Is there is big diff in field of view? How much would you pay for a 17mm FD lens in great condition?
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
To me it seems like a fairly significant difference. I went from a CV 21/f4 on the rangefinders to a Tamron 17/f3.5 on the Nikon, and it looked and felt a lot wider, without becoming as extreme as a 15 would have been.
In Germany a Canon FD 17/f4 would usually sell for something between 120 and 200 EUR depending on what the lens looks like. I don't know what prices are like across the pond, though.
In Germany a Canon FD 17/f4 would usually sell for something between 120 and 200 EUR depending on what the lens looks like. I don't know what prices are like across the pond, though.
Last edited:
FrankS
Registered User
Thank you Dr.
The other possibility is an FD 24mm for $90. That way I don't have too much invested in a "side" SLR brand for me. (I'm mainly Nikon and then OM.)
I believe that Raid has a Canon 17 that he also uses on a RF camera with an adaptor. Scale focusing a 17mm lens is no hardship!
The other possibility is an FD 24mm for $90. That way I don't have too much invested in a "side" SLR brand for me. (I'm mainly Nikon and then OM.)
I believe that Raid has a Canon 17 that he also uses on a RF camera with an adaptor. Scale focusing a 17mm lens is no hardship!
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Well, FD isn't too bad as "side brands" go, seeing that the stuff is still relatively cheap, but it's still money...
Your situation is exactly why I bought a Tamron SP 17/f3.5. It has an Adaptall mount, so you can change it relatively easily between cameras. I think I paid around 100 EUR for mine; it came with a FD mount, so I had to get an Adaptall mount for Nikon, too, but now I can use it on both. I think it's one of the most useful Adaptall lenses. Optically it's OK, some funny distortion towards the corners but then it's a 1980s superwideangle. The built-in filters are nice.
Definitely - that shouldn't be a problem at all.
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
Sure is, below 28mm every mm makes a couple of degree difference
20 mm should give you 83.5 deg (horizaontal) and 17mm 93 deg
20 mm should give you 83.5 deg (horizaontal) and 17mm 93 deg
FrankS
Registered User
I have a limited amount of $ in my photo gear war-chest, so I decided to go with a $55 Canon 24f2.8 with a trace of fungus on an element. That leaves me enough left over for some CLA work on a few cameras I have that need it. (shutter capping and a weak beam-splitter on my 2 IIf's)
The 17 was tempting but it would have depleted my funds too much.
The 17 was tempting but it would have depleted my funds too much.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Good decision. The Canon 24 is a very good lens.
If you want to use it on another system at some point, according to a tip I recently read in a German newsgroup it also makes a very good extreme macro lens in the large scale range (5:1 or so off the top of my head). Just put it on a bellows with a 52mm reversing ring.
If you want to use it on another system at some point, according to a tip I recently read in a German newsgroup it also makes a very good extreme macro lens in the large scale range (5:1 or so off the top of my head). Just put it on a bellows with a 52mm reversing ring.
FrankS
Registered User
Cool, thanks!
L. M. Tu
Established
You've already got the 24mm, but you might want to keep an eye out for that Canon 17mm lens. It gives you a perspective that is significantly different from either a 24mm or 20mm. I got mine, a newer FD (bayonet) copy, at an estate sale for $150. After that, I got an F-1 body for $50, just to be able to use it. At first, I was going to mount it onto a Bessa L, but I had no external viewfinder that was even close to suitable for that wide a lens, plus it felt so huge on the Bessa.