Vintage Canon FD lenses vs. EF/S- Pros & Cons for use with DSLR?

Hi all,

I've been looking into getting a few prime lenses for use with my crop sensor Canon DSLR.

The "nifty fifty" seems a lens that most photogs have, and recommend- but, I've been debating on which to get- and I've been looking into possibly getting some vintage glass because they are plentiful, and affordable. I also hear they are great for video.

You can find nice FD mount glass for cheap- for instance, I can find a 50mm 1.8 for around $25, a 1.4 for around $70, and a 1.2 for ~$450- a fraction of the cost of new glass.

So, what would you do? I know gear can't make up for skill, and I want to learn all I can, but let's face it, you need some gear, and it's fun to get new toys. I just want to know what some of you more experienced photographers think about this vintage glass.

I know I'll have to manually focus, and manually set aperture in most cases. I'm ok with that. I've been enjoying learning manual focus with my modern AF/IS lenses anyway. At this point, there is NO WAY I'll be able to lay out over $1,000 for L series glass for a 1.2 prime lens- even a 1.4 for $300 seems steep. But, if I can get similar DOF for a fraction of the cost, is it a good idea?

Please let me know if you own any of these, and what your thoughts are. I want to learn the why's & wherefores. If you think it's a bad idea, tell me why. I'm sure I'm not the only one that will benefit from this.

Also, if there are other FD lenses you're familiar with, feel free to mention those as well. What do you shoot with them? Strengths & weaknesses? What to look out for? Anything at all!

Thanks guys! (and girls) ;)

To add- I've found a few good quality adaptors to mount these lenses for around $12, so mounting them won't be an issue.

In my experience, vintage lenses have often a smaller minimum focusing distance, and can let you access some nice features that you would have to pay way more otherwise (for example, "focus distance lock" or whatever is the real name). Also built quality is generally better, and glasses can be surprisingly good compared to more recent lenses of the same price range. Colors tend to be different from modern lenses, also not in a bad way.
The cons are no vibration reduction, usually poorer sharpness and an interesting "halo" effect around highlights (also this could be used in your advantage) wich can be a problem when shooting on a sunny day. Also they often have less contrast, but that can be easily fixed in PP.
Light measuring can also be a problem depending of your camera model.

I'd say it's totally worth it, but you need to "get to know" the lens to be able to use it at its full potential.

P-chan

Thanks Pierre,

Also to note, I also have a mirrorless I'd use as well, so the adaptor for that has no glass, so nothing to interfere there.

When trying an old lens with different AR coating, you might experience not only lower contrast, but also ghost flare, sometimes even ghost images. With film that was not a problem, but the highly reflective AA filter in front of the sensor tosses lots of light back onto the lens, where it can again be reflected; by lens surfaces and by the backside of the diaphragm. Particularly when it is the diaphragm that causes softening, it appears in the centre of the image, and is worse at smaller apertures than wide open.

You may try how severe this problem is rather easily, by making a shot of something dark with detail against a bright background, as a macro shot of a coffee bean placed in the middle of the image area on a piece of white paper and compare detail in the dark parts of the bean to the same bean shot with a black background.

When using old lenses with adapters, you can usually use most any brand, as long as your camera has shorter flange distance than the one that the lens was intended for. Hence Canon FD are among the most difficult to fit to a DSLR, as FD has a very short flange distance, while other lenses can be fitted on Canon EOS digital cameras with an adapter. No matter which lens you take, it shares the properties of no AF, no auto diaphragm, so you have to set those manually.

With mirrorless cameras, the Metabones Speed Booster may be used with FD lenses, effectively doubling their speed, so an f/1.4 becomes f/1.0 and the full format lenses get the same coverage on APS as it has originally on the camera it was made for. The 50 mm f/1.4 becomes a 35 mm f/1.0, and the whole is shorter than the 50 mm with a passive adapter.

Shawn, the old Canon FD mount has a shorter flange focal distance than the EOS mount. This means that, in order to obtain a normal range of focus i.e. 3 ft to infinity, a lens mount adapter that contains optical correction is required. The adaptor therefore contains one or more optical elements to correct the focus distance of the lens so that, when mounted on an EOS body, the lens may be focussed correctly. These optical elements degrade the image quality. To my knowledge and experience, there is only one adapter does not degrade the image quality too much and it is only available to special order from a company in Hollywood, USA, at a cost of five figures USD. The adaptors that you can purchase on the net for around USD15 are total junk and not worth the space in your bag. You would be better off using M42 screw mount lenses with an adaptor (which has no optics in it) and then you can choose from a vast range of good lenses such as Pentax Takumars, Carl Zeiss Jena, etc. Remember, with heritage lenses, the aperture will have to be stopped down manually thus making the viewfinder image quite dark.

As someone who enjoys using manual focus lenses on her Canons just for the sheer fun of it, I'd say that FD lenses are cheap for a reason: they aren't prime candidates for adapting onto anything but mirrorless cameras. If you're absolutely bound and determined to go with Canon FD (or Minolta MD/MC) as your manual mount of choice, then don't use them with an EOS camera--get a Sony E, Fuji X, or micro four-thirds body instead.

The flange-distance thing boils down to you need an adapter that acts like a teleconverter to use FD on a EOS. And that generally means adding cheap glass into the optical path, increasing focal length, reducing max. aperture, and adding softness. On mirrorless, you'd just need a simple ring.

If you want to adapt to an EOS-mount camera, the six mounts that can be adapted with simple rings are Nikon F, Pentax K, M42, Contax-Yashica, Leica R, and Olympus OM. Of those six, M42, being the oldest mount is liable to yield the lowest pricetags--especially in cheap Russian glass. Olympus OM is liable to yield the highest quality (and smallest lenses) for the fairest price. Pentax K and Nikon F can still be used on their respective digital mounts, so you're fighting shooters in those mounts for those lenses as well. But you might be able to pick up some pre-AI bargains in Nikon F since those can damage Nikon digital bodies. The premium end will be the Leica-R and the Contax/Yashica Zeiss lenses--prices on those lenses have nearly doubled since dSLRs began being capable of HD video.

Also keep in mind that going wide or going fast is going to cost, no matter the mount. And it's a lot harder to go wide on a crop-body with vintage 35mm-film-era glass because of the crop factor.

Understand, too, that this may be more of a PITA than you're visualizing. Manual aperture doesn't just mean setting the aperture on the lens by the ring. It also means that you can only shoot in the M and Av modes. It means you're using stop-down metering (i.e., the smaller you set the aperture, the less light you'll have to see by in the viewfinder). You're missing all electronic communication between the body and the lens, so no autofocus confirmation and no lens EXIF information (lens, focal length, max. aperture, aperture setting, etc. etc.)

And manual focusing is a lot tougher in a dSLR than with a film SLR, because the viewfinders and focus screens are now optimized for autofocus. DoF rendition may not be completely accurate. There is no split circle or prism collar to help you "nail" focus, and on a crop-body, your viewfinder is smaller and dimmer than it was on a film SLR. Things like Magic Lantern's MagicZoom and focus peaking can help--but you can only use those tools in liveview--not through the viewfinder. So, even if you're a veteran of the all-manual days with film, that doesn't necessarily equate to using adapted manual lenses on a digital body.

OTOH. It can be a lot of fun.

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3189/...960b475b_z.jpg
Canon 350D. Nikon 55mm S f/1.2 (pre-AI lens). iso 100, f/1.2, 1/4000s.

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2537/...c96bd549_z.jpg
Canon 50D. Olympus OM-mount Zuiko MC Auto-S 50mm f/1.2. iso 100, f/1.2, 1/1250s.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5019/...e35eff15_z.jpg
Canon 5DMkII, C/Y Zeiss Planar T* Planar 100mm f/2. iso 800, f/2, 1/160s.

I would suggest that the posts by Graham and Kathy should be read carefully.

Both make very good points which should not be taken lightly.

And further to that, the FD glass is not as good as the newer computer designed glass is. I suspect that even the worst kit lenses are better in terms of sharpness and clarity. They've been optimized for digital bodies.

Glenn

Maybe I wasn't clear in my early posts-

The FD lenses would be used with a mirrorless EOS M, mostly for video, but also for stills.

The mirrorless EOS M will accept these lenses with an adapter that has no glass, and is very inexpensive. I think maybe I wasn't clear about that.

That doesn't improve the original FD lenses though. They still aren't very good. They were well built (I had them with my Canon A-1), but the optical quality does not match today's lenses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Southpaw

Maybe I wasn't clear in my early posts-

The FD lenses would be used with a mirrorless EOS M, mostly for video, but also for stills. ...

---

Yes, saying that you were adapting for a Canon dSLR, when you meant an EOS M mirrorless camera was not being particularly clear...or accurate. :D

Yes, you can then easily use the FD lenses with a ring adapter, and that simplifies things, and may make it more worthwhile. However, you now have a different problem--tiny mirrorless camera and big honking SLR lens. Forget sticking that combo in your pocket. :) And it might be a bit long for general walkaround usage on APS-C. That's up to you and what you were planning on shooting with it.

Also consider, that your 50/1.8 FD lens may be $25, but you may also need to blow $40 on a good chipped adapter ring. And then maybe $100 if it turns out one of the shutter leaves is stuck with old grease to get the lens serviced and cleaned. And you still won't have autofocus or aperture control from the body. Put that up against the $120 you'd pay for a brand spankin' new EF-M 22mm f/2 STM pancake lens that's designed to work with the EOS M, and you need to be a special kind of stubborn to still want the FD lens.

Maybe you're that kind of stubborn (I am). Just understand that what you're saving in pricetag is paid for in PITAness of using the lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inkista

Also consider, that your 50/1.8 FD lens may be $25, but you may also need to blow $40 on a good chipped adapter ring. And then maybe $100 if it turns out one of the shutter leaves is stuck with old grease to get the lens serviced and cleaned. And you still won't have autofocus or aperture control from the body. Put that up against the $120 you'd pay for a brand spankin' new EF-M 22mm f/2 STM pancake lens that's designed to work with the EOS M, and you need to be a special kind of stubborn to still want the FD lens.

---

That's very true.

"Vintage" can refer to a lot of things, the older you get and the worst it goes, but you can avoid a lot of problems by sticking to the AIs, auto... ect. Even Af can be found on the ones released 20 years ago. So buying vintage lenses is kind of a cases by case thing, but as a general rule if it's under 100$ it's for a good reason. However you can find very nice lenses for 100-300$

Shawn, I don't know where you intend to buy from but you souldn't limit yourself to a certain brand/mount, for example I recently saw a carl-zeiss 180mm f2,8 on pentacon6 mount for 180€, so you can find better lenses without breaking the bank.

On the other hand, for 25$ you are not risking much, it could always be interesting to try, even if you later buy another, better lens.

I have a Vivitar Series 1 28-105mm lens in Canon FD mount that needs a golf cart to transport.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inkista

Maybe you're that kind of stubborn (I am). Just understand that what you're saving in pricetag is paid for in PITAness of using the lens.

---

CiC Quote of the month.

I have a large collection of Canon FD lenses - and an EOS M - and a cheap FD m adaptor. Yes they are fun to play with, and some of the prime lenses , eg 200 f2.8 are good to play with, even better with a FD extension ring to give macro results.

However if buying remember 30 year old lenses may well not be that clean inside, often have fungus problems. You do also have to stop down manually. As the M does not have a cable release (big mistake Canon) tripod working is not so easy.

Incidently if using it set the camera to fire without a lens attached, think without looking, its in the custom functions somewhere, when I first tried the cammera would not work, then discovered this setting.

If anyone wants a M they are now £200 with kit lens and flash in UK (Argos).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inkista

Yes, saying that you were adapting for a Canon dSLR, when you meant an EOS M mirrorless camera was not being particularly clear...or accurate. :D

Yes, you can then easily use the FD lenses with a ring adapter, and that simplifies things, and may make it more worthwhile. However, you now have a different problem--tiny mirrorless camera and big honking SLR lens. Forget sticking that combo in your pocket. :) And it might be a bit long for general walkaround usage on APS-C. That's up to you and what you were planning on shooting with it.

Also consider, that your 50/1.8 FD lens may be $25, but you may also need to blow $40 on a good chipped adapter ring. And then maybe $100 if it turns out one of the shutter leaves is stuck with old grease to get the lens serviced and cleaned. And you still won't have autofocus or aperture control from the body. Put that up against the $120 you'd pay for a brand spankin' new EF-M 22mm f/2 STM pancake lens that's designed to work with the EOS M, and you need to be a special kind of stubborn to still want the FD lens.

Maybe you're that kind of stubborn (I am). Just understand that what you're saving in pricetag is paid for in PITAness of using the lens.

---

Actually, the adapter has no electronics. It's passive, and only $12 shipped.

Also, the lenses I'm thinking of using are smaller prime lenses mostly. 50mm 1.4 that can be had for around $60-75 shipped.

Maybe you guys should take a look at what they are capable of-

https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=fd+...=canon%2Feos_m

I have the 22mm f2 pancake, and the 18-55 stm, and the canon brand m to ef adapter I got as a package deal cheap. For what I'm doing now, it's ok. I don't need super fast autofocus or frame rates. I don't shoot sports or birds in flight. Truthfully, at this point, I suck, and am still in the beginner phases. I know I need lots of work. I don't believe gear will make up for it, but you do need some gear.

I'll probably get a "nifty fifty" anyway eventually. When I actually really know what I'm doing, I'll graduate to a better body. I just can't justify spending $300 on a 50mm 1.4 lens. I can justify $60-75. I'm still working on the basics here. Still life, and product shots for ebay/craigslist. Believe it or not, I actually like manual focus, and don't mind it. For taking photos of my items for sale, I do it in a studio type environment.

It's not a proper studio, but it's controlled conditions, with ample light. I can set up a tripod, and take my time with it. I don't need speed to capture a fleeting moment, or freeze action. My shirt on a mannequin isn't going anywhere! I can make sure it's well lit, and then focus, and hit the 2 second delayed shutter so there is no motion blur.

Take a look at the shots people are getting with this setup. I know skill matters most, but it shows what this combo is capable of. You might be pleasantly surprised. There are lots of interesting shots on flickr- and you can use the camera finder to see examples of just about anything with just about any camera/lens combo you can think of. It's an interesting way of seeing what a camera/lens combo can do in the right hands.

P.S.- sorry I wasn't specific enough at first. I forgot just how important that detail was.

DSLR and mirrorless are in some respects very different creatures. While it really sucks to use adapted lenses without AF on a DSLR, for some setups, such a lens may have many advantages on a mirrorless camera, not the least that focus will stay where you set it.

I often use old manual lenses on my mirrorless camera, with a rigid adapter as well as a tilt adapter. Both have their advantages, and drawbacks.

I have a DSLR, although it is a bit aging now, and the image quality of my present mirrorless system surpasses that of the old DSLR. I never used the DSLR for taking pictures actually, mainly because the viewfinder is not particularly useful. It is small, and it cannot be used for manual focusing. Why I didn't sell it? Oh, it is an old one, and it was acquired very cheap, but as it is old, I wouldn't fool anyone unwittingly into getting it, although it can serve as a backup and I can give it to someone that might need it, but I wouldn't demand serious money for it.

So for stationary studio or tabletop setups, an old manual lens can work better than a modern AF lens, for exactly the same reasons that make it less suitable for snapshots, birds in flight or sports.

Also, the mantra of decreased image quality because of glass in an adapter versus one without glass has recently been challenged by the Speed Booster from Metabones, which in many cases improves image quality from the lens that is mounted, when compared to its performance on the same camera without reduction of focal length.

So with the EOS M, just as with other mirrorless systems, for tabletop setups, an adapter and an old lens might well be a good acquisition.

Two thoughts.

Consider loading Magic Lantern. :)

Consider whether spending $70 to get a YN-560iii and investing in off-camera lighting gear might not give you more bang for the buck, given what/how you shoot. Especially considering that if you do move to a dSLR, it can go with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inkanyezi

When trying an old lens with different AR coating, you might experience not only lower contrast, but also ghost flare, sometimes even ghost images. With film that was not a problem, but the highly reflective AA filter in front of the sensor tosses lots of light back onto the lens, where it can again be reflected; by lens surfaces and by the backside of the diaphragm. Particularly when it is the diaphragm that causes softening, it appears in the centre of the image, and is worse at smaller apertures than wide open.

You may try how severe this problem is rather easily, by making a shot of something dark with detail against a bright background, as a macro shot of a coffee bean placed in the middle of the image area on a piece of white paper and compare detail in the dark parts of the bean to the same bean shot with a black background.

When using old lenses with adapters, you can usually use most any brand, as long as your camera has shorter flange distance than the one that the lens was intended for. Hence Canon FD are among the most difficult to fit to a DSLR, as FD has a very short flange distance, while other lenses can be fitted on Canon EOS digital cameras with an adapter. No matter which lens you take, it shares the properties of no AF, no auto diaphragm, so you have to set those manually.

With mirrorless cameras, the Metabones Speed Booster may be used with FD lenses, effectively doubling their speed, so an f/1.4 becomes f/1.0 and the full format lenses get the same coverage on APS as it has originally on the camera it was made for. The 50 mm f/1.4 becomes a 35 mm f/1.0, and the whole is shorter than the 50 mm with a passive adapter.

---

Adding to this a little. Some modern cameras are more sensitive to infa red radiation than others and some older lenses let through enough to cause colouration problems. This can be fixed by fitting an IR/UV filter rather than the usual just UV one but ups the cost. It's probably only of concern to people who own a camera that is known to work well with an IR pass filter on.

I did once try an FD lens along with one of the better converters but the results were not too good. The problem is the glass work that generally gets put in them.

John
-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inkista

Two thoughts.

Consider loading Magic Lantern. :)

Consider whether spending $70 to get a YN-560iii and investing in off-camera lighting gear might not give you more bang for the buck, given what/how you shoot. Especially considering that if you do move to a dSLR, it can go with you.

---

Oh yeah, I've been looking into this. I'm debating on Magic Lantern, or Tragic Lantern, which is a fork of ML specifically for EOS M.

I'm trying to ascertain which is the most stable release that has the features I want/need. The focus peaking and raw video are features that look pretty cool.

So far, I have a decent audio technica lavalier mic, but I'm considering a Rode mic, and maybe some other off camera sound. I can actually use my iPhone for this. I have the Rode app that records high quality audio. I'm mostly doing product reviews, so I just need clear speaking voice audio. I can add music and such in post.