Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Canon FD conversions
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Equipment Care and Repairs
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Henry -- if you need special parts for conversion?? Shocked

You are not able to do them in your own?

you're joking then ! what do you do then? Assembly part? Smile

Ok - Henry - if you love dremel - that is your business - I like more lathe ..

but having CNC on hand -- hmm - that's good!

where do you stay? Wink

tf


PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
For that on FD conversion, i usually take the old light absorber from the old mount..



The way you did show works on that special Kiron lens, on other lenses not.
The Canon 1.2/55mm for example has a conical housing for the rear group.. starting at 36mm at the end its 40mm at infinity.. .. so you need 40mm, otherwise you will not reach infinity because such an absorber would avoid that during intrusion in the adaptor or light seal.

But for this Kiron lens, its a good idea. an glued seal with the correct diameter would fit also, if someone has no Lathe to do that in your nice way.

Cheers
Henry


PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
trifox wrote:
Henry -- if you need special parts for conversion?? Shocked

You are not able to do them in your own?

you're joking then ! what do you do then? Assembly part? Smile

Ok - Henry - if you love dremel - that is your business - I like more lathe ..

but having CNC on hand -- hmm - that's good!

where do you stay? Wink

tf


Why i should have a lathe, if this direct contact works fine for me? I am not doing conversions as a PRO.. its a pleasure for me, to bring the old lenses to a new life. There is no need to have a lathe in my house..
and yes, if you would say that in this words, i assemble the parts i developed in my mind.
Let every people doing the job, which they have learned and they are specialized in.

I have not learned working on a CNC machine.. and this CNC is more precise than a lathe.. why should i spent thousands of Euro in a PRO Lathe for some lenses for me and a handful of people who asking for a conversion??

I am in computer business.. not in mechanics.. Very Happy

This is a joyfull hobby for winterdays..

Cheers
Henry


PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hinnerker wrote:
For that on FD conversion, i usually take the old light absorber from the old mount..

The way you did show works on that special Kiron lens, on other lenses not.
The Canon 1.2/55mm for example has a conical housing for the rear group.. starting at 36mm at the end its 40mm at infinity.. .. so you need 40mm, otherwise you will not reach infinity because such an absorber would avoid that during intrusion in the adaptor or light seal.

But for this Kiron lens, its a good idea. an glued seal with the correct diameter would fit also, if someone has no Lathe to do that in your nice way.

Cheers
Henry


conical absorber on 55 f1.2 - hm - that's a new thing to me? Henry - are you sure?

I think the absorber is cynical Smile no sorry - that's me! Smile

tf


PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
NOt a conical absorber.. a conical rear group.. !
so the absorber is 40mm, the lens is 36mm at the end and extends to 40mm if you move the focusring to infinity..

a picture says more then 1.000 words.. the words in the pic are only in german language... Very Happy (one of my Prototyps... Very Happy )




Cheers
Henry


PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hinnerker wrote:
NOt a conical absorber.. a conical rear group.. !
so the absorber is 40mm, the lens is 36mm at the end and extends to 40mm if you move the focusring to infinity..

a picture says more then 1.000 words.. the words in the pic are only in german language... Very Happy (one of my Prototyps... Very Happy )




Cheers
Henry



Ach so!

sorry henry - my bad reading - so the glass has is conical!

That's fine - what about to make cylinder with just about 40 mm diameter inside? Henry -- what do you think?

you can forget both cynical and conical absorber and rear glass .Wink

tf


PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Henry

I have had this lens before -- but I sold it...

I am sure that soon or later the 55 f1.2 ends in my hands..

The 'conical' cylinder should not be problem on lathe..

Thanks for the pictures! BTW!

tf


PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
hinnerker wrote:
...I think its a better way to show the people, how they do a good conversion.. by showing them tools, instructions and solutions from lots of people. This will make the conversions better..


It could make conversions better.

But remember that guy in the German forum who wrote that he had converted a Canon SSC 800mm f/5.6 to EF mount.
It seems he was inspired from your SSC 55/1.2 modification thread - and shortend the lens 2 mm in 2 days work. With a bit more thinking or searching the internet he could have found better ways.

Sometimes lens conversion seems too easy, and people start things they could not master. Some have not the experience, tools and theory to do proper conversions, some don´t realize what the lens is worth they want to convert quickly to a current camera system.
And even with a How-To they could not manange the small not mentioned drawbacks.

I still wonder if the one who destroyed the mount of those 6 Canon FD 85/1.2 lenses (which were sold ~2010) tried to convert them to EF mount.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ZoneV wrote:

I still wonder if the one who destroyed the mount of those 6 Canon FD 85/1.2 lenses (which were sold ~2010) tried to convert them to EF mount.


I definitely sure, yes -- because that lens needs to be unscrewed as that glass has own retaining ring..

For lens which is 20 yrs old - well, sometimes you need WD-40 - otherwise -- it may be difficult to take it out.

tf


PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I must confess, it is a bit out of topic, yes.
But I feel it breathtaking to see how you get these beautifull old but still perfect lenses to a new life with drive and craftmanship.
Don't feel it as a too personal kind of competition, I like to see this shared very much gentlemen!


PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ZoneV wrote:
hinnerker wrote:
...I think its a better way to show the people, how they do a good conversion.. by showing them tools, instructions and solutions from lots of people. This will make the conversions better..


It could make conversions better.

But remember that guy in the German forum who wrote that he had converted a Canon SSC 800mm f/5.6 to EF mount.
It seems he was inspired from your SSC 55/1.2 modification thread - and shortend the lens 2 mm in 2 days work. With a bit more thinking or searching the internet he could have found better ways....


Don't know, why you mix my documentation of the FD 1.2/55mm conversion with the 800mm/f5.6...

The 1.2/55mm needs no shorten in any way.. exact the other way around.
You have to find/build a spacer to reach the correct register distance !

This guy you refer did think simple... register distance FD = 42mm EOS EF = 44mm.. shorten 2mm.
So he has to bring the lens 2mm + Adaptorthickness closer to the sensor. Thats all and correct. They way he did this... sorry, cant understand your conclusion in refering my thread in the german forum.

But for himself this seemed to be his personal solution of the problem and its legal too. Its his own decision in going his personal way. Everyone who is doing conversions has an initial idea, how he realize the conversion. And there is no "correct" or given way in doing that. Its all the time limited by personal skills and expertises and imagination..

The result for himself is important not how we think about the way he was doing the conversion.

If i think about my first conversions.. or your first shown pictures of your work.. that was far away from beeing a "perfect" work. But it works for my needs and that was my lens and decision to do it that way. Peut a peut the conversions are better and better.

And its really a difference if we are talking about own lenses or Pro conversions for other people. Most people dont want to buy a conversion for 150 or more USD in addition to the costs of a good FD Lens..

Why they should not see a documentation or a "how to" in simple steps?
The decission pro or con of a "self-conversion" would be unaffected and only limited by his own skills.

Maybe in the next weeks i will do a translation of the "how to" conversion of the Canon FD 1.2/55mm S.S.C lens in english, to show, how different ways of this lens conversion are possible.. a simple way.. and the perfect way in form.. and cosmetical.

Most people are looking for cheap and simple ways to bring their old FD Lenses to a new digital life. Not more. They are not willing to pay hundreds of USD to PRO conversion and sometimes this is really not necessary and the work not mysterical.

Cheers
Henry


PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hinnerker wrote:
...
Don't know, why you mix my documentation of the FD 1.2/55mm conversion with the 800mm/f5.6...


Oh I don´t mix it up.
This guy wrote in your (sticky on top of the repair forum) FD 55mm /1.2 thread that he has converted his Canon 800/5.6:
http://www.digicamclub.de/showthread.php/12322-Canon-FD-1.2-55mm-SSC-Umbaudoku..?p=143308&viewfull=1#post143308

It seems he was inspired while reading your documentation.
And he encouraged others to do mount conversions as well.

But after my hint, that this lens would work with a simple adapter, he said (translated):
"Oh my God. I make the effort and shorten the lens 2mm, while I would have no need to do? What a bummer. Two days work for nothing."

So it seems that he realized that more information or knowledge would be helpful - but too late.

He realized himself (!) that his personal solution was bad.

I think better lenses are worth better mount conversions.
I think the one that demolished the 6 FD 85/1.2L did a "bad" thing. He could do that, no law will be against that. It is not a crime.
But from my inner feeling (emotion) it is not a good thing - there are cheaper lenses around for learning mount conversions, or realize that one has not the skill for such things.

Lens conversions are not mysterious, your right.
But sometimes there are problems that need to be skillful analyzed, remember the problems with your first FD 300mm/2.8L conversion and the grazing straylight.

I do not think that DIY documentations are bad, I have the largest photo DIY directory on my website.
But I try to give hints on risks, and try not to forget to tell the people that it is not as simple as one could think when one reads the documentation.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ZoneV wrote:
hinnerker wrote:
...
Don't know, why you mix my documentation of the FD 1.2/55mm conversion with the 800mm/f5.6...


Oh I don´t mix it up.
This guy wrote in your (sticky on top of the repair forum) FD 55mm /1.2 thread that he has converted his Canon 800/5.6:
http://www.digicamclub.de/showthread.php/12322-Canon-FD-1.2-55mm-SSC-Umbaudoku..?p=143308&viewfull=1#post143308

It seems he was inspired while reading your documentation.
And he encouraged others to do mount conversions as well.

But after my hint, that this lens would work with a simple adapter, he said (translated):
"Oh my God. I make the effort and shorten the lens 2mm, while I would have no need to do? What a bummer. Two days work for nothing."

So it seems that he realized that more information or knowledge would be helpful - but too late.

He realized himself (!) that his personal solution was bad.

I think better lenses are worth better mount conversions.
I think the one that demolished the 6 FD 85/1.2L did a "bad" thing. He could do that, no law will be against that. It is not a crime.
But from my inner feeling (emotion) it is not a good thing - there are cheaper lenses around for learning mount conversions, or realize that one has not the skill for such things.

Lens conversions are not mysterious, your right.
But sometimes there are problems that need to be skillful analyzed, remember the problems with your first FD 300mm/2.8L conversion and the grazing straylight.

I do not think that DIY documentations are bad, I have the largest photo DIY directory on my website.
But I try to give hints on risks, and try not to forget to tell the people that it is not as simple as one could think when one reads the documentation.



ZoneV wrote:

Oh I don´t mix it up.
This guy wrote in your (sticky on top of the repair forum) FD 55mm /1.2 thread that he has converted his Canon 800/5.6:
http://www.digicamclub.de/showthread.php/12322-Canon-FD-1.2-55mm-SSC-Umbaudoku..?p=143308&viewfull=1#post143308


1. It was his own decission to choose the place in the forum where he post a "success message".. but to make a conclusion in the way you are acting.. ouch!
In that refered thread is no hint in shorten a lens on 2mm !!!
Dont know, what you want to say with your quote ?????

He did the conversion job ... and everything works fine for him !
Where is the problem?

If personally you find information on the internet, how to manage this conversion in a maybe simplier way.. great and congrats.
But would the guy being able to produce an adaptor ring on a lathe?
We both dont know that.
Really a boring discussion and statement, because the guy only stated "Two day work for nothing"...

2. The guy with the 800mm/5.6 did spent a lot of time in his conversion.. so i think, he gets a good result for himself ! Thats important only and not the question if he can find a maybe "better" or "simplier" way in doing that.
ZoneV wrote:
He realized himself (!) that his personal solution was bad.

That makes his conversion not "bad" !!!! only extensive in time!!!

3.
ZoneV wrote:

So it seems that he realized that more information or knowledge would be helpful - but too late.

But this guy is not interesting in general FD conversion and as i already wrote, sometimes its hard work to find needed information on internet.


4.
ZoneV wrote:

But sometimes there are problems that need to be skillful analyzed, remember the problems with your first FD 300mm/2.8L conversion and the grazing straylight.


Really?
You also havent realized that straylight problem with the FD Makro 4/100mm macro conversion, if i remember right!

.. thats, why forum all over the world are sometimes helpful in discussing this aspects. Very Happy

Cheers
Henry


PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hinnerker wrote:
...
But would the guy being able to produce an adaptor ring on a lathe?
We both dont know that.
Really a boring discussion and statement, because the guy only stated "Two day work for nothing"...
...


Yes we do not know if he could manage that by himself. But I think he realized that for example the Ed Mika adapter would be a better way for him, and now this adapter is available.

hinnerker wrote:
...
2. The guy with the 800mm/5.6 did spent a lot of time in his conversion.. so i think, he gets a good result for himself !
...

Long conversion time is not a warranty for a good result Smile

hinnerker wrote:
...
That makes his conversion not "bad" !!!! only extensive in time!!!
...


For me his "Oh my God" seems a bit like he thought his conversion could be bad. Probably it was really bad, don´t kown how he realized the iris coupling or EF-mount fixing.

hinnerker wrote:
...
Really?
You also havent realized that straylight problem with the FD Makro 4/100mm macro conversion, if i remember right!
...


You don´t remember right.
Regarding the Canon FD 100mm/4 macro which I converted to EF mount, I realized a heavy loss in image contrast on some images.
I wrote the two possible reasons I could imaging:

1. I have left the inner tube of the lens away, and possible some parts of the lens are not black enough - so I saw this simple possible issue already whilst asking.

2. Ghosting - it seems to be sometimes a problem with old lenses and digital cameras with reflections on plan lens surfaces and the plan sensor.
And I asked if someone has information or experience about ghosting, a list of "ghost prone" lenses, websites or something like that.

Later I realized that the first reason I thought of was the problem.
The helicoid reflects light back to the sensor - at nearer objects when the image distance (extension) was large. With the inner tube installed that was solved.

http://www.digicamclub.de/showthread.php/12054-Ghosting-Schleier-an-DSLR?highlight=

As I was mainly interessted in information about ghosting experience and know how with older lenses, I wrote that question in the manual lenses general board as it was not a question regarding repair and maintanance.

But the users there had no ghosting experience / information, seem sto be pretty rare.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Equipment Care and Repairs
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2