| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
martyn_bannister
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 1151
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 9:22 am Post subject: Canon FL 55/1.2 - is it the adapter? |
 |
|
martyn_bannister wrote:
Took this lens out for a morning walk today. It is a very sexy looking lens and I am planning to convert to EOS mount from FD. This outing I was using a no-name optical adapter. Don't know whether it is the adapter, or the lens itself, but some serious exposure/focus/ghosting issues in the full set HERE plus some spoooooooky bokeh 
The lens.....
Best of the shots.....
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
IAZA
Joined: 16 Apr 2010
Posts: 2587
Location: Indonesia
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
IAZA wrote:
the last 2, bokeh is unique. Perhap someone love it and someone doesn't.
I like for some case of effect
_________________
nex5, Olympus EPM1, yashica half 14, Canon eos 650 want to see samples of mine? please click My lenses
and My gallery
~Suat~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trev
Joined: 30 Jun 2010
Posts: 580
Location: North Wales - UK
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
trev wrote:
Wow, looks like someones been on "the weed" again doesnt it?
Unique
_________________
Fuji X10, X-A1 and Samsung nx 20 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
std
Joined: 09 Feb 2010
Posts: 1826
Location: Bulgaria
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
std wrote:
Looks good .. about the overexposure do you use focus confirm chip on the adapter? If you are and the f value reported by the chip is different than the real f stop on the lens you may need to correct the EV manually. The ghosting should be normal if you are shooting at f 1.2 in strong daylight.
_________________
Stefan
My lens list:
SLR MD: Rokkor 1,7/50 Exakta: Kilfitt-Makro-Kilar E 3.5/4cm; CZJ 2/50 Pancolar;M42: CZJ 2.8/50 Tessar; Mir-1B 2.8/37; Jupiter-9 2/85 T-mount: Tamron 5.9/200; Tamron 6.9/300; Tamron 7.5/400 C-mount: Cosmicar 1.8/50 Y/S: Sun 3.5/38-90, Sun 4/70-210 RF Contax RF: Jupiter-8 2/50; Contax G:CZ 2,8/21 Biogon T; CZ 2,8/28 Biogon T; CZ 2/35 Planar T; CZ 2/45 Planar T; CZ 2,8/90 Sonnar T |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
M. Valdemar
Joined: 14 Nov 2008
Posts: 93
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
M. Valdemar wrote:
The cheap FD optical adapters are ALL junk.
You can't judge the quality of any lens when shooting through one of these adapters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 2167
Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
Martyn - I don't think you'll see its real quality until you can abandon the optical adapter. Despite the frequent (and not unreasonable) assumption that the FD lenses were "better" than the FL ones, I still think the earlier ones have a distinct and different character, more akin to the late Canon rangefinder lenses. One of my many foolish photographic mistakes was selling my 100mm f3.5 FL not very long ago - a real little treasure of a lens. But not as foolish as selling the 50mm f1.4 rangefinder lens - 
Be nice to see your results when you get the conversion done.
_________________
Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
std
Joined: 09 Feb 2010
Posts: 1826
Location: Bulgaria
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
std wrote:
Martin
I'm interested in the original FD mount of this FL .. (if you remove it and you don't need it any more). Suat was very kind to relay the same lens to me but it has only a EOS adapter screwed in and i would like to get back the original mount.
BR,
Stefan
_________________
Stefan
My lens list:
SLR MD: Rokkor 1,7/50 Exakta: Kilfitt-Makro-Kilar E 3.5/4cm; CZJ 2/50 Pancolar;M42: CZJ 2.8/50 Tessar; Mir-1B 2.8/37; Jupiter-9 2/85 T-mount: Tamron 5.9/200; Tamron 6.9/300; Tamron 7.5/400 C-mount: Cosmicar 1.8/50 Y/S: Sun 3.5/38-90, Sun 4/70-210 RF Contax RF: Jupiter-8 2/50; Contax G:CZ 2,8/21 Biogon T; CZ 2,8/28 Biogon T; CZ 2/35 Planar T; CZ 2/45 Planar T; CZ 2,8/90 Sonnar T |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nixland
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Posts: 577
Expire: 2012-07-29
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
nixland wrote:
Wow, what a cool bokeh.
Is it due to the FD-EOS adapter optical or its the character of the FL?
_________________
Carl Zeiss Jena: Biotar 58/2 1Q, DDR Pancolar 80/1.8 MC, Biotar 75/1.5, Biotar 10cm/2, DDR Sonnar 135/3.5 MC
Carl Zeiss C/Y: Planar 50/1.4 T*, Planar 85/1.4 T*, Planar 100/2 T*, Sonnar 135/2.8 T*
Leica: Summicron-R 35/2 v1, Summicron-R 50/2, Summilux-R 80/1.4, Summicron-R 90/2
Pentax: A 50/1.2
Minolta: Rokkor MC 58/1.2, Rokkor MC 85/1.7, Rokkor MC 100/2, MD 200/2.8
Olympus: Zuiko MC Auto-W 21/2, Zuiko 50/1.2, Zuiko MC Auto-T 85/2, Zuiko Auto-T 100/2
Nikon: Nikkor 28/2.8 Ais, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikkor 105/1.8, 300/2.8 ED (Ais)
Canon: FD 50/1.2 L, FD 85/1.2 L
Sony: 135/2.8 STF
Jupiter: 85/2 Alu
Cyclop: 85/1.5
Meyer-Optic: Trioplan 100/2.8, Orestor 100/2.8, Primotar 135/3.5
Samyang: 8/3.5 FE, 14/2.8, 85/1.4, 85/1.4 UMC
FOR SALE
Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 10cm/2 || Carl Zeiss ZE Distagon 28/2 || Minolta Rokkor MD 35/1.8 || Rokkor-X MC 85/1.7 || Rokkor MD 85/1.7 || Olympus Zuiko MC Auto-W 21/2 || Olympus 100/2 || Nikon Nikkor 35/1.4 || Canon: FD 55/1.2 || Vivitar 90/2.5 Series 1 VMC || Tamron: 90/2.5 SP
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
std
Joined: 09 Feb 2010
Posts: 1826
Location: Bulgaria
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
std wrote:
I guess this is because of the adapter - i've got very pleasant rendering - especially from close distance.
Maybe this is the most busy i found
_________________
Stefan
My lens list:
SLR MD: Rokkor 1,7/50 Exakta: Kilfitt-Makro-Kilar E 3.5/4cm; CZJ 2/50 Pancolar;M42: CZJ 2.8/50 Tessar; Mir-1B 2.8/37; Jupiter-9 2/85 T-mount: Tamron 5.9/200; Tamron 6.9/300; Tamron 7.5/400 C-mount: Cosmicar 1.8/50 Y/S: Sun 3.5/38-90, Sun 4/70-210 RF Contax RF: Jupiter-8 2/50; Contax G:CZ 2,8/21 Biogon T; CZ 2,8/28 Biogon T; CZ 2/35 Planar T; CZ 2/45 Planar T; CZ 2,8/90 Sonnar T |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
martyn_bannister
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 1151
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
martyn_bannister wrote:
| std wrote: |
| Looks good .. about the overexposure do you use focus confirm chip on the adapter? If you are and the f value reported by the chip is different than the real f stop on the lens you may need to correct the EV manually. The ghosting should be normal if you are shooting at f 1.2 in strong daylight. |
No focus confirm - just the "no-name" optical adapter. I normally shoot 1 stop under on my 5D in Av mode for all manual lenses but this time I decided to shoot 0ev. MISTAKE!
Interesting to hear that the "ghosting" is normal at f1.2  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
martyn_bannister
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 1151
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
martyn_bannister wrote:
| std wrote: |
I guess this is because of the adapter - i've got very pleasant rendering - especially from close distance.
|
Superb results! I am definitely encouraged to convert mine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pat donnelly
Joined: 19 Jan 2010
Posts: 666
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:21 am Post subject: Heresy!!!! |
|
|
pat donnelly wrote:
Obviously not expert in converting lenses to EOS compatible, OK?
But...., could you convert to Nikon or M42 and then use a mechanical adapter?
The EOS lenses are very mount unfriendly. They will fit m4/3 and NEX but very few other types. Just saying and it might be easier? It will certainly be more marketable later?
_________________
---------------------------------
EP-1, E-410, E-300, D100, D1,
C-Mt: 25mm 1.9, 75mm 1.4, 75mm 1.3, 75mm 1.9, Ultra wides, one inch sensor, 20+ c-mount zooms
OM 350mm f2.8, Nikkor 180 f2.8, Exa 180 f2.8,
Tamrons: 90mm f2.5, 500mm f8 x3, 135 f2.5, 200 f3.5, 24mm 2.5, 28mm 2.5 x8,
FD 500mm mirror lens |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 29545
Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
Of oourse it's fault of the optical adapter. They always degrade the quality of the image. No name ones, on top of that, are likely to use bottle-bottom glass.
_________________
Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
After just converting a Canon FL 2.5/35 of the same vintage (and very similar construction) my advice is to not bother as it's a very difficult and highly destructive conversion, you have to remove all of the aperture-body connection mechanism and cut back the lens body a hell of a lot to get infinity.
I can upload some pics of just how much butchery my lens needed to get to infinity, it took a lot of work...
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
martyn_bannister
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 1151
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
martyn_bannister wrote:
| iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
After just converting a Canon FL 2.5/35 of the same vintage (and very similar construction) my advice is to not bother as it's a very difficult and highly destructive conversion, you have to remove all of the aperture-body connection mechanism and cut back the lens body a hell of a lot to get infinity.
I can upload some pics of just how much butchery my lens needed to get to infinity, it took a lot of work... |
Please do - I'd be interested to see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 57865
Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:21 pm Post subject: Re: Heresy!!!! |
|
|
Attila wrote:
| pat donnelly wrote: |
Obviously not expert in converting lenses to EOS compatible, OK?
But...., could you convert to Nikon or M42 and then use a mechanical adapter?
The EOS lenses are very mount unfriendly. They will fit m4/3 and NEX but very few other types. Just saying and it might be easier? It will certainly be more marketable later? |
+1 To convert Nikon is better idea. If you need to sell it you can either sell to Nikon and EOS owners.
_________________
-------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Well, I can't actually get the four parts of the lens to screw back together, spent ages trying, no idea why...
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
