Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Canon FL 58mm F1.2 -converted to EOS
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:07 pm    Post subject: Canon FL 58mm F1.2 -converted to EOS Reply with quote

#1
[img]http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/201811/1918__DSC7402_1.jpg[/img][/url]

#2
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/201811/big_1918__DSC7403_1.jpg]
#3
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/201811/big_1918__DSC7405_1.jpg]
#4
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/201811/big_1918__DSC7404_1.jpg]
#5
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/201811/big_1918__DSC7406_1.jpg]
#6
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/201811/big_1918__DSC7407_1.jpg]

#7
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/201811/big_1918__DSC7408_1.jpg]
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/201811/big_1918__DSC7410_1.jpg]

#9
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/201811/big_1918__DSC7409_1.jpg]
[img] http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/201811/1918__DSC7402_1.jpg [/img]

the two example photos, without retouching.


Last edited by francotirador on Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:58 am; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is for some administrator. I have more than 700 post and I am not allowed to upload photos. Can that be corrected?
Thank you


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Repost:

#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


#6


#7


#8


#9


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks tb_a


PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2018 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

you only need [img] http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/201811/1918__DSC7402_1.jpg [/img] but without the spaces to post pictures.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2018 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

francotirador wrote:
This is for some administrator. I have more than 700 post and I am not allowed to upload photos. Can that be corrected?
Thank you


Not sure what happened, I will pass this on to Attila...

Wonderful adaption work!! Congrats


PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="kds315*"][quote="francotirador"]This is for some administrator. I have more than 700 post and I am not allowed to upload photos. Can that be corrected?
Thank you[/quote]

Not sure what happened, I will pass this on to Attila...

Wonderful adaption work!! :1co)[/quote]
Thanks
Best regards


PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:46 pm    Post subject: Re: Canon FL 58mm F1.2 -converted to EOS Reply with quote

Did you use the forum automated system to post this? or did you do it manually?
The reason the images don't show is that the first image uses an img tag at the begining, and a /url tag at the end, it should have been /img.
2 through 9 use the hotlink tag at the begining and /jpg at the end.... The two tags must match for them to work jpg & /jpg

There are two ways I do it manually, paste the link or links and then highlight the each link separately and click the Img button once.
Or, click the Img button, paste the link, and click the Img button. Then repeat for each link.
The last one has img tags at both ends, but has spaces at both ends of the link.

francotirador wrote:
#1
[/url]

#2
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/201811/big_1918__DSC7403_1.jpg]
#3
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/201811/big_1918__DSC7405_1.jpg]
#4
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/201811/big_1918__DSC7404_1.jpg]
#5
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/201811/big_1918__DSC7406_1.jpg]
#6
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/201811/big_1918__DSC7407_1.jpg]

#7
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/201811/big_1918__DSC7408_1.jpg]
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/201811/big_1918__DSC7410_1.jpg]

#9
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/201811/big_1918__DSC7409_1.jpg]
[img] http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/201811/1918__DSC7402_1.jpg [/img]

the two example photos, without retouching.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Odd, the first link in my quote worked, but the original didn't...


PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi francotirador,
Fantastic work!
I have this lens and I would like to adapt to my EOS 6Dmk2.
Can your adapter permit to get focusing to infinite?
I removed the FL mount



and I tried to take a picture with the lens resting it on the EOS without an adapter (see attached photo) just to test it its potentialities




but I was able to focus up to 1m. I know the canon FL flange distance is 42mm vs EOS Ef 44mm, this means I should retract the optics by 2mm to get infinite focus. So the question is :
How did you do with your adapter, can you please share your experience, and give any suggestion?
Thanks in advance
BR
Giorgio


PostPosted: Sun Mar 31, 2019 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As long as you can return the lens to original, I have no problem with a mount swap.
I do however recommend against cutting and hacking a nice lens to fit on a DSLR these days as there are many Mirrorless options out there that eliminate the need to do this, if the cutting and hacking continues year after year there will soon be very few original lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lightshow wrote:
As long as you can return the lens to original, I have no problem with a mount swap.
I do however recommend against cutting and hacking a nice lens to fit on a DSLR these days as there are many Mirrorless options out there that eliminate the need to do this, if the cutting and hacking continues year after year there will soon be very few original lenses.


HI Lightshow I agree with you, mine is an attempt to adapt the lens without irreversibly tampering with it. Every part I disassemble is documented with photos and stored for any subsequent reassembly and can be used in any other camera (mirrorless). I wonder how it was possible to adapt this lens to canon EF and keep the focus at infinity. I do not agree in jealously guarding these "hacks" which should rather be shared just to avoid compromising such jewels.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unfortunately Ed Mika doesn't have an adapter for the 58/1.2, maybe contact him, he probably has an explanation or advice.
https://edmika.com/product-category/fl-mount/
If it's the funky Bokeh you're after, the OM 55/1.2 is a better choice for EF.
To my knowledge the FL should be able to reach infinity with a mount transplant assuming the optics were in spec.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lightshow wrote:
Unfortunately Ed Mika doesn't have an adapter for the 58/1.2, maybe contact him, he probably has an explanation or advice.
https://edmika.com/product-category/fl-mount/
If it's the funky Bokeh you're after, the OM 55/1.2 is a better choice for EF.
To my knowledge the FL should be able to reach infinity with a mount transplant assuming the optics were in spec.


I already contacted Ed Mika time ago, he told me "I developed 3 different kits for the 3 different versions of the 58/1.2 but they are much too hard to do so I didn't release them" and nothing else he said. I will take into account your suggestion regarding the OM lens.

Lightshow wrote:
To my knowledge the FL should be able to reach infinity with a mount transplant assuming the optics were in spec.
: yes this is my opinion too, and this is what I thought to do, but I thing the optics should be retracted at least 2mm to compensate for the flange focal distance of EOS EF 44mm, see image




Giorgio


PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For FD mount, the tip of the camera mount is the register surface, the mount is typically thick enough that when it's removed the replacement EF mount can be made thin enough to absorb the 2mm, this one in your picture doesn't look all that thick.
For adjusting, generally you can't or it's very difficult to move the optics 2mm inwards toward the sensor/film plane, 0.5mm would be more likely, it really depends on how they designed the helicoid... And I've never been inside that lens.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lightshow wrote:
For FD mount, the tip of the camera mount is the register surface, the mount is typically thick enough that when it's removed the replacement EF mount can be made thin enough to absorb the 2mm, this one in your picture doesn't look all that thick.
For adjusting, generally you can't or it's very difficult to move the optics 2mm inwards toward the sensor/film plane, 0.5mm would be more likely, it really depends on how they designed the helicoid... And I've never been inside that lens.


I moved inwards the optics about 2mm toward the sensor , but this strangely allows me to focus up to 2m. this is really strange and unexpected.
I wonder how some have managed to adapt this lens to an EOS canon and be able to focus up to 8m or more as they declared.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you can test the lens on an FL/FD body, this will tell you if something is wrong with the lens, in which case you'll have to solve that issue first.

If you don't have a body to test with, you can compare the distances between the rings to be sure it was assembled correctly. You should be able to spot any relative differences. A 2 meter infinity is like 1cm out of position.
https://lens-db.com/canon-fl-58mm-f12-i-1964/



https://lens-db.com/canon-fl-58mm-f12-ii-1966/


If that's not it, perhaps an element is out of position or reversed.

You can also manually confirm the back-focus/registration distance (project an image onto a wall)
Place a lamp 2-3m away from a wall, set the lens to 2-3m, get the lamp in focus, and measure to the wall from an easily measurable point on the lens, then figure out from that point where the mount flange is and subtract the difference. you should be close to 42mm.
Note: The FL/FD mount flange is buried in the lens mount.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thanks, I will check it.
G.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gi0rgi0ba wrote:
I moved inwards the optics about 2mm toward the sensor , but this strangely allows me to focus up to 2m. this is really strange and unexpected.
I wonder how some have managed to adapt this lens to an EOS canon and be able to focus up to 8m or more as they declared.

They may also have reassembled helicoid "incorrectly".
Never owned this one, but some lenses can be reassembled with significant infinity undershot or overshot.
If the optical core does not collide with the lens rear housing when lens is set to infinity, there is a room for, ahem, "improvement".


PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lightshow wrote:


If that's not it, perhaps an element is out of position or reversed.



Is the FL 58/1.2 the same optically as the earlier Canomatic lens? I have that model, and disassembled it to service the aperture mechanism. On that model the optics consists of front and back optical blocks which each unscrew as a complete assembly. If that is the case for this lens, hopefully a reversed element has been avoided. Of course, if a previous owner tried to open the optical block to clean it, a reversed element is still a possibility.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alun Thomas wrote:
On that model the optics consists of front and back optical blocks which each unscrew as a complete assembly.

You reminded me about one more trick for extending focus distance.
One has to slightly increase distance between internal optical blocks.
This would work like internal focusing, just without floating correction.
The expected side effect is: the lens is likely become better corrected for close up shooting and significantly worse at infinity.
But gi0rgi0ba won't be getting infinity on his body anytime soon, so..


PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2019 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidaho wrote:
Alun Thomas wrote:
On that model the optics consists of front and back optical blocks which each unscrew as a complete assembly.

You reminded me about one more trick for extending focus distance.
One has to slightly increase distance between internal optical blocks.
This would work like internal focusing, just without floating correction.
The expected side effect is: the lens is likely become better corrected for close up shooting and significantly worse at infinity.
But gi0rgi0ba won't be getting infinity on his body anytime soon, so..


Hi
I tried also what you have suggested unscrewing it , but I just slightly increased the focus distance.
I do not know if someone opened the lens before me. the last rear optic could has been inverted , but I have a doubt.
I will try to invert it to see whats happen.


the last element it is easily to be inverted.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alun Thomas wrote:
Lightshow wrote:


If that's not it, perhaps an element is out of position or reversed.



Is the FL 58/1.2 the same optically as the earlier Canomatic lens? I have that model, and disassembled it to service the aperture mechanism. On that model the optics consists of front and back optical blocks which each unscrew as a complete assembly. If that is the case for this lens, hopefully a reversed element has been avoided. Of course, if a previous owner tried to open the optical block to clean it, a reversed element is still a possibility.



I believe they are the same, but don't quote me. Razz
The last could easily be installed backwards, the second last possibly, but it looks like it will touch the element to the left.
Canomatic https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/r76.html


Canon FL


http://www.mike-lee.org/scripts/camera/view.htm?id=1749


PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I compared the lens with the canon FL 50mm f1.4, same subject at 0.6m, first wide open and then at F11
I share the images just to judge










PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2019 7:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Lightshow"][quote="Alun Thomas"]
Lightshow wrote:


If that's not it, perhaps an element is out of position or reversed.



Hi Lightsow, I removed the rear element



there are no signs of tampering, the seal seems intact. So I doubt this element was open. Maybe the front optic, I will check it.