Best Auto-Confirm Adapter Canon

[Jeff Zen]

I'm a Pentax user with a large collection of MF lenses. I'm pondering the ramifications of switching to Canon. Any recommendations on an auto-confirm adapter for Canon? I only see two from China on Ebay at the moment. This is not encouraging. My eyes are less than perfect and I need focus confirmation. Any and all advice about using Canon for MF would be greatly appreciated.

[scsambrook]

I might get savaged by Canon fans for saying this, but I'm not convinced that any auto-focus confirming converter can be trusted. The root problem is not with these devices but with the cameras' own indicators. I have a Pentax K10d and a couple of EOS film slrs, none of which can be trusted as far as the AF indicator is concerned. That applies to both makes when using AF lenses and to the Pentax when using manual ones. I don't use any MF lenses on the EOS film bodies.

The problem is that the indicator lights at different points in the focusing travel, depending on whether you're focusing towards infinity or coming back from infinity. And the indicator remains on as you continue turning the lens after the 'point of impact'. I'm now convinced that the only way to get reliable manual focusing is with a split image or microprism screen which (unlike the screens suppled in AF slrs) was designed to be used for focusing.

I'm about to order a KatzEye screen, and I think it will be money well spent. It'll be interesting to see if anybody else thinks on similar lines.

I gather that adapters to put MF lenses on Canons also need electronic contacts, which appear sometimes to cause problems of their own. That's clearly another complication, but the heart of the matter seems to be that the AF confirmation indicators were meant simply confirm to the user that AF lenses had actually achieved a "satisfactory" setting. Well, satisfactory from the camera's point of view

[calvin83]

In my opinion, the purpose of an AFC chip is to make the metering on most EOS camera less inaccurate. A good focus screen and a viewfinder enlarger/magnifier should work better than the AF confirm in the camera when using MF lens. Liveview will help for accurate focusing when using a tripod.

[cooltouch]

I have an EOS XS (1000D), one of Canon's compact crop-body DSLRs. I've wondered about focus-confirm chips as well. From what little I've read on the subject, the chip has to be programmed for a specific lens, or at least a specific maximum aperture. If this is true, then this is a real problem for me, since most of the lenses I own are MF lenses, and they're all different.

I have a standard, chipless adapter that I share amongst all my Nikon-mount lenses on my EOS. Based on my negative experiences, which mostly have to do with the XS's lack of focusing discrimination ability at apertures wider than f/4 or so, I would recommend getting a camera with Live View at a minimum. From what I've been told, some of the more expensive models, specifically the 5D and 5D II, don't seem to have this same problem with the focusing screen.

I too have questions about the utility of going with a screen like a Katzeye. As a mf 35mm shooter from way back, I've always gone the other way -- going from a spit-image with microprism to a plain matte screen whenever possible. This was because I frequently used slower lenses and found the darkened center of the viewfinder to be highly annoying. So I just learned to focus on the ground glass of plain matte screens without aids. I still prefer this, and really don't want to have to go back to seeing blacked out focusing aids in the center of my focusing screen when I'm using slower lenses, just so I can focus better with fast ones.

If it is true that the 5D and 5D II do not have the same issues that the smaller crop bodies do, then I suspect that the ultimate answer will be to get one of these SLRs.

[vulko]

When it comes to m42->EOS I find these the best:

http://kamepa.ru/images/adapters_items/img_9sahk.jpg
http://poiskfoto.ru/shop/components/com_virtuemart/shop_image/product/485f8f0a6cf82533344f1dd928a08678.jpg

Those are Jolos and Poiskfoto brands, dunno if you can get any on eBay.
Price is around 40 euro.

[symphonic]

Not sure about Pentax, but for Canon adapters from Big_Is are ok. Everything works fine with my Pancolar. If you intend to use it on more lenses, it's not convenient as you have to program it every time you'd want to change lenses (and on this adapter it's a pain, you have to engage shutter every time you want to confirm anything... which is stupid, they could make it with dof preview button instead...). I'll probably try HappyPageHK adapters one day, they seem like great quality.

But overall, I agree with Calvin83, it mostly pays of because of metering (altough that's a pain sometimes, the only thing I hate about manual lenses).

[Fretless Pete]

I also have some Focus Confirm chip adapters, also from Big_IS for both my SP Tamrons, my M42 EBC Fujinon and my Series 1 P/K Vivitar

I even have one fitted to my APO 600mm fixed ap. f7.5 scope.

They work fine for me, but not for everyone i guess. Personal preferences

[cooltouch]

Well, to me, Big_IS's prices are really high. $50 for an AF confirm adapter and $80 for an EMF/AF confirm adapter is more than I've paid for most of the mf lenses I'd like to use on my EOS.

I see where he sells just the AF-confirm chip for about $8, so with the cost of an adapter included, that makes things a bit more reasonable. Anybody here gone that route?

I'm not real sure what the the EMF adapter does -- just supplies EXIF info, is that it?

[Fretless Pete]

I'd be surprised if you found a Focus Confirm ( not AF adapter - AF = auto focus , and not possible on MF lenses ) adapter for $8. You might find just a straight adapter without FC for that money, but i cant see an FC adapter being $8

The EMF FC adapter allow you to program the max aperture and focal length so the camera gives you the EXIF. You must set the aperture on the camera to match the aperture setting on your lens, if you want the EXIF to be correct.

Also, the EMF FC adapters allow any back and front focusing issues to be addressed in the programming of the adapter

[cooltouch]

I wasn''t referring to the adapter -- I was referring to the chip. I specifically mentioned that the cost of the chip + adapter would be more reasonable.

FC -- AF-confirm -- okay, pardon my slip with the jargon. Tomatos - tomahtos -- I think you know what I meant.

[ylyad]

Personal experience: I have two adapters, one with chip (not porgrammable, fakes a 50mm f/1.4) and one without.

When it comes to exposure, both behave identically: when my lens is wide-open (whatever lens, so f/3.5 max), exposure is more or less OK - maybe not perfect, but I'm not able yet to spot the problem i.e. definining if it's well exposed or a bit under/over-exposed. When I'm closing down, the camera over-exposes, really. I think I'm making something wrong, but I don't know what...

When it comes to AF-confirm (for the ring that has the chip), I'm satisfied with it. And though I have a good viewfinder (large and clear, even if not on par with 5D's), it really helps. Especially when closing down: even if the depth of field increases, I'm happy to have the dots, especially in low-light situations where the viewfinder gets really dark...

And I took a 9 euros (shipping incl.) ring from China - vendor gobindo.cn.

[cooltouch]

Overexposure with a stopped down manual lens while shooting in Aperture-priority mode is a common problem on the EOS DSLRs. It has to do with the way the camera meters a scene -- it requires electronic input from the lens to meter it properly. Isn't this one of the things the EMF adapter is supposed to elminate?

As for my purposes, mostly what I care about with my crop-body Canon and its dinky viewfinder, is the focus-confirmation.

So since the focus-confirmation chip has to be programmed for focal length, I guess it won't work at all with a MF zoom lens will it? Or, I guess it will work at one focal length in the zoom range, right?

[ylyad]

Let me precise: I don't program my chip. The EMF is programmable for focal length and aperture. But from what I understand, the main usage of this programmation is to have proper EXIF information. It does not change ANYTHING on shooting or AF confirmation or whatever. For both chips.

Precision: OK, the aperture programmation allows to input the same aperture on the body than the one selected on the lens, and this could be of some effect on automatic exposure. But this is optional and far from being confirmed.

[martinsmith99]

I've not found a chip yet that is accurate.

I have also never found the metering to be innacurate on either a 400D, 40D, 5D or 5D mii with maual lenses. I think the problem in these cases are user-related by not allowing for backlit or dark/light subjects. I hear the same thing on the Canon forum with AF lenses which 99.99999% of the time is is the worker blaming the tool.

[cooltouch]

[fergus]

In my experience

Canon EOS 40D with EF-S screen meters fine with MFL's, with or without AF confirm chips.

Canon 400D on the other hand meters poorly with MFL's, typically (some variance depending on lens) under-exposing with wide open fast lenses (F/2.8 or faster), metering about right around F/4 - 5.6 and progressively over-exposing above F/5.6. Appears to make no difference whether AF confirm chips (non-programable ones anyway) are used or not. Manual mode metering also effected just the same, unless you manually meter at the best known metering aperture for the lens (usually F/4 - 5.6 in my case) and calculate your own setting for other apertures.

Generally, I found AF confirm just gave a false sense of confidence in focussing and then left me wondering why so many shots were not sharply focussed. I do not rely on them now, preferring to use my eyes.

[trev]

Oh what the heck, if in doubt ----- use a reliable hand held meter

[cooltouch]

Or do as I do and "chimp" the photos, adjusting the exposure as necessary based on the immediate results. Nothing wrong with using a good hand-held meter, though.

[spamster]

I was thinking about the AF confirmation chips too. I figure it just gives an idea what exposure will look like. I'll just have to rely on a Kateyez viewfinder and my eyes