Anyone have experience with FD to EOS converter and Canon MountAdapter EF-EOS M

On 6/21/15 10:08 PM, in article
, "RichA"
wrote:

On Wednesday, 17 June 2015 07:21:01 UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
I have a Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS M hopefully in the post on it's way to
me.

And been considering a FD lens to EOS adapter which range from 16 quid to 45
quid.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/cameras/dp/B...tronics&ie=UTF
8&qid=1434539133&sr=1-1&keywords=FD+to+eos

The only thing I'd use it for is with my olde Tokina 400mm f6.3 lens.
But going by the reviews it's not to promising.
I was planning on doing a few moon shots and trying to use it for 'long
distance' macro work. But maybe they're still a waste of money....

any thoughts ?

Most old FD lenses are mostly nothing to write home about. Canon owners
typically adapt other brand's lenses that perform better. Look for Nikon,
Olympus OM, some Minolta, Konica, Pentax.

Bullcrap, Pentax and Konica had NOTHING close to the Canon 85mm Ÿ1,2; Nikon,
Olympus maybe. The 300mm Ÿ2.8 FD was used by more sports photogs than ANY
other brand during the FD heyday.

On 6/24/2015 10:28 AM, George Kerby wrote:



On 6/21/15 10:08 PM, in article
, "RichA"
wrote:

On Wednesday, 17 June 2015 07:21:01 UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
I have a Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS M hopefully in the post on it's way to
me.

And been considering a FD lens to EOS adapter which range from 16 quid to 45
quid.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/cameras/dp/B...tronics&ie=UTF
8&qid=1434539133&sr=1-1&keywords=FD+to+eos

The only thing I'd use it for is with my olde Tokina 400mm f6.3 lens.
But going by the reviews it's not to promising.
I was planning on doing a few moon shots and trying to use it for 'long
distance' macro work. But maybe they're still a waste of money....

any thoughts ?

Most old FD lenses are mostly nothing to write home about. Canon owners
typically adapt other brand's lenses that perform better. Look for Nikon,
Olympus OM, some Minolta, Konica, Pentax.

Bullcrap, Pentax and Konica had NOTHING close to the Canon 85mm Ÿ1,2; Nikon,
Olympus maybe. The 300mm Ÿ2.8 FD was used by more sports photogs than ANY
other brand during the FD heyday.


IIRC Didn't Canon make a great 200mm F1.8?

--
PeterN

On 6/24/15 11:01 AM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 6/24/2015 10:28 AM, George Kerby wrote:



On 6/21/15 10:08 PM, in article
, "RichA"
wrote:

On Wednesday, 17 June 2015 07:21:01 UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
I have a Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS M hopefully in the post on it's way to
me.

And been considering a FD lens to EOS adapter which range from 16 quid to
45
quid.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/cameras/dp/B...ectronics&ie=U
TF
8&qid=1434539133&sr=1-1&keywords=FD+to+eos

The only thing I'd use it for is with my olde Tokina 400mm f6.3 lens.
But going by the reviews it's not to promising.
I was planning on doing a few moon shots and trying to use it for 'long
distance' macro work. But maybe they're still a waste of money....

any thoughts ?

Most old FD lenses are mostly nothing to write home about. Canon owners
typically adapt other brand's lenses that perform better. Look for Nikon,
Olympus OM, some Minolta, Konica, Pentax.

Bullcrap, Pentax and Konica had NOTHING close to the Canon 85mm �1,2; Nikon,
Olympus maybe. The 300mm �2.8 FD was used by more sports photogs than ANY
other brand during the FD heyday.


IIRC Didn't Canon make a great 200mm F1.8?

Not that I or Google would know about. The 2.8 was as bright as it could get
because the front element was made with fluorite.

On 6/25/2015 5:03 PM, George Kerby wrote:



On 6/24/15 11:01 AM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 6/24/2015 10:28 AM, George Kerby wrote:



On 6/21/15 10:08 PM, in article
, "RichA"
wrote:

On Wednesday, 17 June 2015 07:21:01 UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
I have a Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS M hopefully in the post on it's way to
me.

And been considering a FD lens to EOS adapter which range from 16 quid to
45
quid.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/cameras/dp/B...ectronics&ie=U
TF
8&qid=1434539133&sr=1-1&keywords=FD+to+eos

The only thing I'd use it for is with my olde Tokina 400mm f6.3 lens.
But going by the reviews it's not to promising.
I was planning on doing a few moon shots and trying to use it for 'long
distance' macro work. But maybe they're still a waste of money....

any thoughts ?

Most old FD lenses are mostly nothing to write home about. Canon owners
typically adapt other brand's lenses that perform better. Look for Nikon,
Olympus OM, some Minolta, Konica, Pentax.

Bullcrap, Pentax and Konica had NOTHING close to the Canon 85mm �1,2; Nikon,
Olympus maybe. The 300mm �2.8 FD was used by more sports photogs than ANY
other brand during the FD heyday.


IIRC Didn't Canon make a great 200mm F1.8?

Not that I or Google would know about. The 2.8 was as bright as it could get
because the front element was made with fluorite.



http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200mm-f-1.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

--
PeterN

On Jun 25, 2015, George Kerby wrote
(in ):




On 6/24/15 11:01 AM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

IIRC Didn't Canon make a great 200mm F1.8?

Not that I or Google would know about. The 2.8 was as bright as it could get
because the front element was made with fluorite.

I’ll bet that it was minty fresh.


--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Jun 25, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in ):


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R....8-L-USM-Lens-
Re
view.aspx

Ruggedly luggable.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 6/25/2015 8:17 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jun 25, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in ):


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R....8-L-USM-Lens-
Re
view.aspx

Ruggedly luggable.


Compared to this guy it is.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/520646-USA/Nikon_2173_Telephoto_AF_S_Nikkor_600mm.html

That lens is #1 on my "I wish I could have it," list. But It will never
happen.


--
PeterN

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 17:17:41 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jun 25, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in ):


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200mm-f-1.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Ruggedly luggable.

URL is now (hopefully) unwrapped.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Jun 26, 2015, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 17:17:41 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jun 25, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in ):

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R....8-L-USM-Lens-
Review.aspx

Ruggedly luggable.

URL is now (hopefully) unwrapped.

Yup! There was some horrible mutilation to that URL when I responded. I
suspect that autocorrect might have been responsible.


--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Jun 26, 2015, Savageduck wrote
(in news.com):

On Jun 26, 2015, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 17:17:41 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jun 25, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in ):
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R....8-L-USM-Lens-
Review.aspx

Ruggedly luggable.

URL is now (hopefully) unwrapped.

Yup! There was some horrible mutilation to that URL when I responded. I
suspect that autocorrect might have been responsible.

....and it just happened again ;-(

--

Regards,
Savageduck