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

On 6/26/2015 7:20 AM, Savageduck wrote:
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 ;-(

--
Not on my machine.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200mm-f-1.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx



--
PeterN

On 6/25/15 4:30 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

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...electronics&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/R...-L-USM-Lens-Re
view.aspx

My mistake. I was looking for a 300mm, not 200mm as you posted. Old timers
Disease, I guess...

On 6/25/15 7:50 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

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/produc...ephoto_AF_S_Ni
kkor_600mm.html

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


If you win the Lotto, maybe?

On 6/26/2015 9:58 AM, George Kerby wrote:



On 6/25/15 4:30 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

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...electronics&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/R...-L-USM-Lens-Re
view.aspx

My mistake. I was looking for a 300mm, not 200mm as you posted. Old timers
Disease, I guess...


The only reason I know about it, is that the photographer at Westminster
was using it. At Westminster, flash is not permitted, so low light
capabilities are needed.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/stormy%201.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/stormy%202.jpg

--
PeterN

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

URL is now (hopefully) unwrapped.

wrapping a url makes no difference whatsoever.

whitespace and line breaks are automatically stripped, either by the
newsreader or the browser (or both).

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 04:18:49 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

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.

It might start off unwrapped but every time you post it, it shows up
as wrapped: even the first time.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:46:56 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 6/26/2015 7:20 AM, Savageduck wrote:
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 ;-(

--
Not on my machine.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200mm-f-1.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Ah-ha!
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:45:13 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

URL is now (hopefully) unwrapped.

wrapping a url makes no difference whatsoever.

It shouldn't but, on too many news readers, it does.

whitespace and line breaks are automatically stripped, either by the
newsreader or the browser (or both).

They should but, on too many news readers, they don't.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

It might start off unwrapped but every time you post it, it shows up
as wrapped: even the first time.

so what? it doesn't matter. this is 2015, not 1995.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

URL is now (hopefully) unwrapped.

wrapping a url makes no difference whatsoever.

It shouldn't but, on too many news readers, it does.

not many, but regardless, they're broken.

whitespace and line breaks are automatically stripped, either by the
newsreader or the browser (or both).

They should but, on too many news readers, they don't.

again, it's not that many and not just newsreaders either.

browsers don't care, so a copy/paste of the multiple lines, wrapped or
not, works just fine.

replace what you're using with software that isn't broken and/or
complain to the authors to fix the bugs. do not require other people to
adapt to your crappy software.