• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Is this a decent lens?

Sort by date Sort by votes
You will need an FD to EOS adapter.

You'll be better off with the 50 mk II since you'll be paying half the price or more anyway on the lens and the adapter for it. Add to that the other potential problems/inconveniences that come with using vintage lenses on newer bodies and imho, its better to get the mk II.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Other ppl here also have a lot of experience and knowledge in vintage lenses. Im sure they'll weigh in sooner or later. That way you can have both sides of the argument before making ur decision.

The way i view vintage lenses is that either you get them when you like a specific brand and era for the look they give (eg, i like the old nikkors) or you get them when you cant afford other options. For eg, if you were buying a set of 3 to cover your basic wide, standard and long ranges, the new ones could cost you about 1200 in total. You could buy vintage glass and end up paying about 500 instead.

My advice concerned just the difference between the fd 50 and the ef 50.

I just want to make sure you're taking all the relevant into account before your purchase.

:)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
brianluce said:
I think those don't adapt to modern Canons. Could be wrong, but that's my recollection as a former 7d owner.
Click to expand...

They do, but they can't achieve infinity focus without a glass adapter… which means less light, lower IQ and the focal length is magnified. Wouldn't recommend it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
plenty of vintage options in 50mm f1.4 that WILL work excellently with you cam, just NOT that one. OR ANY Canon FD mount lens.

Ebay search for "m42 50mm f1.4" and you'll see lots of choices.

(geeze, prices are up for these aren't they.. might have to sell off one of my 50's!)

Also, don't neglect the canon EOS 50mm f1.8 its pretty fast, has autofocus and is cheap.. crappy construction and a pain to use for manual focus, but produces nice images..
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Pete said:
Would someone care to explain why this is the case? I just bought a 50mm 1.4 FD lens on ebay (it hasn't come yet), and now I'm getting worried.

I'm just a little confused, why would some mounts be better than others?
Click to expand...

It depends on how close the original lens was supposed to be to the film/sensor. Some directions work pretty well (eg. Nikon->Canon EOS), others have major focus and distortion issues (FD->EOS). I've been hearing good things about M42->Canon EOS, and horrible things about adapting FD lenses. I haven't tried either of these as all of my lenses are EOS-mount.

I just picked up these two beauties: Zeiss 35mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.4 (EOS mount, no adapters required). Beautiful image quality and phenomenal engineering quality on the manual focus rings.

attachment.php


I've been eyeballing M42 lenses, but since I'm also a high-res stills photographer I generally lean towards lenses that will work well for both.
 

Attachments

  • New Zeiss Lenses.jpg
    New Zeiss Lenses.jpg
    77.4 KB · Views: 104
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well, great. I got this 50mm FD to replace the 50mm MD lens I have currently because of all the distortion I had on that one.

If it's bad, I guess I'll see if I can return it...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I dunno, that Canon f1.4 is a fantastic lens for the cost. I just replaced mine with a Zeiss, but that was mainly for the manual-focus quality rather than image quality. The Canon 50mm f1.4 image quality was pretty close to that of their L-series lenses. It's totally worth the $350.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
escher said:
I dunno, that Canon f1.4 is a fantastic lens for the cost. I just replaced mine with a Zeiss, but that was mainly for the manual-focus quality rather than image quality. The Canon 50mm f1.4 image quality was pretty close to that of their L-series lenses. It's totally worth the $350.
Click to expand...

Heh, I don't doubt that the official lenses look great. At this point, though, I can't really afford to spend a lot on lenses. I want to make do with what I can get, ya know? :)

The lenses I own:
-Canon 35-80 and 70-300, both borrowed from my parents' old camera
-Canon 18-55 stock lens (I don't get why everyone complains about this one -- image quality looks great to me...)
-50mm f/1.8 MD (I'm replacing this one due to aberrations everywhere but the center of the frame. Cost me $20 though)
-28mm and 135mm f/2.8 MD (These two cost me a TOTAL of $15, and they look just fine)

As you can see, I'm a cheapskate :D If I'm ever able to get more serious into this stuff, I will certainly upgrade lenses, right after I replace my $10 DIY steadicam :P

Thanks for the insight, guys.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Pete said:
Heh, I don't doubt that the official lenses look great. At this point, though, I can't really afford to spend a lot on lenses. I want to make do with what I can get, ya know? :)
Click to expand...

I fully understand. I'm an overpaid software dev, so I can get the fancy stuff. Be aware, however, that the quality of your glass has the biggest impact on your imagery (from a technical perspective).


The lenses I own:
-Canon 35-80 and 70-300, both borrowed from my parents' old camera
Click to expand...

I've never even heard of the 35-80. As for the 70-300 (if it's the one I'm thinking of), it's a decent telephoto, but has flanging/aberration issues that are most noticeable at 300mm, and it's not the sharpest lens you've ever seen. Also, it sucks in low light. Really really sucks.


Here's a crop from the 70-300. You can really see the color flanging and lack of sharpness in this one.


-Canon 18-55 stock lens (I don't get why everyone complains about this one -- image quality looks great to me...)
Click to expand...

It has crappy build quality (the newer versions are much more solid, though), but the image quality is pretty darned good, especially for a kit lens. I think people mostly complain about the wobbly focus ring rather than how their images from it look.


-50mm f/1.8 MD (I'm replacing this one due to aberrations everywhere but the center of the frame. Cost me $20 though)
Click to expand...

I hated this lens. Turns out, there were a ton of manufacturing defects in those and I had one of the bad ones. The ones that were made well get pretty decent image quality but finding a good one can be tricky. The Canon 50mm f1.4 is way better. I strongly recommend you save up the $350 or whatnot and get it. It's a worthwhile investment.


-28mm and 135mm f/2.8 MD (These two cost me a TOTAL of $15, and they look just fine)
Click to expand...

Never used these, so I can't comment on 'em. I have a 135mm f2.0 and that lens is friggin' amazing.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top