Canon FD 200mm f/2.8 in great condition, $160 shipped. (Sold!)

[FITBMX]

(SOLD!)

 

[tirediron]

Just a point of order; in the last image, the filter clearly says "Polarizer" vice "ND", so I'm guessing, based on appearance and age, it's likely a linear polarizer, so it will not play nicely with a lot of modern AF systems. The other filter is a "1A" or skylight filter vice a UV.

 

[FITBMX]

Just a point of order; in the last image, the filter clearly says "Polarizer" vice "ND", so I'm guessing, based on appearance and age, it's likely a linear polarizer, so it will not play nicely with a lot of modern AF systems. The other filter is a "1A" or skylight filter vice a UV.

The polarizer I knew and just messed up posting, the 1A was my just not paying enough attention.
Thanks so much for straightening me out.

 

[tirediron]

Just a point of order; in the last image, the filter clearly says "Polarizer" vice "ND", so I'm guessing, based on appearance and age, it's likely a linear polarizer, so it will not play nicely with a lot of modern AF systems. The other filter is a "1A" or skylight filter vice a UV.

The polarizer I knew and just messed up posting, the 1A was my just not paying enough attention.
Thanks so much for straightening me out.

I have a lot of time on my hands!

 

[FITBMX]

Feel free to shoot me an offer!

 

[ac12]

I wonder why Canon went from the breech mount FD to the bayonet mount EF?
I had thought the breech mount was a good solid mount, and as quick to use as a bayonet mount.

 

[FITBMX]

I wonder why Canon went from the breech mount FD to the bayonet mount EF?
I had thought the breech mount was a good solid mount, and as quick to use as a bayonet mount.

They probably change the EF mount so drastically to make sure you had to buy new lenses, companies love doing that to you.
But that's the way things go.

 

[ac12]

I wonder why Canon went from the breech mount FD to the bayonet mount EF?
I had thought the breech mount was a good solid mount, and as quick to use as a bayonet mount.

They probably change the EF mount so drastically to make sure you had to buy new lenses, companies love doing that to you.
But that's the way things go.

As much as I don't like that, Nikon's method of a sequence of small changes to the lens coupling is in a way even worse.
The Nikon F mount itself is the same from the 1960s, but all the meter, autofocus and aperture coupling changes, mean that you have to look at a compatibility chart when you buy lenses for your camera, or a new camera that can't use your old lenses.

This is why I like the idea of the Nikon Z lenses. A clean sheet start, and don't continue the compatibility issues of the F mount lenses and cameras.
Though even the FTZ adapter to use the old F mount lens on the Z cameras has compatibility issues as well. It does not support the mechanical AF lenses, only the electrical AF lenses.

 

[FITBMX]

As much as I don't like that, Nikon's method of a sequence of small changes to the lens coupling is in a way even worse.
The Nikon F mount itself is the same from the 1960s, but all the meter, autofocus and aperture coupling changes, mean that you have to look at a compatibility chart when you buy lenses for your camera, or a new camera that can't use your old lenses.

This is why I like the idea of the Nikon Z lenses. A clean sheet start, and don't continue the compatibility issues of the F mount lenses and cameras.
Though even the FTZ adapter to use the old F mount lens on the Z cameras has compatibility issues as well. It does not support the mechanical AF lenses, only the electrical AF lenses.

I've never owned Nikon but their lenses have always confused me. Kind of maddening when companies do this stuff.