FD lenses on a Canon 5D Mark III?

[manualsetting]

Hi

I am new to digital photography. Yesterday, I bought a Canon 5D Mark III, an EF 50mm 1.8 lens, and a EF 75-300mm lens...cheap lenses. I was wondering if there's a way to use FD lenses on the 5D. I've accumulated quite a number of FD lenses over the many years of doing film photography. I read in one photog forum that there was no way to fit an FD lens on a 5D Mark III. Is this true?

Thank you.

 

[Scatterbrained]

It can be done, but it's not cheap. Ed Mika makes mount adapters for them, but unless you've got a desirable FD lens it's not worth the money. I have his mount adapter for my 600 f/4 and 300 f/2.8. The only other FD lenses I can see being worth the expense would be the TE-E 35mm, the 50 1.2, 85 1.2, and the other supertelephoto lenses. Even then you may have a difficult time as the focusing screen in the 5DIII isn't replaceable. For manually focusing you'd really want a precision matte screen, rather than the stock screen that comes with the camera. You could always install Magic Lantern, and then use the focus peaking option via the rear LCD with a loupe.

 

[KmH]

It can be done with an adapter.

The FD-mount pre-dates Canon's camera body and lens redesign made to allow auto focus using the EOS design and EF-mount launched in 1987,
EOS eliminated all mechanical connections between an EOS camera so the camera/lens interface only have electrical connections.
So no more aperture motor or auto focus motor in the camera. The aperture motor and auto focus motor were put in the lens.
(EOS = Electro-Optical System)

Another difference between FD cameras and EF cameras is the flange focal distance (FFD).
FD has a FFD of 42 mm while EF has a FFD of 44 mm.
So a FD lens to EOS cameras adapter has to have a glass element in it to maintain infinity focus.
That glass element needs to be high quality which affects the cost (Cha! Ching!) of a well made FD to EOS adapter.

But even with a costly adapter, FD lenses mounted on EOS cameras are manual focus and manual aperture setting only..

Flange focal distance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Canon EOS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Scatterbrained]

It can be done with an adapter.

The FD-mount pre-dates Canon's camera body and lens redesign made to allow auto focus using the EOS design and EF-mount launched in 1987,
EOS eliminated all mechanical connections between an EOS camera so the camera/lens interface only have electrical connections.
So no more aperture motor or auto focus motor in the camera. The aperture motor and auto focus motor were put in the lens.
(EOS = Electro-Optical System)

Another difference between FD cameras and EF cameras is the flange focal distance (FFD).
FD has a FFD of 42 mm while EF has a FFD of 44 mm.
So a FD lens to EOS cameras adapter has to have a glass element in it to maintain infinity focus.
That glass element needs to be high quality which affects the cost (Cha! Ching!) of a well made FD to EOS adapter.

But even with a costly adapter, FD lenses mounted on EOS cameras are manual focus and manual aperture setting only..

Flange focal distance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Canon EOS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Ed Mika adapters do not have an optical element in them, they retain infinity focus by replacing the mount, or in the case of the supertelephoto lenses by adjusting the focus throw of the lens. Of course, that's why they are so much more expensive than the cheap $20 adapters sold on Amazon and E-bay. Which of course circles back around to the point of it not being worth while unless you have a really nice FD lens.

 

[Derrel]

The easiest lenses to use on an EOS, in my experience, are m42 lenses which have the Auto/Manual diaphragm switch on the lens, which allows you to focus wide-open, then to simply flip the switch, and instantly close the lens down to shooting f/stop, without the need to count clicks or God forbid, to count half-clicks!

Lenses like the Asahi Super-Takumars are pretty good, and priced right, and most (of the ones from NON-tropical climates) are still fundamentally sound. Nikon F-mount lenses work well, but you need to "count clicks", unless you are shooting wide-open.

Adapted lenses are kind of fun to toy around with. I have Nikon-to-EOS adapters, more than a dozen, plus the new, expensive G-series Nikkor to EOS adapter from Fotodiox, as well as a few m42 to EOS adapters, and one Olympus to EOS adapter.

I bought an inexpensive "glass element" adapter for M42 to Nikon, and wow...it just really was not a good product, rendering the images of the Super Takumar set I have utter rubbish. However, on EOS,the same Super-Tak's are awesome, using just a regular old plain, glass-free adapter with full infinity focus! Despite the fun nature of repurposing old glass, unless the glass is "exotic", like say the 600/4 or 300/2.8 mentioned above, I think that for one's daily or regular use lenses, it's worth the expense to obtain those lenses in the native EOS mount.

You will utterly NOT leverage any of the 5D-III's advanced metering and focusing abilities using old, adapted lenses on it. But you might have some fun. But it will not show what a race car the 5D-III is.

 

[runnah]

I can't help but think that it'd be a waste of time. Like Derrel mentioned, you'd lose all the great features of your camera. Not to mention that older optics are just that, old.

I liken it to putting a carburetor on a new Porsche.

 

[Derrel]

I can't help but think that it'd be a waste of time. Like Derrel mentioned, you'd lose all the great features of your camera. Not to mention that older optics are just that, old.

I liken it to putting a carburetor on a new Porsche.

You just bought one of the world's FINEST "system" d-slr cameras with the best AF system,best metering,best-handling, best ergonomics, best everything...but anything except an EOS-mount lens on that nifty new body sends you back to 1965, technology-wise--but without the good split-image rangefinder to focus those oldies with!

 

[Scatterbrained]

I can't help but think that it'd be a waste of time. Like Derrel mentioned, you'd lose all the great features of your camera. Not to mention that older optics are just that, old.

I liken it to putting a carburetor on a new Porsche.

Older optics aren't necessarily inferior. Lens designers are still working to get back the micro-contrast that the old leaded glass had. My 300 2.8 L is so stupid sharp, and has so much fine contrast, that oftentimes the images can come out looking over-sharpened.

 

[runnah]

Older optics aren't necessarily inferior. Lens designers are still working to get back the micro-contrast that the old leaded glass had. My 300 2.8 L is so stupid sharp, and has so much fine contrast, that oftentimes the images can come out looking over-sharpened.

Nope, everything old is bad.

All kidding aside I do think older lenses really felt better. Nowadays everything is so plastic that even an expensive lens feels cheap. I rented the 24-70 2.8 and it "feels" like a mid range kit lens, not a flagship L lens.

 

[Derrel]

Older optics lack auto-diaphragm operation, lack autofocus, cannot do predictive autofocus, eliminate aperture-bracketing in quick locked-down tripod mode, and in general do not do as good a job with TTL continuos or TTL flash metering. And if you compare 1970's and 1980's lens performance to the newest lenses, they are inferior optically in many cases. Many of the "old" longer super-telephotos are showing their age pretty significantly on high-megapixel bodies. My old 400mm f/3.5 ED-IF was a $4,000 lens in the mid 1980's, and was FINE on 6MP, but on 12MP started looking raggedy...it's not really up to the task on even the D3x. It was designed in 1975, and premiered at the 1976 Olympics in Montreal: the new $10,000 400mm lenses are markedly better and free of color fringing on high-MP digital.

The reason you want native-mount AF lenses: unless the focus is dead, nuts-on accurate, a 20+ megapixel camera, or 24 MP, or 36MP camera, has been rendered, at best a 6 to 12 megapixel camera on every frame that the focus is not dead-on accurate.

Older wide-angle lenses often have horrific corner issues on d-slrs because of the "deep knee bends" light path as the light exits the lens to hit the sensor; modern wide-angles are more telecentric in optical design, and flat out ARE better than 1970's-1990's designs. Canon's FD wide-angles were always considered Canon's weakest aspect from an entire-brand perspective. MOST of the new $400-$999 wide-angle zooms will easily better any of the old Canon wide-angle primes, and 8 of 10 or 9 of 10 of the Nikon wide primes...these are 40 to 30 year old lens designs, designed for FILM, not straight-on pixel well acceptance.

The single best wide-angfle "lens" is the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8...it's better than basically any wide lens Canon has ever made, and is almost the sole reason the new Fotodiox G-series Nikon to Canon EOS adapter was made. Most of the old Nikon wide primes of the 1980's are not good enough for 24MP d-slr use if you want the best. THe newer zooms are markedly better suited to d-slr use. Get a Canon 24/70 f/2.8 and the new 16-35 Mark II and you'll forget alll about that old FD stuff.

Many of the best of the "new" lens designs are better on d-slr sensors than almost any older lens of the same type and focal length range. Some of the best of the new lens designs are markedly better than their older counterparts; other times the differences are not so marked or so obvious. On some lens types, I think the camera makers might have gone BACKWARDS, like Canon's 50/1.8 as a specific example of an inferior lens made in the modern era. Canon's new 70-200/2.8 IS-USM Mk II and 4/ IS USM lenses are basically, better than any other zooms of any era in that range. Nikon lags Canon on the 70-200/2.8 class zoom.

 

[runnah]

Ugh the 50 1.8 is a real head scratcher. I think the idea was to cash in on the must have a "nifty fifty" mindset. But releasing such a POS is doing no one any favors. It's confusing as they made some very good non L primes.