Just retired....need advice from veteran shooters

[table1349]

Thank you for your nitpicky contributions that do nothing to usefully aid the OP

.

Your welcome. I am always glad to clear up misinformation that you provide.

1) 1:1 is neither a universal definition by any means of "macro," nor would it really matter if it were, since one's enjoyment of photographing small things does not magically begin at 1:1, and I was very clear and accurate (and actually attempting to be helpful...) in what I meant to say, even going so far as to include an example.

Must be an Iowa thing, cause the rest of the world is on board.

2) I was referring to the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x, which I suppose is their 2nd most expensive macro lens. I'm sure you knew this full well, and the point still stands that many people will focus entirely by rocking back and forth/using rails, not by using a focus ring or AF or even MF. Especially if using focus stacking, which is virtually impossible with AF.

So your point still stands that the lens your were talking about, the MP-E 65 doesn't have a focus ring? Funny, I OWN that lens and it DOES have a focus ring that IS used for micro focusing. If you ever owned and used the MP-E 65 you would understand that it is not your typical macro/micro lens and as such is not used in the same fashion. That is why when I'm doing general Macro work I use either my 100mm f2.8 macro or the 180 f3.5 for the working distance and DOF that they provide over the MP-E 65.

The MP-E 65 is an excellent choice for static Macro/Micro use. It is not the best choice for a general macro field use.

 

[Designer]

Plantman; if you have the budget for it, Nikon makes a neat flash for macro that uses two flash heads, one on either side of the lens for macro flash.

Just F.Y.I., so does Canon, and since he appears to be sticking with Canon gear...

Oh, sorry, Buck, I thought he wrote that we was leaning toward the Nikon D3100 refurbished with 18-55 lens. It is good of you to remind us of the Canon unit.

 

[Plantman]

All six of my lenses are FD. Another reason for frustration

 

[brunerww]

All six of my lenses are FD. Another reason for frustration

Completely understand your frustration, Plantman. In that case, I'd go with a factory refurbished T3i with the 18-55mm lens for $439 from Adorama.

That way, you can stay under budget while you get started with the kit lens - and decide separately whether to get the $25 FD to EOS adapter - or sell your FD lenses and buy new ones.

Again, hope this is helpful.

Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution

 

[Derrel]

If it was older FD lenses, you could use an adapter but it's typically not worth the hassle (for most people).

Hassle? What hassle? You mount it to your lens before mounting the lens to the camera. It's that simple.

Do you have one? Do you use one? Describe the "hassle" for you in your actual experience. I'm interested because I can't equate my actual experience with them as a "hassle", so I'm interested to understand this "hassle" thing of which you speak.

And where are the studies that revealed the statistic that "most people" (over 50%) find that it's not worth the "hassle"? Feel free to link to those scientific studies/polls/whatever that provided you that information.

Thanks in advance.

Why all the hostility? Why this repeated demand for "statistics" as of late, Buckster? I know that when people get older they get cranky sometimes, but...c'mon...

The hassle would be that shooting must be done at working aperture, so at f/8 or f/11 down to f/16 or 22, fairly common macro apertures, the viewfinder will be dark. Metering will be limited. Infinity focus will not be possible. If a subject more than an arm's length happens to pop up, then the adpated lens must be removed, and a lens capable of distant focus mounted...major hassle...for that VERY reason I ditched my old Nikkor 180 ED AF-D + extension tubes for the Sigma 180 EX_HSM APO MAcro, which had 1:1 close-up focusing PLUS focusing all the way to infinity for field macro work. No EXIF information conveyed to the camera...reduced automatic flash a capabilities. Counting 'clicks' to get the lens stopped down to the proper aperture, necessitating a delay of several seconds between focusing and composing for most people. Forgetting to stop the lens down to the needed aperture by hand, resulting in gross overexposure if shooting in manual exposure mode. No autofocus, only manual focus. No instant-return to wide-open viewing after the shot makes it more difficult to see if the shot tripped off with a darned near black viewfinder was successful or not. Very disjointed, non-smooth shooting workflow for all but the most-experienced and most-proficient photographers.

I have 17 lens adapters of various types, and have owned them for multiple years. For "most people" who are new to the SLR or the d-slr, adapted lenses represent a significant hassle. No statistics are needed. The laundry list of limitations enumerated above, plus others I am likely omitting, is sufficient to illustrate the degree of hassle that using an adapted lens represents for a beginner.

 

[Plantman]

What brunerww said.

Do you have existing Canon lenses and other associated gear? If so, you just need a body.

I'll chime in to add that even if your old Canon lenses are FD rather than EF, you can still make them work for you with an adapter, especially for what you're interested in shooting, and you can always upgrade with newer EF lenses later if you want to.

OK, If I buy a Canon body, I'll be able to get an adapter so my old FD lenes will work on it? I just preferred Nikon 3100 because it seemed so intuitive to operate for a newbie. Thanks

 

[cgipson1]

What brunerww said.

Do you have existing Canon lenses and other associated gear? If so, you just need a body.

I'll chime in to add that even if your old Canon lenses are FD rather than EF, you can still make them work for you with an adapter, especially for what you're interested in shooting, and you can always upgrade with newer EF lenses later if you want to.

OK, If I buy a Canon body, I'll be able to get an adapter so my old FD lenes will work on it? I just preferred Nikon 3100 because it seemed so intuitive to operate for a newbie. Thanks

Yes.. but they won't work well... did you read Derrel's post, right above yours?

 

[Plantman]

Guys, I have Canon equipment. 2 AE-1 Programs. I have the old type lens to fit them.... I liked the Nikon rebuilt d3100 because it seemed intuitive to me with it's prompts when first learning to use it. Also, it seemed a little less money than a Canon t3. I had no idea that there was an adapter to fit the old type lens to the digital body. I own six canon lens, but don't have use for them much anymore.

If I get the Nikon d3100 with the kit lens, can I put a 1.5 or 2x on it if needed. I appreciate all the comments, but PLEASE try to hold back on the techno talk. The recommended G15 seems good, but not adaptable if I want a zoom lens later on. I use the photos to illustrate talks, use in magazine articles and for my own library.

Bottom line...will the rebuilt Nikon with kit lens work (and can you get a 2x) for it, or can I buy a rebuilt Canon dslr and get an adapter for my older lens? Please remember, I'm new to this digital format. Thanks for all your replies. Ken:hail:

 

[Derrel]

FD lenses used on "regular" adapters will ONLY be useful for close-ups. You will have to stop the lens down by hand, for each shot. You will have no autofocusing. It is pretty kludgy. If you buy a lens adapter that has a glass element in it, you will be able to achieve infinity focus distances with the FD lens system lenses. They will still be manual focus, and the lens f/stop will need to be set manually by you, by hand, for every shot.

The majority of FD-to_EF lens adapters that DO have a glass element produce pretty substandard results; plenty of color fringing usually, and sub-par optical results.

There's little comparison to an autofocusing lens on an autofocus d-slr with everything the same brand, and some lash-up with an adapter and sub-par optical potential.

 

[table1349]

FD lenses used on "regular" adapters will ONLY be useful for close-ups. You will have to stop the lens down by hand, for each shot. You will have no autofocusing. It is pretty kludgy. If you buy a lens adapter that has a glass element in it, you will be able to achieve infinity focus distances with the FD lens system lenses. They will still be manual focus, and the lens f/stop will need to be set manually by you, by hand, for every shot.

The majority of FD-to_EF lens adapters that DO have a glass element produce pretty substandard results; plenty of color fringing usually, and sub-par optical results.

There's little comparison to an autofocusing lens on an autofocus d-slr with everything the same brand, and some lash-up with an adapter and sub-par optical potential.

I would second what Darrel said. The only optical lens adapters that provide good results are the genuine Canon brand which are hard to come by and expensive when you find one.

 

[cgipson1]

Guys, I have Canon equipment. 2 AE-1 Programs. I have the old type lens to fit them.... I liked the Nikon rebuilt d3100 because it seemed intuitive to me with it's prompts when first learning to use it. Also, it seemed a little less money than a Canon t3. I had no idea that there was an adapter to fit the old type lens to the digital body. I own six canon lens, but don't have use for them much anymore.

If I get the Nikon d3100 with the kit lens, can I put a 1.5 or 2x on it if needed. I appreciate all the comments, but PLEASE try to hold back on the techno talk. The recommended G15 seems good, but not adaptable if I want a zoom lens later on. I use the photos to illustrate talks, use in magazine articles and for my own library.

Bottom line...will the rebuilt Nikon with kit lens work (and can you get a 2x) for it, or can I buy a rebuilt Canon dslr and get an adapter for my older lens? Please remember, I'm new to this digital format. Thanks for all your replies. Ken:hail:

The Nikon would work fine for you... and there are 3rd party Teleconverters available that should work, with some loss of Image Quality. The Nikon TC's will not work on any DX lenses... as well as some others. Here is a compatibility chart: http://www.nikonsupport.eu/europe/Manuals/DrdIaQvRZv/TC_converter_compatibility-EN_01.pdf for reference.

A Canon entry level body would also work well for you... but I would recommend a newer lens with it as well. Using your older lenses with an adapter would have drawbacks.

 

[Buckster]

Do you REALLY see image quality issues by having that lens in place?

Yes, I definitely see image quality issues. Whether that is their cause is unclear.

It's very difficult to compare without images of the exact same subjects with both an adapted and equivalent non adapted lens. But chromatic aberration is extremely noticeable, almost rampant right off the bat in all of those images (to the point where in some cases, blades of grass are completely separated into two images in different wavelengths that don't even touch one another). And there is ghosting in a couple of them, and the colors seem fairly off in a few (possibly also CA, or possibly due to attempts to fix other things like low contrast).

Impossible to say which if any of those things might be due to the adapter, but as standalone images they most certainly do not scream "holy **** these are optically perfect, so there must be nothing wrong with the adapter." There are quite visible optical imperfections in them without having to squint your eyes at all, and it very well MIGHT be due to that adaptation.

That said, the amount of optical flaws there, even if we assume they are all due to the adapter, may very well be justified by the cheaper cost, depending on just how budget-minded one is. It's not like you duct taped a magnifying glass onto a Holga or anything.

Because I have you on ignore, as I explained to you via PM when I put you there, I didn't see this until just now.

None of what you describe is due to the adapter lens. If you see things you don't like, it's due to my overzealous editing, especially the cranking of the saturation, which tends to bring out the magenta in some brown hues.

As an example, here's a straight RAW to JPG of one that probably has most of what you describe as "image quality issues" while you inferred they are likely caused by the adapter, while covering your butt by saying it's hard to tell:

There's nothing going on here but a re-size in the conversion to JPG. I didn't even bother to brighten it up or give it basic sharpening, and certainly no CA correction - nothing.

Now I'll do the basics: Brighten with exposure adjustment, contrast and sharpen, but still NO CA CORRECTION:

Now point out where, "chromatic aberration is extremely noticeable, almost rampant right off the bat in all of those images (to the point where in some cases, blades of grass are completely separated into two images in different wavelengths that don't even touch one another)". By the way, I'm not a noob. If there were actual CA involved, I'd have just filtered it out in post, the way I do for any lens that produces it, and that's the case for lenses that have nothing to do with an adapter, btw. It's simply not necessary to take that step with this lens and adapter, and cranking the CA sliders in post had no effect at all, just F.Y.I.

So yes, you're correct, it IS hard to tell if an adapter produces quality issues - when you have no experience to actually base it on, which, as usual, you don't. (Even though I have you on ignore, people quote you, so I see enough to remember why I put you on ignore in the first place)

So here's an idea for you to try for a change: Before you deem yourself "professor" on every subject that comes and goes around here, even going so far as to dig up long-dead threads to start arguing about them; Before you decide to jump in with both feet to educate others about techniques or gear, get some ACTUAL hands-on experience with the techniques or gear in question first, and then speak from actual knowledge on the subjects.

This is actual experience talking: FD to EF adapters actually work really well, especially for the cost savings if you already have FD lenses to use and are on a tight budget.

Yes, they require manual focus and aperture adjustments. If that's too much for someone to handle, I suggest they don't use them, and would further suggest they think twice about using the term "photographer" to describe themselves. Then again, I come from a time when there was no "auto" associated with focus, aperture or ASA/ISO, so it's not a big deal to me. Crazy as it may be, I still occasionally shoot some of my old film cameras where all that manual focus and aperture stuff is still required because they have no "auto" anything - many don't even have a built in meter and don't use batteries of any kind (GASP!!!)

Don't get me wrong, I love modern digital cameras and AF and choosing aperture, shutter and ISO on the fly electronically, but I don't cry when it's not available for some reason, like if I'm using adapters or bellows or cheaper extension tubes or reversed or stacked lenses or older film cameras. I guess you could say I'm the kind of guy that can actually get up from the couch and change the TV station if I don't happen to know where the remote is.

Now then, since you will no doubt use this post as a launchpad to try to argue about it (it's okay - you obviously can't help yourself), just know that I have no interest in that, nor in anything you have to say frankly, so you won't get an answer from me when you do. I only answered this one because I thought it would be fair to everyone else for them to see the actual unedited image for themselves, rather than leave your uninformed post as the definitive last word on it to negatively influence those who might tune in to this thread in the future.

 

[Deeger]

Because I have you on ignore, as I explained to you via PM when I put you there, I didn't see this until just now.

None of what you describe is due to the adapter lens. If you see things you don't like, it's due to my overzealous editing, especially the cranking of the saturation, which tends to bring out the magenta in some brown hues.

As an example, here's a straight RAW to JPG of one that probably has most of what you describe as "image quality issues" while you inferred they are likely caused by the adapter, while covering your butt by saying it's hard to tell:

There's nothing going on here but a re-size in the conversion to JPG. I didn't even bother to brighten it up or give it basic sharpening, and certainly no CA correction - nothing.

Now I'll do the basics: Brighten with exposure adjustment, contrast and sharpen, but still NO CA CORRECTION:

Now point out where, "chromatic aberration is extremely noticeable, almost rampant right off the bat in all of those images (to the point where in some cases, blades of grass are completely separated into two images in different wavelengths that don't even touch one another)". By the way, I'm not a noob. If there were actual CA involved, I'd have just filtered it out in post, the way I do for any lens that produces it, and that's the case for lenses that have nothing to do with an adapter, btw. It's simply not necessary to take that step with this lens and adapter, and cranking the CA sliders in post had no effect at all, just F.Y.I.

So yes, you're correct, it IS hard to tell if an adapter produces quality issues - when you have no experience to actually base it on, which, as usual, you don't. (Even though I have you on ignore, people quote you, so I see enough to remember why I put you on ignore in the first place)

So here's an idea for you to try for a change: Before you deem yourself "professor" on every subject that comes and goes around here, even going so far as to dig up long-dead threads to start arguing about them; Before you decide to jump in with both feet to educate others about techniques or gear, get some ACTUAL hands-on experience with the techniques or gear in question first, and then speak from actual knowledge on the subjects.

This is actual experience talking: FD to EF adapters actually work really well, especially for the cost savings if you already have FD lenses to use and are on a tight budget.

Yes, they require manual focus and aperture adjustments. If that's too much for someone to handle, I suggest they don't use them, and would further suggest they think twice about using the term "photographer" to describe themselves. Then again, I come from a time when there was no "auto" associated with focus, aperture or ASA/ISO, so it's not a big deal to me. Crazy as it may be, I still occasionally shoot some of my old film cameras where all that manual focus and aperture stuff is still required because they have no "auto" anything - many don't even have a built in meter and don't use batteries of any kind (GASP!!!)

Don't get me wrong, I love modern digital cameras and AF and choosing aperture, shutter and ISO on the fly electronically, but I don't cry when it's not available for some reason, like if I'm using adapters or bellows or cheaper extension tubes or reversed or stacked lenses or older film cameras. I guess you could say I'm the kind of guy that can actually get up from the couch and change the TV station if I don't happen to know where the remote is.

Now then, since you will no doubt use this post as a launchpad to try to argue about it (it's okay - you obviously can't help yourself), just know that I have no interest in that, nor in anything you have to say frankly, so you won't get an answer from me when you do. I only answered this one because I thought it would be fair to everyone else for them to see the actual unedited image for themselves, rather than leave your uninformed post as the definitive last word on it to negatively influence those who might tune in to this thread in the future.

This is great. Well said.