Cheapo Nikon vs Canon 50mm

[boulder]

Need a cheap, fast 50mm (or wider) until I can afford a good replacement.
Considering Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II or Nikon 50 F/1.4 with adapter.
Any advice on which one or suggestions of something different? I would prefer to stay around the $100 mark. Also is getting the AI version of the Nikon much of a differance?

Thanks in advance.

Also...it seems it is better to use Nikon manual lenses on the 7d than old Canon FD's? As far as I can tell the FD to EOS adapter uses glass, am I correct on this? (Why?) I have a nice FD 50 mm but I guess it would be better to get a Nikon 50mm?

 

[ydgmdlu]

Also is getting the AI version of the Nikon much of a differance?

Read this for an explanation of what the letters in Nikon lens names mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F-mount#Designations

Here's an excellent comparison of 50mm options on Nikon: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/index.htm

 

[Duke M.]

The biggest advantage with the canon 50mm 1.8 is that all your electronics will work, which they won't with the Nikons. Sometimes you want all manual, but sometimes you'll want automatic as a back up. Plus the canon 50mm is less than $100 new, maybe $70 or less used.

I've had the Canon 50mm 1.8 and it does take really good pictures at very decent low light levels. I consider it a very good lens even though its mostly plastic. I've been told that its the same lens as the f1.4 (~$400) and f1.2L (~$1,300) with different coatings. Your next step wider in a fast prime is the Canon 28mm f1.8, but that will run you $450-$500.

 

[ROCKMORE]

Need a cheap, fast 50mm (or wider) until I can afford a good replacement.
Considering Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II or Nikon 50 F/1.4 with adapter.
Any advice on which one or suggestions of something different? I would prefer to stay around the $100 mark. Also is getting the AI version of the Nikon much of a differance?

Thanks in advance.

Also...it seems it is better to use Nikon manual lenses on the 7d than old Canon FD's? As far as I can tell the FD to EOS adapter uses glass, am I correct on this? (Why?) I have a nice FD 50 mm but I guess it would be better to get a Nikon 50mm?

Canon EOS

44.0 mm​

Adapters​

Contarex

46.0 mm​

Mechanical adapters with no optics and which maintain infinity focus may be possible​

Contax RTS

45.5 mm​

Leica R

47.0 mm​

Nikon

46.5 mm​

OlympusOM

46.0 mm​

Pentax K

45.5 mm​

Pentax Screw (M42)

45.5 mm​

Petri Bayonet

45.5 mm​

Ricoh Bayonet

45.5 mm​

T2 mount

55.0 mm​

Yashica FR, FX

45.5 mm​

Canon (FD and earlier)

42.0 mm​

Adapters would need optics for infinity focus and act as weak multipliers​

Fujica X Mount (bayonet)

43.5 mm​

Konica F

40.5 mm​

Minolta MD

43.5 mm​

Miranda

41.5 mm​

Here is a I found that lists the lens flange distances. Canon FD is shorter than EOS so it won't focus to infinity without an additional lens element. You can find a lot of adapters on Ebay some include digital connections.
Duke is probably right though, if you need to buy additional lenses, look at the ones made for the camera as well as adapting other brands. I've heard mixed reports about some Nikon glass on Eos mounts, some focusing issues, but I don't have personal experience so you should investigate more before laying out the cash.
If you have collections of lenses already from other cameras, nothing to loose but a mount adapter.

 

[boulder]

So that tells me if I want an image without degradation I need to stay away from FD's. I will probably pick up a 50mm Canon 1.8, and future specialty lenses may be Nikons

 

[ROCKMORE]

So that tells me if I want an image without degradation I need to stay away from FD's. I will probably pick up a 50mm Canon 1.8, and future specialty lenses may be Nikons

Yeah I would try to avoid adding any conversion glass if you can. There are so many good choices for low cost lenses to try with a straight mount adapter.