Is converting FD to EF worth it?

[Daviesgeek]

I am a low budget, somewhat amateur videographer. I'm looking to get some more lenses for my DSLR. However, I don't have the budget to be spending $500 on lenses. I'm looking to get some older FD lenses (Canon) and adapt them to my 550Ds. Is this a good idea? I've read several threads, but didn't really get a straight answer. I don't need to focus to infinity, probably only about 200-300 feet, tops. I have an old 50mm 1.8 OM mount lens that I adapted and that's perfectly fine.
The main attraction to FD lenses for me is 1) Price, 2) the manual aperture ring. I much prefer the manual aperture control, rather than software control So, what do I need to know about adapting FD to EF lenses (if it even works well)?

 

[homestar_kevin]

No, it's not worth it.

You need glass in the adapter which reduced optical quality.

But fortunately you can use pretty much every other mount.

OM, Nikon F, M42, Contax, Pentax, all can be adapter great and a lot cheaper than canon FD's

 

[Daviesgeek]

No, it's not worth it.

You need glass in the adapter which reduced optical quality.

Okay. Thank you!

But fortunately you can use pretty much every other mount.

OM, Nikon F, M42, Contax, Pentax, all can be adapter great and a lot cheaper than canon FD's

Great! And I'm guessing the glass quality of these other companies is just as good? I'm specifically looking at some of the older Nikon lenses. They seem to be well-priced and plentiful.

 

[drapeama]

No, it's not worth it.
You need glass in the adapter which reduced optical quality.

It can be done, but it requires a lot of work, and risks you lenses as well: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?239022-Lens-Hacking-Canon-FD-to-EOS!
I'm using an FD to EOS adapter with my T2i, and I can use is as a Macro lens:
With the FD-to-EOS adapter:

With a 52mm reverse macro ring:


But to use is as a prime lens, I don't think it worth risking your lens to convert the mount. I like Pentax and Nikon lenses and they're usually under 100$ on ebay. I've bought a lot of old prime lenses and the most expensive one was 50$ at the local camera store.

 

[homestar_kevin]

They're all great honestly, especially for the prices.

I have a ton of old Nikon primes and love them.

I have a few pentax, contax and many others as well and really do love them all.

 

[David G. Smith]

I have to second vintage Nikon lenses. I started getting them when I was shooting with my 550D but since I got a Sony FS-100, I still use them. Very nice lenses.

When thinking about adapting lens to cameras cameras you have to think about the flange focal distance. As a general rule it is easier to adapt a lens with a longer flange to focal distance to a camera mount designed for a shorter flange to focal distance with simple mechanical mounts. Not so easy the other way. The Canon EF mount has a flange to focal distance of 44.00mm, the Nikon F mount flange to focal distance is 46.5mm. That is what I love about the FS-100. With its E mount, with a very short 18mm flange to focal distance, almost all lenses made for 35mm still photography can be adapted TO it. I won't be dropping much cash into E-mount lenses because they would be very limited as to the camera mounts they would adapt to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance