My EF lenses... FD better option?

A

AlexBlais

Member
Alright one more and last question from my part...

Ive been selling all my gear as I have pre-oredered the fs700. I come from a 5D setup with only EF glass.

OPTION 1
I was planning on keeping these lenses as they are my favorite.
Canon 50mm 1.4
Canon 85mm 1.8
Canon 35mm 2.0
Canon 70-200 4.0

I would have to buy the Metabones adapter which I can't find anywhere.

OPTION 2
Buy FD glass and sell my EF glass. Get a dumb adapter instead of Metabones.

Here is the glass I can get ahold of altogether for a bundle price.
Canon 24mm 2.8 FD
Canon 50mm 1.2 L FD
Canon 85mm 1.8 FD
Canon 50-200mm 4.0 L FD

I would profit around 500$ switching to FD. I could spend on 1 or more dumb adapters.

Im concerned by the performance of the FD lenses though... I know most like the softness of the FD lenses but Im the kind that likes tack sharp images. What is your take on the difference?
 
Ah and I heard bad comments about the stock lens on the fs700, which is why i wanted to keep the 70-200 4.0 EF, or why In option 2 I would get a 50-200 4.0L FD. Is the stock lens a better choice?
 
AlexBlais said:
OPTION 2
Buy FD glass and sell my EF glass. Get a dumb adapter instead of Metabones.

Here is the glass I can get ahold of altogether for a bundle price.
Canon 24mm 2.8 FD
Canon 50mm 1.2 L FD
Canon 85mm 1.8 FD
Canon 50-200mm 4.0 L FD

I would profit around 500$ switching to FD. I could spend on 1 or more dumb adapters.

Im concerned by the performance of the FD lenses though... I know most like the softness of the FD lenses but Im the kind that likes tack sharp images. What is your take on the difference?
Click to expand...

The 24mm 2.8 is not as good as the 24mm F2, at least with the copies I had.
Try the Minolta 58mm f1.2, with or without any of the permanent EF adapters, it has amazing brokeh and is very creamy - like a Leica R lens.
I never had very good luck with FD zooms, could have been random chance or mean something. Try the Minolta F4 70-210 manual.
 
Last edited:
SI could not find a 55mm Minolta. Only 50mm and rare 58mms. I did find the minolta 70-210, so cheap too! Have you used both on the fs100?

I suppose then I would need MD to NEX adaptors?

From your response I understand you suggest selling all EF glass and going manual focus lenses.
 
Sorry I meant the 58mm Minolta. Many EF lenses are optimized for electronic control and not as useful for video work, but still great lenses.
 
Thank you. Is it a misconception of my part to expect the new AF lenses to give higher resolution video performance than old cheap manual lenses? I am coming from a 5D and hoping for an increase in resolution. Thanks agai btw helping me a lot.
 
AlexBlais said:
Thank you. Is it a misconception of my part to expect the new AF lenses to give higher resolution video performance than old cheap manual lenses? I am coming from a 5D and hoping for an increase in resolution. Thanks agai btw helping me a lot.
Click to expand...

The new Canon 24 and 28mm f2.8 lenses will have image stabilization, and so will be good for handheld video. The preliminary MTF charts are not bad at all. If you want higher resolution you will have to spend more than your budget allows, and some DPs choose lower resolution lenses to get a easier to view look.
 
Thank you once again. I might go that route as I cant find a metabones adapter anyway. Plus, I will save money and manually control aperture which Ive always prefered. I might get the kit lens as a walk-around everyday life project lens and then some more special ones like the minolta to stand out from the traditional lens look. I've always loved lenses that give you something different.

If anyone else has input on my original question or comments on how an FD or minolta will perform compared to my EF you are welcomed even though philip seems to know his stuff!
 
So following your recommendations I purchased Minolta 58mm 1.2 and 70-210 4.0. Bidding on a 28mm 2.5 to complete kit. Now I would only need a recommandation on the best sharpest cleanest fisheye to use with FS-100-700 as I use this a lot in sports. I don't need that dreamy look. Just a darn punchy fisheye without a smart adapter obviously.
 
I have a lot of lenses, including Canon L, FD, Zeiss ZF and vintage Nikons which I have used on everything from my 16mm Eclair ACL to my Beaulieu Super 8mm to my Canons.

From my experience, the newer EOS L lenses tend to flare less, have better contrast and have less chromatic aberrations than my vintage lenses.

The manual lenses definitely have the better mechanics for manual focusing, but from my eye, I tend to like the L lenses mainly because of the chromatic aberration issue that tends to plague the older vintage lenses and even the modern Zeiss ZFs.

The FD are good lenses, but many are over 25 years old. To think that Canon has not improved upon the IQ in over 25 years is a bit naive. The FD and vintage Nikons do have that vintage look, but in terms of flare control, nicer contrast and chromatic abberations, the Canon L lenses have made huge strides. The 70-200 f2.8 V2 that I own is FAR, FAR better than the vintage Nikon 70-200 f4 and also much better than the FD 70-200 f4 and the FD 100-300 f5.6 (all 3 of which I own).

The Canon 50mm f1.4 (a very good lens) has better IQ than the FD 50mm f1.8, both of which I own. But the FD has the better mechanics.

That's just my 2 cents. But yeah, the mechanics and focus rings on the vintage lenses cannot be beat, but in terms of overall IQ, the modern Canon lenses tend to be better.

But yes, the adapter issue is a pain. I am getting an FS 700, but I'm going to use the Metabones adapter, as well as probably pick up a Nikon adapter and maybe an FD also
 
Thanks for the constructive comment. Here is what I will be doing.

I will cancel my order on the Canon EF 70-200mm 4.0 as I had just ordered it. I will sell my Canon EF 35mm 2.0 and 50mm 1.4 but keep my 85mm 1.8 as it is my favorite lens. Once I get the FS-700, I will still have one EF lens to compare with the Minoltas and judge wether I want to keep the Minolta 70-210mm 4.0 (only dropped 50$ on this one) or sell it and repurchase the 70-200mm from Canon. I don't think I will regret the Minolta 55mm 1.2 as it seems very praised all over, so I'll be covered for that focal range. Only the 28mm will be left, and once again I only paid 50$ for it so no bid deal if I decide not to keep it, I can probably resell it the same amount anyway. I'll keep an eye out for metabones while I wait.

All I need to figure out right now is the best and sharpest Fisheye I can get on the FS-700, atleast for under 1k. Very important for me. I know you can use the Sony Pancake 16mm with adapter but that just doesn't seem very promising...
 
gene_can_sing said:
I have a lot of lenses, including Canon L, FD, Zeiss ZF and vintage Nikons which I have used on everything from my 16mm Eclair ACL to my Beaulieu Super 8mm to my Canons.

From my experience, the newer EOS L lenses tend to flare less, have better contrast and have less chromatic aberrations than my vintage lenses.

The manual lenses definitely have the better mechanics for manual focusing, but from my eye, I tend to like the L lenses mainly because of the chromatic aberration issue that tends to plague the older vintage lenses and even the modern Zeiss ZFs.

The FD are good lenses, but many are over 25 years old. To think that Canon has not improved upon the IQ in over 25 years is a bit naive. The FD and vintage Nikons do have that vintage look, but in terms of flare control, nicer contrast and chromatic abberations, the Canon L lenses have made huge strides. The 70-200 f2.8 V2 that I own is FAR, FAR better than the vintage Nikon 70-200 f4 and also much better than the FD 70-200 f4 and the FD 100-300 f5.6 (all 3 of which I own).

The Canon 50mm f1.4 (a very good lens) has better IQ than the FD 50mm f1.8, both of which I own. But the FD has the better mechanics.

That's just my 2 cents. But yeah, the mechanics and focus rings on the vintage lenses cannot be beat, but in terms of overall IQ, the modern Canon lenses tend to be better.

But yes, the adapter issue is a pain. I am getting an FS 700, but I'm going to use the Metabones adapter, as well as probably pick up a Nikon adapter and maybe an FD also
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more. While I love my FD lenses and the look I get from them, I always know that it's not going to be used all the time in all of the shoots. I'm using them for specific purpose or shooting style. And I would say not only FD lenses are made like that, all lenses I own have their purpose and the way I use them. I don't even know if I have one type of lens that I could use all the time in all of the shoots.
 
A colleague with a collection L-Series, Sigma, FD and even the occasional Vivitar, has decided to cash most of it in and has gone Nikkor for a consitent look, a mechanical iris, and super sharp optics one or two stops down from wide open. The latter applies to any lens, so the faster the better IMHO. Now I have my Metabones adaptor, I'm swinging away from FD back to EOS, investing in new glass. FD is great, but not necessarily great for 'shiny' corporates. If you see what I mean.

Choosing lens family is getting to be like choosing film stock...
 
Great thread here. I'm really trying to figure out which lenses to go with as well.

Would it be a dumb decision to trust in Sony's system and go with E Mount, as well as an LE-EA2 adapter for A mount? I think then we'd have the use of phase detection AF (depending on lens), Optical Stabilization, and full Aperture control at all times?

The Sony 50mm 1.8 is supposed to be really good, and there seem to be quite a few decent A mount lenses.

Personally, i've been trying to figure out if i should spend money on various lenses and adapters from other companies, and then not have access to all their features. Waiting for Metabones or for companies to create new adapters. No "dumb" adapters. I don't know. Right now, i'm thinking it might be best just to plunge in to the Sony family and have everything working as it should with the A Mount adapter, and of course E mount. At least to start off, and maybe in the future (assuming the camera becomes very popular) there might be more options.

Oh, here's a question... are there many good A Mount lenses are out there? Sigma? Any other companies? If so, would you have full control of their features on the FS700 with the LE-EA2 adapter?

So much to learn!
 
Chad Nikolaus said:
Would it be a dumb decision to trust in Sony's system and go with E Mount, as well as an LE-EA2 adapter for A mount?
Click to expand...

No dumb decisions if it works for you. It probably feels strange as there's a few 'clans' with their own agendas.

The FS100 was designed to tempt people away from DSLRs (who were, by and large, EOS owners) and from Depth of Field adaptors (who were, by and large, Nikkor owners).

The eMount last year was an interesting oddity with a limited range of glass to its name, but it's getting established. Many shooters who are coming to photo style lenses for the first time won't have the 'baggage' and may well go with the eMount range. There is a school of thought that they won't hold their value like Nikkors have, as they'll only work on eMount, but features like IS and AF have their role in videography, and new features (tap-to-focus and face-follow focus are very useful). As if Sony's doing an 'Apple' - 'keep safe and functional: use eMount'.

The A mount was reported to have too slow a bus for the FS100 to control it directly, but now we have the LA-EA2 mount and suddenly the Minolta and Pentax lens groups are in the fray.

There's a school of thought that says the more choice we get, the less satisfied we are - and the highest satisfaction comes from when you have no chance to change after the event.

@ Anatusa - the MTF EOS adaptor is built like a tank but at £350 it's a lot for a dumb adaptor - and the control box is another £650. £1k later, and you still have to find a home for your box and keep it fed with power. The Metabones is not perfect, but it's the same cost as the dumb mount and takes its power and control from the camera body. There are dumb adaptors from £25 to £250...
 
I use FD lenses, but I would definitely stick with your EOS set. If you wanted a more 'vintage' look, you could always pick up a 50mm 1.4 ssc for $50-100. But your EOS set is going to have much more value and be just as good or better in most circumstances. Especially when the metabones becomes more accessible, EOS will be the way to go, IMO.
 
Yep! Saw that one in my researches. There is a clearly difference but it is not big. Worth the extra money? That's why I'm not sure. I decided to purchase the Minolta lenses and keep the EOS lenses. Once I get the camera I will settle my mind on what I want to shoot with, aka if the EF lenses are really worth the money versus the older manual lenses. Thanks for that comparison by the way, helps a lot of people I'm sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top