Grins-n-Giggle

For Grins-n-Giggles, anyone ever mount an FD Lens on an EF body? I bought an adapter and used the 50mm off an old Canon AE-1. Interesting results. Probably the lens or more than likely the photographer but the pics tended to have some ghosting that looked like I had PP and removed clarity. I want to play around with it some more but now trying to see if I can PP the photos to clean them up a bit. Another downside to the lens is that my Capture One software doesn't have any FD lens profiles...I have read that there are a lot of good FD lens available at low prices. Something to play with...

I've never tried it but most of the articles suggest that FD lenses are amongst the worst MF lenses to adapt to EF mount.

Oh thank goodness. I knew I could be that bad of a photographer...LOL

I once had a Sigma 600mm FD mirror lens. It wasn't very good, even less so when fitted with an EOS adapter. Good thing about the mirror design meant that infinity focus was still possible (well, soft-focus infinity with donut shaped bokeh)

I bought a Fotodiox Pro several years ago. Never have used it much, after reading this thread I thought I'd dig it out and give it another try. First photo I had my 50mm f/1.8 lens with the diaphragm in the adapter at about 1/2 open. Second picture was through my Sigma 400 f/5.6 with the diaphragm wide open. Shot in Aperture mode, you can play with the diaphragm to get the shutter speed you want or need. On the second photo I had to bump ISO up to 1600 to get 1/400 second shutter speed.

Edit: I'm sure I saw 1/400 second in the viewfinder, but EXIF says 1/250.

Interesting. They both look nice. As I have found with my 50mm, the sharpness just wasn't there...I think I had it in my head that the older lenses would be competitive with today's lenses,,,they don't build things like the used to, ha, but I haven't seen it as yet. I will have to try and get a sports pic I took over the weekend posted. Using the lenses changes things up a bit and the pics I took offered an interesting photographic perspective for me...

I just wish the diaphragm ring was easier to get to, it needs a little handle or something you could move back and forth with your finger. I used it a few years ago at a church event where I knew I'd need a fast lens. Some of the pics came out very nice, some were OK, and some were trashworthy.

If you have a look at the ball and the ump, I wonder if it is the lack of IS that causes this distortion.

Of course I am trying to use an old 50mm lens most likely made for stills for sports. Anyone have any FD lens suggestions for Canon that would be good/fun to try for sports?

Just a very uneducated guess, but I'm thinking the ball may be a bit distorted because it's at the edge of the frame. I don't see what your referring to with the bat, even at 1/1600 second it's gonna have a bit of motion blur. I think.

I do see that the left fielder is running the wrong way for the ball.

While I haven't used my adapter much, I have found it's clearest below wide open. Lot's of distortion at wide open. But that's true for any lens, they all have their sweet spot.

I used to have an FD600 f/4L. I had a brass ef-FD adapter that was a few mm thick, and with the long white lenses you could open them up to adjust the focus, allowing infinity focus on EF bodies. The images weren't bad, but focusing was a pain. It worked better with my Sony A7. I still have an old FD 300mm f/2.8L. It's quite sharp, if you can nail focus. Even with the focus peaking of the A7RII you have to zoom in on the subject to ensure accurate focus at 2.8.