Pleasant surprise with FD 50mm on 5DII

tikkathreebarrel

tikkathreebarrel

Messages
2,089
Edit My Images
Yes
I have this 50mm FD lens.

I don't like the FD mount - I find it too fiddly.

I tried this lens previously on my 5DI with a "glazed" FD to EOS adapter and disliked it so much that I put the lens, the adapter and an unglazed adapter on EBay for a slightly cheeky B-I-N in aniticipation of an acceptable offer.

It didn't go straight away.

I took delivery of a lovely new 5DII.

I put the FD 50mm on the unglazed adapter and took it for a walk one morning this week.

It will only focus at around eight inches. I nearly took it off again but with a dew laden morning something told me to go with it.

I came home surprised, delighted and happy, immediately withdrawing the lens from EBay.

Okay, the images acheived aren't all razor sharp and I need to stop the lens down further than the f5.6 I was using.

Last year I sold my macro lens figuring I'd get by with other lenses and extension tubes. I made the correct decision. :LOL:

IMG_0425untouchedcompletely.jpg


IMG_0408.jpg


IMG_0407.jpg


and for bokeh:

IMG_0415.jpg
 
Great set...I too went out with my camera and canon 50mm macro...got one or two shots that i am happy with...the rest pah! Not sure if its me, the lens or the cmbination of the two together...still I perservere...getting one or two shots I am happy with is more than i have ever got before!
 
I think selling your macro lens was a mistake- the shots are Ok, but not great

You'll get far better images using a dedicated macro lens in my humble opinion.

Les (y)
 
Lez325 said:
I think selling your macro lens was a mistake- the shots are Ok, but not great

You'll get far better images using a dedicated macro lens in my humble opinion.

Les (y)
Click to expand...

Absolutely. You won't get the same level of performance unless you switch back to a dedicated macro. That's not to say that fairly good results can't be achieved without one, but with one the results will always be better.
 
lfc1892 said:
Absolutely. You won't get the same level of performance unless you switch back to a dedicated macro. That's not to say that fairly good results can't be achieved without one, but with one the results will always be better.
Click to expand...

There is no reason why an FD macro lens should not give as good results as eg a dedicated AF macro lens provided it is used with care and without the correction lens in the adaptor. Most of my macro work is done with old enlarging lenses and also Nikon and Canon manual focus macro lenses via bellows, tubes and adaptors on Canon DSLRs. Optically, the FD lenses are still first class as are the older manual focus Micro Nikkors. If you enjoy indoor/studio photomacrography you can save a lot of ££ by buying and using manual focus lenses on bellows provided you invest in the necessary adaptors and have a decent tripod or copy stand ...but you have to learn to use the camera in manual modes ... which slows the workflow but puts everything in your total control.

dunk

EDIT: Apologies ... I mis-read the OP and was under the impression that a Canon FD 50/3.5 macro lens was used ... whereas it was in fact a regular 50mm Canon FD.

dunk
 
Last edited:
Planapo said:
There is no reason why an FD macro lens should not give as good results as eg a dedicated AF macro lens provided it is used with care and without the correction lens in the adaptor. Most of my macro work is done with old enlarging lenses and also Nikon and Canon manual focus macro lenses via bellows, tubes and adaptors on Canon DSLRs. Optically, the FD lenses are still first class as are the older manual focus Micro Nikkors. If you enjoy indoor/studio photomacrography you can save a lot of ££ by buying and using manual focus lenses on bellows provided you invest in the necessary adaptors and have a decent tripod or copy stand ...but you have to learn to use the camera in manual modes ... which slows the workflow but puts everything in your total control.

dunk
Click to expand...


I am confused. I thought the whole point was that the lens in question was not a dedicated macro lens?? I use Nikon so know nothing of Canon lenses.
 
lfc1892 said:
Also, I read that bellows and tubes cost light and DOF?
Click to expand...

Can't say i have seen a drop off in light using tubes on my FD 50mm:shrug:, But yes your DOF does become razor thin the more tubes you use.
 
For me that instantly rules that option out. Dof is a huge issue with macro as it is, and to further reduce it is a big turn off, hence the dedicated macro lens. The light fall off i guess is due to inverse square law? Not sure how much difference it would make in the real world, but if are already having to go tiny on the aperture to get more depth, less light really becomes an issue. Also, to get same depth on bellows or tubes you will need a much smaller aperture so diffraction will surely soften the images too.
 
I am also assuming that a dedicated macro lens will have optics optimized purely for macro work, whereas a more wide ranging lens which simply allows macro work will have to be good at other things too. Since it can't be great at everything, it surely won't have the specialised optics for macro work that a dedicated macro lens will have. Aberration etc. Just a thought as i am only assuming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top