FD 300/2.8L - is this dumb? - FM Forums

Register · Search · Software · Join Upload & Sell · Hosting

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 end

Archive 2008 · FD 300/2.8L - is this dumb?

Silentlight
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · FD 300/2.8L - is this dumb?

I was thinking of getting a 300/2.8 L in the FD mount and instead of going thru the pain of converting it to EOS, keep it as FD and then buy and convert a pair of FD or FL 1.4x and 2x converters to mount the lens on. Afterall, that's the focal length I want to get to... 420/f4 or 600/f5.6.

IQ shouldn't be any worst than 400/f4 DO. And it should be pretty portable.

Is this a pretty dumb idea?

If doesn't sound so dumb, then what are the best possible teleconverters to get?

Nov 10, 2008 at 10:36 PM

gasrocks
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · FD 300/2.8L - is this dumb?

What body will you be using? I have never heard of anyone converting TCs before and doubt it is a good idea.

Nov 10, 2008 at 10:55 PM

justruss
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · FD 300/2.8L - is this dumb?

That's an interesting idea... I guess it just has to do with how deeply the FL converters need to be seated in the mount.

Nov 10, 2008 at 11:12 PM

Ed Sawyer
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · FD 300/2.8L - is this dumb?

it all depends on price. the best converters of course would be canon. or, get the $1000 EOS-FD converter which is a 1.26x multiplier also, and add a 1.4x on the end of that maybe?

better bet if you can swing it is a EF 300 2.8L non-IS.

-Ed

Nov 11, 2008 at 02:15 AM

cogitech
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · FD 300/2.8L - is this dumb?

If the TC of choice allows for an easy conversion, I'd say it is anything but dumb. If there is a lens that will work well with TCs, this is it.

Nov 11, 2008 at 03:29 AM

asbalyan
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · FD 300/2.8L - is this dumb?

Very interesting idea.... if special TCs are available, it should be worth trying (after all tele-lens designs are or were based on internal TCs implementation.. I read somewhere that most of old 135mm were optimized 2x + 50mm lenses). Dont have to care about aperture handling..

(I am thinking about this path for 100mm/50mm macro lenses for a long time... but now own in Oly mount Quantaray and Takumar macro lenses.. so dropped the idea).

Nov 11, 2008 at 04:20 AM

Cableaddict
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · FD 300/2.8L - is this dumb?

This is quite an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how much sense it makes:

Assuming it can be done, you will be spending close to $1,000 at typical Ebay pricing, for both the lens & the TC.

The TC won't be useful for many other lenses, you won't have auto exposure or full EXIF info, and you don't even know how it will work out (mirror clearance, infinity focus.)

You can get a Nikon AI-s ED 300/2.8 for virtually the same money, guaranteed to clear the mirror and infinity focus, and they are fantastic lenses. Then you can use an EOS TC mkII, which is a better TC and can be used for some other lenses as well. Not to mention, you then can also use the 300mm lens at its true 300mm FL when you don't need the extra reach, and want ultimate IQ.

Is the FD worth the effort, time, and chance-taking?

Nov 11, 2008 at 06:04 AM

Silentlight
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · FD 300/2.8L - is this dumb?

Just took apart a cheap Focal MC 2x4 (what a pain) and a Tokina 2x7 (less pain) and doesn't look promising so far. For one thing the back doesn't fit inside opening of my Rollie or OM adapters (should have tried measuring first). And even if it did, most probably works with a 1.6x crop camera at best. Rear element is too far back.

I give up for the night.

Hopefully the $1.50 FL converter I have coming will be easier.

Nov 11, 2008 at 06:28 AM

Alf Beharie
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · FD 300/2.8L - is this dumb?

gasrocks wrote:
What body will you be using? I have never heard of anyone converting TCs before and doubt it is a good idea.

Converting TC's can be useful...I know someone who converted the camera mounting end of a Canon EF 2x TC to SA mount and the camera mounting end of a Sigma 2x TC to EF mount so he could use his Sigma SA mount lenses on his Canon DSLR/s and Canon EF mount lenses on his Sigma DSLR/s with no need to convert them...The only drawback of course is that you have to put up with extra FL the TC gives, so its not good for WA lenses.

Nov 11, 2008 at 06:41 AM

Ed Sawyer
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · FD 300/2.8L - is this dumb?

the other thing you could look for is a nice Oly 250/2.0 or something, and use that with a converter... again, not cheap but probably cheaper than an EF 300 2.8L

Ed

Nov 11, 2008 at 03:20 PM

Silentlight
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · FD 300/2.8L - is this dumb?

Had a mini-Eureka moment this morning.... Instead of trying to adapt a FD teleconverter to fit on EOS body, try to adapt an EF teleconverter to accept FD lens. Much easier (in theory). Although the aperture levers on the FD lens need to get trimmed, just like the PK lenses, to fit on EF converter.

Looking for a donor EF 1.4x teleconverter....

Nov 11, 2008 at 05:10 PM

asbalyan
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · FD 300/2.8L - is this dumb?

Ed Sawyer wrote: the other thing you could look for is a nice Oly 250/2.0 or something, and use that with a converter... again, not cheap but probably cheaper than an EF 300 2.8L...

And no conversion is needed for Oly lenses...

Silentlight wrote:.......Instead of trying to adapt a FD teleconverter to fit on EOS body, try to adapt an EF teleconverter to accept FD lens.

I think this will need mount conversion, and thats little difficult for FD lenses... With FD-TCs, nothing to care about aperture (as no aperture mechanism at TCs)...

Nov 11, 2008 at 05:30 PM

Silentlight
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · FD 300/2.8L - is this dumb?

No. As a matter of fact it should be a lot easier to pop out the EF mount and screw on a FD mount. I am talking about the lens end of the teleconverter, not the camera end.

Both of the FD teleconverters I opened up had their lens elements mounted on the camera end of the converter, making it even harder to change the mount.

Nov 11, 2008 at 05:34 PM

Ed Sawyer
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · FD 300/2.8L - is this dumb?

In any of these cases you are probably going to lose apeture control of the FD lens, btw.

-Ed

Nov 11, 2008 at 11:02 PM

Silentlight
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · FD 300/2.8L - is this dumb?

Nope. One of the levers in the back of FD lens is the one that releases aperture when the shutter clicks. It's linked to the little push button underneath the breach mount. All I have to do is make sure that push button is always pressed in and the lever is pushed forward so that it always stays in the activated state.

I think the trickiest part is getting the register distance correct.

Nov 11, 2008 at 11:27 PM

Ed Sawyer
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · FD 300/2.8L - is this dumb?

Maybe so. I recall cogitech saying converting FD was/is a bitch. And I am in the midst of an FD conversion on a vivitar series 1 28mm f/1.9, and even scrapping the whole FD mount nonsense I still had to fab something up to connect the apeture ring on the lens with the actual apeture actuation mechanism inside the lens. they weren't linked, at all.

I know in this case that might not be an issue, however for me, FD has been the biggest bitch of a mount to convert so far. minolta seems trivial in comparison.

agreed, getting the registration distance right is going to be a challenge. Ultimately, unless one gets a great deal on the lens and converter, IMNSHO it's not worth the effort.

-Ed

Nov 12, 2008 at 03:27 AM

Silentlight
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · FD 300/2.8L - is this dumb?

I think I got it.

Have to do some outdoor tests and fine tune the register distance, and then decide on getting the FD 300/2.8 or not. But for now, here's a hint on how I did it. I am sure you guys with keen eyes can see what I did.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Nov 16, 2008 at 05:00 AM

foxbat
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · FD 300/2.8L - is this dumb?

It looks like you somehow hacked the camera side of the mount backwards a few millimeters!

Nov 16, 2008 at 08:32 AM

Silentlight
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · FD 300/2.8L - is this dumb?

Yes, but it was a bit more involved. The converter is mounted backwards. This way I could take the converter elements out and mount them also backwards, all to get the correct register distance.

Nov 16, 2008 at 08:11 PM

wingnut247
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · FD 300/2.8L - is this dumb?

Silentlight wrote:
...getting a 300/2.8 L in the FD mount and instead ...converting it to EOS, keep it as FD ... and convert a pair of FD or FL 1.4x and 2x converters to mount the lens...

I had the same idea last August. I am always trying to balance staying on a budget and having quality equipment. If I experiment I end up spending more. If I buy the best I only have to buy it once.

I noticed that FD lenses are 1/5th to 1/10th the price of EOS lenses.

I thought, why pay to have each lens converted from FD to EOS... just convert a teleconverter.

Silentlight wrote:
Is this a pretty dumb idea?

It might be

Silentlight wrote:
If doesn't sound so dumb, then what are the best possible teleconverters to get?

I did a little research. I asked around on a few forums and at two good camera shops near by (Kenmore Camera and Glaziers). Then, I ran a few tests of my own. The best FD/FL Teleconverter appears to be the 1.4x made by Canon. I would suggest staying away from the 2x converters (even the canon) because of the higher loss in quality and light.

I bought...
-metal ring (no optics) fd-eos converter 10 bux
-"bowers" (with optics) fd-eos converter 30 bux
-4 auto confirm chips 5 bux each
-no name fd-eos converter with the autoconfirm chip installed (china) 35bux
-Perfect Canon FD 1.4x-a Teleconverter
-Well Used but optically perfect Canon FD 300mm 4 for 20 bux
-Slightly Used but optically perfect Canon FD 300mm L 2.8 for under 500 bux

I shot the FD 300mm 2.8L with the
-bowers FD-EOS converter (yielded a quality on par with my EOS 70-200 2.8L at 4.0 setting but not as sharp as my other primes or as sharp as the same lens with the pass through, no optics adapter)... later I added the confirm chip with was an easy install and helped a TON getting the focus on.
-Noname converter from china with auto confirm chip (Quality less then the bowers... stay away)
-metal ring alone (great pictures but would only focus out to about 40 feet)
-metal ring and the 1.4 teleconverter (no NOTICABLE loss in quality. However, the Laws of physics are what they are... there must have been some loss)

This low loss in quality (while using the 1.4x telesconverter) set me out hunting for someone who converts lenses. I contacted SKGRIMES and they gave me a quote of 250-400 bux to convert the FD 1.4 teleconverter to a FD to EOS converter/teleconverter... I also sent them an auto confirm focus chip. There was an 8 week wait but it is done. They charged 400 bux ( just a bit higher then I would have hoped). I just got the email that they finished... they sent me a picture that I will attach to this message. When it arrives, I will let you know if it performs as expected.

Here is the picture they sent www.traviskrause.com/fdeos/canonfdeos.jpg

If you are interested in having this work done... find a 1.4 FD teleconveter and a autofocus confirm then Contact Adam with
S. K. GRIMES -- MACHINE WORK FOR PHOTOGRAPHERS
P. O. Box 1724, 32 Mechanic Ave Unit 222
Woonsocket RI, 02895
401-762-0857

For now, I would say that if all you want is ONE quality telephoto in that range, get the modern equivalent. The eos 300mm IS f4L or the 400mm IS f4.5L, either can be had for about 1,000 bux each new... they will be LIGHTER, better SEALED, include IS, have full AUTOFOCUS and give you better OPTICAL PERFORMANCE. For your money... the better deal is not to monkey around with the conversion of teleconverters.

If you are going to pick up a set (at least 2 or 3) of the BIG L Primes (especially the 500,600,800)... and you are willing to SACRIFICE some image QUALITY, WEIGHT, IS and full AUTOFOCUS. I'd try doing it with the canon 1.4 or find the real deal 1.26 converter made by Canon. Also, keep in mind that there are many FD lenses AND larger primes that are NOT compatible with the 1.4x FD teleconverter... including some copies of the 300mm 2.8 (if it has a square back and a silver lock ring it may not work unless it is modified too).

Also... shooting with out autofocus is a bear with the DLSRs that do not have a proper focus screen. I shot a few sporting events with the bowers adapter with and without the confirm chip. With mixed results. I'd say that this conversion style would better suit wildlife and not action sports.

How did you do your conversion? Did you cut down the lens side and then put on a pass through fd-eos ring? How much did you trim?

More to come...

Nov 16, 2008 at 08:29 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end