Michael Tucker wrote:
fixed lens for floating? Seems a bit oxymoronic.
The rear element is fixed and the rest of the lens elements move together as a single unit throughout the focus travel, which means the rear element's position changes or "floats" in relation to the rest of the lens, as the lens is focused.
gcrimmins wrote:
I have a couple of questions about adapting this lens to an EOS DSLR.
First, has anyone looked into the cost of having an adapter machined that would allow the rear element of this lens to be screwed into an M42 to EOS adapter? Kind of like an M39 to M42 adapter ring, but with the inside threaded to accept the rear element from the 85.
Second, is there any consensus about which cameras allow infinity focus with this lens?
I know it won't with an unmodified 5d/5dII. But how about the following.
1. 5d/5dII with shaved mirror.
2. 1d or 1ds series cameras.
3. Canon APS-C cameras.
cogitech wrote:
Every answer to these questions is in fact contained in this thread.
Oops, my bad. It look like if you adjust things just right you can get infinity focus with APS-C cameras, 1D/1DS series cameras, and the 5D/5D mkII with a shaved mirror. So it sounds like the 5D/5DII with an un-shaved mirror are the only Canon cameras that cause a problem.
After reading the thread again, it's unclear to me if any has had an adapter machined that threads into an M42-EOS adapter, and then allows the rear element to threaded into the adapter. I see mention of M39 to M42 adapters, but it sounds like the rear element is being epoxied into this adapter ring. I also saw mention of the flange on an M42-EOS adapter being threaded with 0.5mm threads. Is this flange being threaded to take the rear element directly? Maybe someone can clarify this.
gcrimmins wrote:
Oops, my bad. It look like if you adjust things just right you can get infinity focus with APS-C cameras, 1D/1DS series cameras, and the 5D/5D mkII with a shaved mirror. So it sounds like the 5D/5DII with an un-shaved mirror are the only Canon cameras that cause a problem.
After reading the thread again, it's unclear to me if any has had an adapter machined that threads into an M42-EOS adapter, and then allows the rear element to threaded into the adapter. I see mention of M39 to M42 adapters, but it sounds like the rear element is being epoxied into this adapter ring. I also saw mention of the flange on an M42-EOS adapter being threaded with 0.5mm threads. Is this flange being threaded to take the rear element directly? Maybe someone can clarify this.
Jim's method is exactly as you describe, AFAIK. I thought he explained it earlier in the thread, but I must admit I haven't gone back to double-check.
The other method is to hack out the existing rear element holder (from the FD mount) with a Dremel and then fix that inside a C/Y-EOS adapter (internal flanges Dremeled off) with JB-Weld. That's the method I used and it worked great.
gcrimmins wrote:
Oops, my bad. It look like if you adjust things just right you can get infinity focus with APS-C cameras, 1D/1DS series cameras, and the 5D/5D mkII with a shaved mirror. So it sounds like the 5D/5DII with an un-shaved mirror are the only Canon cameras that cause a problem.
After reading the thread again, it's unclear to me if any has had an adapter machined that threads into an M42-EOS adapter, and then allows the rear element to threaded into the adapter. I see mention of M39 to M42 adapters, but it sounds like the rear element is being epoxied into this adapter ring. I also saw mention of the flange on an M42-EOS adapter being threaded with 0.5mm threads. Is this flange being threaded to take the rear element directly? Maybe someone can clarify this.
As far as i know there has only been one success with infinity focus using a 1 series camera.It would be really great if they all allow this!... but it's not been proven yet
No one makes such an adapter that allows the rear element to be easily screwed into a common M42 adapter.That would be a great thing and would achieve several things at once! :
-it's adjustable! It could be used to modify the lens to any camera from crop frame to the most difficult- the 5D's
-It would eliminate the problem of M39-M42 adapters being abit too thick or 'bulky' .From what i've seen so far these have to be ground down around the outer edge so they dont contact the mirror box surround,though i may be wrong.
-If properly made it would also act as a 'safety stop' by limiting how close the last two elements can come together.This is a very useful feature as it gives complete peace of mind that on cant make mistakes when adjusting it.Mine does this -it allows the elements to come within 1/3mm but not touch
-A rear internal light blocking hood could also easily be built into this part,eliminating the problem of trying to adapt the original
Unfortunately such a part would still not cure all the problems we face in modifying this particular lens.
Other big issues are how to attach the M42 adapter to the lens chassis,and how to make and adjust the parts that will operate the aperture
The 'flange on an M42-EOS adapter being threaded with 0.5mm threads' was mine.
Basically its a very similar idea to the idea above but i started with a stop down flange type M42 adapter and a threaded part i just happened to find from another (different type) lens.
This part had a thread on the inside that accepted the 85/1.2 rear element directly,so it was a reasonable simple matter of having the flanged M42 adapter threaded to accept this part.It was too small and thin to thread into a normal M42 adapter,thats why i started with the flanged M42 adapter -i has a smaller hole.
Overall i wouldnt do it this way again because i dont have another one of those threaded parts
Another thing: which one is finally better: the FD 85 L or the FD 85 SSC ?
Yes, the term "better" is subjective. But there are neutral and comparable aspects, such as...
- The SSC has 9 aperture blades
- MTF charts?
- The L is a 2nd generation lens (have the coatings improved?)
I guess an (actually more than one to allow for sample variation) up-to-date side by side is in order. I have never seen any direct comparison between the SSC version and any of the later versions.
Anyone have any other links to info comparing the SSC to any of the later versions of the lens?
I did it almost year ago, the original thread was on Paul's manual forum, look here http://album.foto.ru/photos/26407/ Actually i still have fd 85 1,2L and fd 85 ssc asph and have access to use ef 85 f1.2 II
Thank you for the links.
In Dim.ka's test the pictures made with the FD-L look like focus is a bit somewhere else, nevertheless all in all I cannot see a big difference.
OOF highlights may be not as round as from the FD-SSC.
Dim.ka, what is the conclusion you have drawn from your test?
m-a-x wrote:
Thank you for the links.
In Dim.ka's test the pictures made with the FD-L look like focus is a bit somewhere else, nevertheless all in all I cannot see a big difference.
OOF highlights may be not as round as from the FD-SSC.
Dim.ka, what is the conclusion you have drawn from your test?
Yes, the focus is a bit in front, but after using them i would keep both, may be slight bias towards ssc asph - it has just a bit warmer color tint (coating is a bit different to fd 85 1.2L) and may be because of that it looks just a bit contrasty, 9 blades is a small bonus.
MM i hate to be a grump but that test is abit dodgey.
The Ef version is rear focused.I'm not sure what the FD version is doing but it doesnt seem to be in correct focus
That said it looks a little like the SSC would have won anyway.
Its difficult to be sure but it looks like color fringing may be about equal? (or to put it another way-all not worth worrying about)
Just spent ages looking at those test pics.
The EF is seriously back focused (for f1.2 anyway)! See the reflections on the hood just behind the radiator cowling .Also the rubber strip along that side of the hood
The SSC has the best looking focus point -most of the closest side radiator cowlings look great
The FD is rather back focused also but not as much as the EF.The radiator cap wings are sharpest
The focus issues taken together with the very low shutter speeds and possible sample variation issues make it all abit too imprecise i'm sorry to say.Too much to make any solid conclusions anyway.I'm grateful someone put in such an effort, but to me it doesnt do much more than prove they are similar.
...which,really,isn't such a bad thing!
That said,the SSC does seem to have a slightly different 'look'.When i saw cogitec's images i noticed it too.Perhaps more contrast ans slightly more DOF than the FD version?
pengland wrote:
I wondered why that one sold for so much. I saw that one and I hate to be the bearer of bad news....but I asked the seller if the fixed rear glass element was in place (it sits in the FD mount assembly) and he told me this:
I see no glass attached the rear mount assembly.
I don't know that it has a glass, I bougth it from a little store in Thailand, then it can not be mount with my camera so I have to sell it.
- kobkik2007
I told him he should edit the listing to let people know this important detail. He kind of covered himself though because the description says he didn't know if anything was missing and he sold it 'as-is" If the rear element is really not there you have yourself a soft-focus lens.
Well I finally got the lens today and its worse than I thought as I could'nt find any way to get the Iris to stop down via the aperture dial. The only way I could see a way to get it to work would be to connect the big steel lever that sticks out the back of the lens directly to the aperture dial...But that might mean making a custom made slotted ring for the job. I'm still waiting for an old rear lens element to turn up so I can try finding a way to get it back to the way it should be if only optically.
I cant return the lens so I'm wondering if theres any way to get my money back from paypal.
