AhamB wrote:
Lars Johnsson wrote:
But to be fair. You will not get the same image quality out of the converted 85FD as you will get from either the EF 85L mark I or mark II lenses

Do you have anything (links) to back that up? What I've seen from Paul's FD85 SSC Asph and Dmitri's and other's FD85L looked absolutely great. You also get actual manual focus (not focus by wire).

Having converted several FD 85L lenses to the EOS mount, the deal breaker is the requirement of having a shortened mirror on the full frame Canon cameras. The rear element gets in the way of the mirror. Grinding a 5D mirror is major trauma to the camera, not to mention all that dust. There is always the crop cameras, but then the focal length changes. I stopped offering my conversion service due to the job complexity and time it takes.

Having said the above, I just finished a mint FD 85L to EOS conversion thinking I could find a shortcut. Nope. My only hope for this particular lens is the possible introduction of a mirrorless full frame Canon body, but that's another story.

As far as image quality, Erwin Puts makes the statement, in an article, that the new EF versions of the 85L doesn't bring any improvements over the FD version.

And to lastly mention the short time I used a C/Y 100/2, I was amazed at the portraits produced by this lens. That little extra reach over the 85 was nice, too. I have the C/Y 100/2 on my watch list, and now wonder if the 100MP could serve as one lens for everything and I could sell my Leica R 60 macro?

AhamB wrote:
Lars Johnsson wrote:
But to be fair. You will not get the same image quality out of the converted 85FD as you will get from either the EF 85L mark I or mark II lenses

Do you have anything (links) to back that up? What I've seen from Paul's FD85 SSC Asph and Dmitri's and other's FD85L looked absolutely great. You also get actual manual focus (not focus by wire).

I have owned and used 3 of the Canon 85/1,2 lenses we talk about here.
And focus by wire is really great also. I wish a lot more lenses had that. Especially the kind you got with the old Canon long tele lenses. And the lens also has AF.
The very old FD 85L is a good lens. But it's not very surprising that the two newer versions are improved.
Glass is better and sharper.
The lens coating is much better (huge difference between the FD and the new version)

JimBuchanan wrote:
AhamB wrote:
Lars Johnsson wrote:
But to be fair. You will not get the same image quality out of the converted 85FD as you will get from either the EF 85L mark I or mark II lenses

Do you have anything (links) to back that up? What I've seen from Paul's FD85 SSC Asph and Dmitri's and other's FD85L looked absolutely great. You also get actual manual focus (not focus by wire).

Having converted several FD 85L lenses to the EOS mount, the deal breaker is the requirement of having a shortened mirror on the full frame Canon cameras. The rear element gets in the way of the mirror. Grinding a 5D mirror is major trauma to the camera, not to mention all that dust. There is always the crop cameras, but then the focal length changes. I stopped offering my conversion service due to the job complexity and time it takes.

Having said the above, I just finished a mint FD 85L to EOS conversion thinking I could find a shortcut. Nope. My only hope for this particular lens is the possible introduction of a mirrorless full frame Canon body, but that's another story.

As far as image quality, Erwin Puts makes the statement, in an article, that the new EF versions of the 85L doesn't bring any improvements over the FD version.

And to lastly mention the short time I used a C/Y 100/2, I was amazed at the portraits produced by this lens. That little extra reach over the 85 was nice, too. I have the C/Y 100/2 on my watch list, and now wonder if the 100MP could serve as one lens for everything and I could sell my Leica R 60 macro?


How much does it cost to convert that lens to EOS

JimBuchanan wrote:
wonder if the 100MP could serve as one lens for everything and I could sell my Leica R 60 macro?

Maybe. If/when I have the budget for it, I'm definitely getting the 100/2 MP. 50-60mm macro lenses have the advantage of being lighter and having a shorter working distance (easier to find some support for your focusing hand), which makes it a bit easier to prevent camera shake.

You can get a Leica 100/2.8 Apo-macro for roughly the same price as the 100MP, btw.

Lars Johnsson wrote:
How much does it cost to convert that lens to EOS

The right way? When I did that conversion, and I don't offer it anymore, I charged $300. SK Grimes used to charge over $500.

Thanks Jim, so a normal charge would be around $ 500 then ?

Lars I think, you are right saying that it does not make much financial sense getting the FD 85 over the EF Mk1 if one plans to use it on Canon EOS. It however makes sense if you can use it on other cameras. The FD lenses do feel better made and I think there is considerably less to go wrong with them. As to quality - the old ones were not restricted to the eco-friendly glass, so when Canon introduced EF they had to find ways to keep the quality at the same level. I guess they managed it, but probably did not improve on the old. Coatings are a different story. But then there are many EF 85L Mk1 that have the same coating as newFD as they were produced about the same time! Another thing, the lenses that focus on wire are difficult to adapt for use on other cameras, while FD can be used on many modern video cameras etc.

The eco friendly glass as you describe it. I suppose you talk about the lead. Canon didn't stopped the production because of lead in the glass. It was because of emissions of lead that came out in the environment when they produced the glass. And the new glass was not less good/sharp, or had a lower image quality after the lead production stopped. And this has nothing to do with FD or EF mount. Because it didn't stop when Canon started to produce EF lenses.
And they have imroved the lens since the 31 year old lens came out. It has been replaced two times also. Just like nearly all of those other 30 year old FD lenses has been improved.
And I don't agree with your theory about "considerably less to go wrong with them" yes you don't have all that electronics like the new ones that can go wrong. but on the other side they are a lot older. And when they go wrong, Canon will not touch them. so you have non working lens that have costed you ove $ 1k. The two newer versions will Canon repair for you.
and the electronics will also make the new lenses better to shoot with.

For me it only make sence to convert that FD lens if you already owns it since you where shooting film with those old Canon lenses. Why buy an old FD and convert it? when you pay the same money as buying a new version with canon mount and all the electronics, AF. And can get it repaired.

That's a pretty tough decision. I have not read the entire thread, but I did own the Zeiss ZE 100/2 and the 85L at the same time. I actually sold both - I am more landscape/nature than anything else and portraits for me are no longer my thing. If I had to pick one...I would get the Zeiss. Honestly, the 85L is spectacular (and insanely chunky) but the Zeiss is the highest IQ lens I have ever come across for the Canon system that requires no modding.

Get the Zeiss.

Lars Johnsson wrote:
The eco friendly glass as you describe it. I suppose you talk about the lead. Canon didn't stopped the production because of lead in the glass. It was because of emissions of lead that came out in the environment when they produced the glass. And the new glass was not less good/sharp, or had a lower image quality after the lead production stopped. And this has nothing to do with FD or EF mount. Because it didn't stop when Canon started to produce EF lenses.
And they have imroved the lens since the 31 year old lens came out. It has been replaced two times also. Just like nearly all of those other 30 year old FD lenses has been improved.
And I don't agree with your theory about "considerably less to go wrong with them" yes you don't have all that electronics like the new ones that can go wrong. but on the other side they are a lot older. And when they go wrong, Canon will not touch them. so you have non working lens that have costed you ove $ 1k. The two newer versions will Canon repair for you.
and the electronics will also make the new lenses better to shoot with.

For me it only make sence to convert that FD lens if you already owns it since you where shooting film with those old Canon lenses. Why buy an old FD and convert it? when you pay the same money as buying a new version with canon mount and all the electronics, AF. And can get it repaired.

Well, I agree that canon did not switch from FD to EF mount because of lead and arsenic in the old glass. It is a different matter. My point is that when Canon stopped using these nasty elements (it happened around the millennium did it not?) in their lenses they needed to redesign them - find alternative glass - just to keep up with the old ones. The lead and arsenic were used for a purpose, they had good optical qualities. I reckon that we may have moved on since then and new types of glass have been introduced ( also widespread use of ED glass). I doubt that they have been incorporated in the EF 85L though. Most of the improvements have been, I guess, due to better coatings and rounded aperture blades in 85l II.
I personally bought the FD 85L after I had sold both my 85L II and Zeiss 100mp. Just because it is super cheap for an 85/1.2 lens! the time will come when a FF mirrorless is introduced and then this lens will shine.
This lens is undoubtedly superior for manual focusing than the new ones and as such it should be perceived (manual focus lens). Better for video and more adaptable. I can not see how it can not be better mechanically - provided you compare two copies that have seen the same use. It can also be repaired easier by third parties due to its simpler design.
But one can not beat the EF 85L if auto focus is needed and money is no object - I agree on that . Here I talk in the above context - I do not mean it is better than Zeiss 100MP.

It can only be repaired by third parties if the have the right spare parts. And Canon make the important spare parts. If you need glass or an important spare part, you are out of luck. You will not get it repaired.
I don't agree about the better MF either. Focus by wire is really great IMO.
And Canon don't have ED glass. I belive that is Nikon ?
I don't get the super cheap part either? The FD lens and converting it to EOS bodies cost about the same as buying the EF 85 mkI lens?

Lars, there are third-party repair services which will fabricate parts to repair lenses. I am sure it isn't cheap, but it is possible. I am also fairly certain that lenses generally don't break like that, with a few fragile exceptions. The mechanical construction is generally quite rugged, as long as you don't drop or abuse the lens. AF lenses are different. Chips and electronics can not be replaced as easily when the OEM runs out of parts.

Yes some parts they can fabricate. But not glass or all the other parts. Of course it's a huge advantage if Canon will repair your lens, like they do with both versions of the EF 85/1,2 lenses.
this is the main reason that people don't like to buy the first versions of the Canon super tele lenses today. Like the 400/ 2,8----500/4,5---600/4 (if the price isn't very low of course)

Yes, glass cannot be replaced that easily, you are right. Are the first versions you mention electronic, i.e. AF? The situation is the same with the Nikons, and even some of the early VR (IS) versions, since it is getting hard to get parts. If your electronic lens stops working, you are dead. Mechanical lenses like the FD85 still keep ticking though.

Although not strictly on-topic, some clarification about glass types is in order here.

Lead isn't necessarily optically superior to modern lead-free substitutes (usually a lanthanide or other "rare earth" element). There's a tendency to think that because lead was phased out because of environmental concerns, there must have been something optically "special" about it. People incorrectly infer that because something is no longer available, it must have been especially desirable.

Lead's optical purpose is to increase the refractive index in the glass, which permits the design of lower curvature lenses (I would use the word "elements" here, but to avoid confusion with chemical elements, I will instead use "lenses" to refer to individual optical elements). This decrease in curvature reduces spherical aberration, but increases dispersion. So it's not a win-win scenario to employ high refractive index materials.

Furthermore, lead isn't the only element that can be used to increase the refractive index--for historical and geological reasons, it just happened to be the cheapest and most easily accessible one. People have been manufacturing leaded glassware for centuries. But it isn't intrinsically better from an optical perspective.

So let me make this absolutely clear: just because a lens is redesigned to phase out lead, does not mean the new design is inferior or constitutes a compromise in optical performance. It may, however, be more expensive to produce.

As for low-dispersion glass, of course Canon has that at their disposal. They just don't call it "ED" like Nikon does. Every lens manufacturer has an arsenal of glass types they can use, with a variety of refractive indices, transmissions, and thermal, chemical, and mechanical properties. The appropriate glass is chosen not just for its optical properties but for these other attributes. Canon calls their low-dispersion glasses "UD" and "Super UD," which are used in L lenses along with their trump card, pure fluorite crystal--which no other SLR lens manufacturer makes. In fact, a significant portion of Canon Optron's operations is devoted to the growth of these crystals, which are sold to other industries as well as used for Canon's own lenses.

In any case, these extra-low dispersion glasses aren't usually needed in short focal length lenses, because they have a low refractive index whereas a high refractive index is desired. An ultra-fast short telephoto like the 85/1.2 design has no use for this type of glass.

wickerprints wrote:
Al Canon calls their low-dispersion glasses "UD" and "Super UD," which are used in L lenses along with their trump card, pure fluorite crystal--which no other SLR lens manufacturer makes. In fact, a significant portion of Canon Optron's operations is devoted to the growth of these crystals, which are sold to other industries as well as used for Canon's own lenses.

One of the more prominent manufacturers of crystalline flourite is Schott (owned by Zeiss) which apart from Zeiss also supplies Leica with glass. Zeiss used fluorite in some of their superapochromat lenses and Leica in a bunch of APO tele lenses. Today both Zeiss and Leica use it for binoculars but generally not in regular photo lenses. I seem to recall reading that pure flourite had some mechanical disadvantages and that since the late 90's Leica is using some other ultra low dispersion glass (also provided by Schott).

Lars Johnsson wrote:
I don't get the super cheap part either? The FD lens and converting it to EOS bodies cost about the same as buying the EF 85 mkI lens?

I will remind you: it is super cheap if you use the lens on other bodies (like m4/3, sony E or any future mirrorless cameras). as I mentioned earlier it is only non-viable if you pay a lot for the conversion to EF mount.

Edgars Kalnins wrote:
Lars Johnsson wrote:
I don't get the super cheap part either? The FD lens and converting it to EOS bodies cost about the same as buying the EF 85 mkI lens?

I will remind you: it is super cheap if you use the lens on other bodies (like m4/3, sony E or any future mirrorless cameras). as I mentioned earlier it is only non-viable if you pay a lot for the conversion to EF mount.

Yes I agree that it make more sense to use it on another body. But he like to use it on an EOS here

JimBuchanan wrote:


And to lastly mention the short time I used a C/Y 100/2, I was amazed at the portraits produced by this lens. That little extra reach over the 85 was nice, too. I have the C/Y 100/2 on my watch list



And you did a great conversion on it too! I wish I had known you were looking. I saw one locally for $650 and should have picked it up on principle.

My CY 100/2 is my current favorite lens.

Jim

JimBuchanan wrote:
And to lastly mention the short time I used a C/Y 100/2, I was amazed at the portraits produced by this lens. That little extra reach over the 85 was nice, too. I have the C/Y 100/2 on my watch list, and now wonder if the 100MP could serve as one lens for everything and I could sell my Leica R 60 macro?


I'd consider that sale carefully, Jim. I have both a 60 and 100 macro and find the two focal lengths perfect for completely different jobs. I'd give it a nice long test drive before I threw the 60 into the wind.