Frage von Asjoker:
Those who do not read long version will tell me whether I ask only for a nasty surprise following experience would be:
I buy me for my Canon EOS 35mm adapter rings meantime, screw the front a "Canon Canon FD to EF adapter" to buy me the cheapest new 50mm F 1:1,8 "Lens and the cheapest new 28mm F 1:2, 5 "lens that I can find and complete.
So Klappt everything? Had something else good? ^ ^ Who is more ready to read:
Since I sent me a 35mm adapter can build / do I have now for a lens manufacturer to decide.
Firstly, I must say that I'm a bit confused what the connection is concerned. So now what exactly a Bayonet and an adapter is.
Therefore it would be nice if you say if I was at these intermediate rings I've bought:
http://cgi.ebay.de/Makro-Zwischenringe-f- Canon DSLR Kamera_W0QQitemZ170252523599QQcmdZViewItem? Hash = item170252523599 & _trkparms = 39% 3A1% 7C66% 3A2% 7C65% 3A15% 7C240% 3A1318 & _trksid = p3286.c0.m14 (jamand please tell me how I can shorten links ^ ^)
Whether I now simply because the power of my choice and it can be mounted with the right lenses can start immediately. So if I am now available for Canon FD Lenses decide, I can then simply
"EF to FD adapter" and buy the FD Lenses dranstecken front?
_
My second problem is the lack of experience in lenses.
I want very good quality for as little money as possible (surprise) but I do not want to pay out ¬ 100-1000 for the differences noted eh None.
The problem is how do I check the quality? ^ ^ All I see is always the focal aperture and the highest level.
But if I now simply the cheapest 50mm 1.8 and 28mm 2.5 the cheapest to buy but can certainly expect or evil? I my but it is not so that I could see if the lens distortion or chromatic aberration aufweist, I do not even know whether it's an issue, or whether the quality characteristics which are quite different if I only s.Nikon and Canon must hold, or whether all are equal. I know just what I garnicht be directed. I would be grateful if someone because a piece of advice may be present.
Ah yes, but what you have to verify is the minimum distance.
On my Canon Hv30 sowas kenn ich and I do not make it synonymous pretty annoying to me before. Can someone tell me where there is a good standard?
Would be very grateful if someone could tell his experience:)
Antwort von MartinMcFly:
I have looked on ebay for a used Canon FD 50mm 1.4 purchased for 35mm adapter. (ca 30 euro) I was very disappointed with how much light you lose, so I changed my 50mm 1.2 Lens fetched. (ca 80-100) euro.
Lichtmäßig which unfortunately makes little difference, but the picture and the focus is definitely better than the 1.4er!
So you buy either a 1.4er or 1.2er, but I would not 1.8, since you ärgerst you just because you wanted to save some Euros!
The 28mm 2.5, I have synonymous. Is really good at a lot of light to use. If too dark, you see everywhere and it roars Fussel (visible through the screen of the adapters)
An EF to FD adapter, I would not use it. You can then no longer have to Infinitely sharp and you make you lose even more light and the picture is rather muddy in comparison
Antwort von Asjoker:
Erstma Thx for the answer.
I was told that the depth is so small EXTREM 1.4 in which one always begins with 1.8. The date of each was confirmed. Maybe you're just too bad Mattscheibe synonymous or what ever ^ ^ So as I've experienced so far is the light extraction and minimal to the money problem and as I said the depth of field.
An EF to FD adapter, I would not use it. You can then no longer have to Infinitely sharp and you make you lose even more light and the picture is rather muddy in comparison That I do not understand ...
1. I thought this is just the technical support in order to turn the lens can do, why muddy the picture should be, or why should I lose the light? Is it just more distance ... with the adjustment of the screen then I of course still true but there is no lens inside the adapter? If yes oO daft or what have I misunderstood? As I said in the topic - 0 clue.
2. Why can I no longer have to make sharp infinity?
_
The 1.2 was sharper then may as well have been random ... perhaps is 1.8 was just a bad and there are enough good 1.8 with good sharpness? So yes, I want synonymous know where / what / why / how I look out for the quality check.
What kind of adapter did you? ^ ^
Antwort von B.DeKid:
Take a good Ef to FD adapter with glass.
Aperture (Aperture) and Lens diameter, keen Du.
At Obtiken you should never save. Especially not in the FD class.
Can still be interesting adapter M39 / 42 s.EF to me, I could imagine.
MfG
B. DeKid
Antwort von MartinMcFly:
The more distance you have with the adapter, the less you can make to infinity.
that is synonymous with the camera so
you have very much space, it is macro. the extender principle
canon fd 1,2 sharper, because it has a profit objective is
my screen is good, so are the images synonymous with a very sharp 1.2
clearly you can record in 1.8, but believe me, 1.4 is much better
likewise for the objective jr.
the L series, (ie hide 1.2) are much sharper.
EF 50mm 1.4 is synonymous much better, sharper than the 1.8er
canon has the bright objective simply better built.
I have the Letus adapter and am very happy with it.
For best results, I 1.2er with the objective
1.2 odre 1.4 to 1.8 dimmed synonymous is much sharper than the 1.8er
(you can dim them by playing the bayonet closing jam.
hab mal ein bild here appended.
that is with the Letus 50mm adapter and made 1.2.
Antwort von Asjoker:
Thanks again for the answers.
Citation of B. DeKid
Take a good Ef to FD adapter with glass. Why do with glass? ^ ^ Sorry I will not understand ...
The only thing I can imagine is that the magnifying glass to serve as the focal point in the camera was moved.
But since I have a 35mm adapter myself, I can build the rest of the adapter so as to adjust me popular to say the adapter would instead just because some intermediate washers.
So I understand not synonymous:
Quote of MartinMcFly
The more distance you have with the adapter, the less you can make to infinity. An adapter is designed to:
EDIT: Yeah, a new picture with adapter / Achromats inserted. Quality is always worse ^ ^
zum Bild The camera is the space between the CCD chip and Lens Adapters with yes, leading eventually can lead to problems.
But the distance between Lens & Mattscheibe Mattscheibe & camcorder and I can even fully adjust to my liking.
If the distance adapter do I add an intermediate ring away. The camcorder fokkusiert synonymous
only to the perfectly adjusted Mattscheibe. Glass adapters, logically, I would simply weghauen ^ ^ why should the well be synonymous? The power to act only as a holder and as an intermediate rings.
_
Citation of B. DeKid
Can still be interesting adapter M39 / 42 s.EF to me, I could imagine. As I said I've no experience and just listen to recommendations. Was that one? ^ ^
_
Hmm, there is not synonymous GOOD Lenses for F 1:1,8? ^ ^
If I still have other lenses that are slower then what does that mean if I have an even sound recordings of all, I must want to have more light at the Aperture Lenses anyway to do something. If I do as a film and is often synonymous with 28mm F 1:2.5 should I start with the 50mm synonymous to 2.5 recording, otherwise I can imagine it will be confusing. The surcharge for a number I like quality, for the light not soo ^ ^, naja guess there is no way the herrauszufinden because Aperture is the only one on the watch can be. Page Ne honest with Lenses for testing would be useful ...
_
Aperture (Aperture) and Lens diameter, keen Du. * Sigh * So really it's true ... diameter of the lenses at the same closure is different?
So there is verschiedengroße FD adapter and different sized FD lenses? What does it mean I have to decide for a diameter? ^ ^
_
For which lens manufacturers should I decide nu ° _ °?
So I guess I have no other choice than a 50mm with 1.4 and 1.2 to search for and 28mm with a 2.5 (containing 2,0 start at 400 ¬ ja s.oO
EDIT: I've got a used 28mm F : 2.0 for Canon FD Lens 160,00 ¬ Discount (with right of return) that's good right?) how much money should I have to be prepared to spend?
Might simply synonymous cheapest 50mm F: 1.2 lens and the cheapest 28mm F: 2.5 Lens search, buy, and then looking for the right adapter. Or it makes sense for the same luminous Objective simply pay more expensive simply because a LOT better?
BTW: What are Tele Lenses I have no glimmer ^ ^
_
EDIT: Oh yes, one question is ncoh me haggard. Is there really any difference between normal and intermediate rings between macro rings? I think because the tubes are only teaching, I can imagine the nciht ^ ^.
Antwort von domain:
I have not read the whole thread, but your chart and read the following statement:
"The camcorder fokkusiert synonymous only to the perfectly adjusted Mattscheibe" Without anachromatische relatively expensive lens will hardly work, guess times that the screen without special optics to about 10 cm wide should be. Autofocus on the screen, I believe synonymous difficult, I believe that there will always be manual focus.
Moreover, the screen in any case in motion, otherwise you see the grain structure of the screen much too strong and also every Staubfussel fact that is unavoidable
Antwort von Asjoker:
404ERR
Antwort von domain:
True, you can synonymous to 4 cm wide slices without Matt lens provide sharp, but you should be before the beginning of your work maybe times throughout the extensive tests, whether or not there really a plan is mapped, the distortion is the lesser problem.
It's best with a fine pitch test pressure. It is important that all grid points (of course not in the viewfinders in Photoshop but with good magnification) of uniformly sharp edge to edge are mapped.
Perhaps synonymous Lenses Used with M42 thread to ponder: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objektivgewinde
the threaded connection is much easier to act as a bayonet.
Antwort von B.DeKid:
Hi
So the expensive adapter (FD to EF) has glass, when I use the photograph and he is good. Why has the glass and what it brings I know not. But will probably give a reason.
Round costs 50 euros.
M39/42 Adapter for Screw Lenses are designed, where there Lenses are good, my favorite for Macro photography is, for example, a Zenit 100 mm 1.5 with 72 mm diameter.
With the diameter front lens is meant - in other words there are different diameter for lenses - that has nothing to do with a bayonet (the end / Camera Connector s.die to do.)
A large diameter effect "often" better to the Aperture (light transmission) from.
Fixed Focal Tele and
Tele Lenses have "often" not so small apertures such as a Fixed Optics.
Tele Lenses are for example as / / 3.4 - 10.2mm 1:1.8-2.2 72 mm diameter / / called, where the lowest (1.8) just in Aperture 3.4 is used.
Come to the use, but I would use Fixed Lenses in 35mm adapter.
MfG
B. DeKid
Antwort von Bernd E.:
... Tele Lenses have "often" not so small apertures such as a tele .... Fixed Optics Lenses are ... 3.4 - 10.2mm ... Since confuse you now but, "Tele" with "Zoom" ;-)
Gruß Bernd E.
Antwort von B.DeKid:
?
Bernd, I thought was always a telephoto lens of which was X to Y?
Is this wrong?
Which is the focal then a telephoto lens? (? 85 mm upwards?)
MfG
B. DeKid
Antwort von Bernd E.:
... I thought was always a telephoto lens which of X to Y was ... Nope, with the Lenses are changeable focal zoom. They can be either on the wide-angle or telephoto limit, or from one to the other area are:
= 16-35mm Wide
28-70mm = standard
100-400mm = Telezoom
... What is the focal then a telephoto lens? ... As a Tele are in principle all the focal lengths that are longer than the normal focal length (ie 50mm in KB). In practice begins the telephoto range of 70mm so.
Gruß Bernd E.
Antwort von B.DeKid:
AIC
Thx Bernd something learned.
MfG
B. DeKid
Antwort von fantomaz:
and 3.4-10.2mm wär super super ultra wideangle zoom :-)
I think start with telephoto lenses at 70mm.
for 35mm adapter suitable s.besten old fast (light heavy) manual lenses. any electronics in the objective for use with 35mm adapter for free, it costs only. Furthermore, all manual linsen own hide and focus ring. a 35mm adapter detects course no automatic hide. The objective must, where no manual mode vohanden is to first on a slr, aperture setting and then back to the adapter.
I use old Nikon AIS 50mm 1.4, 24mm 2.8, 135mm 2.8 and am happy with it.
regards
Antwort von B.DeKid:
and 3.4-10.2mm wär super super ultra wideangle zoom :-)
..... Jup is the WW for Canon XL1S, was just ready to handle in front of me, as was the "copy" of the data easier ;-)
MfG
B. DeKid
Antwort von fantomaz:
s.ok then this is a video objectively, cooles teil!
The objective has a focal length equivalent of 24-70mm SLR cameras with.
regards
Antwort von Asjoker:
Thank you for the many answers!
Quote of domain It's best with a fine pitch test pressure. It is important that all grid points (of course not in the viewfinders in Photoshop but with good magnification) of uniformly sharp edge to edge are mapped. AH THANK YOU! After this info, I forever long sought in vain: D. I'll test as soon as possible. Brauch just a good program. Adobe Premiere does not somehow ...
Citation of B. DeKid So the expensive adapter (FD to EF) has glass, when I use the photograph and he is good. Why has the glass and what it brings I know not. But will probably give a reason.
Round costs 50 euros. The expensive? Is there a cheap synonymous without glass? ^ ^ 50 ¬ is a lot.
As I said, I think the glass is for correction of focus or so since. Think you need it when the distance to the CCD chip / on the screen does not adjust itself, which in my case is not true so I was looking for cheaper.
"-"
M39/42 Adapter for Screw Lenses are designed, where there are good Lenses Hmm at Ebay, I find only a single 50mm F1: 1.4 Lens find ...
From Ebay purchase, I was discouraged, I will probably try something from the "opportunity window" in photo shop or grab me on scout flea markets but that it at Ebay, there is only one of the shows is a highly limited choice there ... comes across as a little as if the cheapest, there's the Lenses (of quality) ... naja
Btw. with
Tele Lenses are what I have no shimmer I mean I can not accurately assess whether it looks good and it's important for me. No Experience.
Quote of fantomaz for 35mm adapter suitable s.besten old fast (light heavy) manual lenses. Jop behind where I am synonymous ago. But light-heavy, old and
cheap Lenses can you not be so easily found ...
_
But it would be nice if you could tell me how much I spend for a lens is. Hab degrees 50mm 1.2 Lens for 120 ¬ but I missed synonymous not know whether a 50mm 1.4 lens for 50 ¬ is very good quality. Above all, what 28mm Lenses are concerned, I am uncertain. How bright should it be and how much money should I pay?
A 28mm F 1:2,0 for 170.00 ¬ - is it recommendable or langt synonymous already a cheaper?
_
Oh what I would like to make in response: The EOS adapter s.den between the rings I've purchased
(http://cgi.ebay.de/ Canon FD 28mm-2-0-Manual-Wideangle Blende_W0QQitemZ310077431039QQcmdZViewItem? _trksid = P3286.m20.l1116 The suits even in the intermediate rings purely ... that means he has FD front and rear only one screw. That would be optimal. Also the cost for the whole set + postage MUCH less than the adapter s.sich. Is there a possibility as I have a cheap screw-FD adapter can attach the front?
_
So long ...
Antwort von Bernd E.:
Adapters ... ... FD to EF ... Why has the glass and what it brings I know not ... Canon has a change of FD on the EF bayonet Auflagemaß changed (ie the distance of the bearing surface of the lens mount to film or sensor). Without the lens adapter, which compensate for this difference, it could be with FD optics s.einer EOS does not focus on infinity, but remains restricted to the vicinity.
Gruß Bernd E.
Antwort von Asjoker:
Jo then yes I was right ^ ^
Hmm, I like cheap s.ein FD-mount come you still do not know oda? : P
I just think there must be a way, because as I said the whole package with adapter from China was very cheap. Since I do not need the glass would be the negative luxury for me.
Antwort von raymaker:
But it would be nice if you could tell me how much I spend for a lens is. Hab degrees 50mm 1.2 Lens for 120 ¬ but I missed synonymous not know whether a 50mm 1.4 lens for 50 ¬ is very good quality. Above all, what 28mm Lenses are concerned, I am uncertain. How bright should it be and how much money should I pay? What? Most work with 1.8er. Who is good, 1.4er is concerned - and in 50mm.
If you experience so you can be happy with telephoto lenses and WW draw. But you have not worked with adapters, nor do you know how the difference of 1.2 and 1.4 behaves.
It is precisely this difference makes the whole thing even more abstruse. You know what 0.2 fstops are? That is practically nothing, nothing. Even with 1.4 in normal daylight is much too bright, the camcorder turns down because otherwise everything would be overexposed.
It is true, fast Lenses are important. But things quickly in lenses, all under 2.0. Slow would be 5.6 compared to 2.0. That is a difference of 3.6 fstops, which is 16 times that of 1.2 to 1.4 would be. DAS is a difference.
Purchase yourself a 1.8er. When you realize that it is not enough, then you can still upgrade. The Lenses s.Wert not lose.
Antwort von Asjoker:
Thanks for the reply
Yes I actually MAXIMUM F.1: 1.8 needed because otherwise the depth is much too short, I've already mentioned.
Only then MartinMcFly me a 1.4, he advised to buy it because of the SHARPNESS her better. How exactly the difference is I do not know, but he sounded pretty confident on. When asked whether it would be synonymous 1.8 Lenses are strong despite the sharp and good, no one has replied ...
The sharpness is not the world but it is still important ...?
Exactly how much difference I do not know, I do not even know on what basis we are talking about ^ ^ ie as the focus usually is.
And because Aperture somehow the only quality characteristic of a lens is (please tell me if this is not the case) then I can refer to nothing else and thought Guggen me buy you a 1.4, he - he is sharp - synonymous only if you to 1.8 aufnimmst. I have no experience ... Who has right now? ^ ^
The WW we need is already secure.
We are often synonymous in small spaces must rotate.
If you have experience with 28mm did, I would be very grateful therefore synonymous for instruction. How light it should be heavy and expensive as some.
I go now to his shop, and hopefully know something about this stupid adapter.
EDIT: Oh fu ... Sunday ...
Antwort von raymaker:
Thanks for the reply
Yes I actually MAXIMUM F.1: 1.8 needed because otherwise the depth is much too short, I've already mentioned.
Only then MartinMcFly me a 1.4, he advised to buy it because of the SHARPNESS her better. How exactly the difference is I do not know, but he sounded pretty confident on. When asked whether it would be synonymous 1.8 Lenses are strong despite the sharp and good, no one has replied ... Hardly a lens has the best optical quality for the largest apertures. So for example, to hide from photographers. My Nikon 1.4er at 2.0 has the best optical imaging.
Aperture is not a quality characteristic, but a technical feature. A Lens differs in quality for the following things: number of lamellae, optical imaging quality, coating of the lenses, Bokeh, number of optical groups.
Bokeh, lamella number and optical imaging quality are of great importance to the adapters. (+ At large aperture)
The sharpness is not the world but it is still important ...?
Exactly how much difference I do not know, I do not even know on what basis we are talking about ^ ^ ie as the focus usually is.
And because Aperture somehow the only quality characteristic of a lens is (please tell me if this is not the case) then I can refer to nothing else and thought Guggen me buy you a 1.4, he - he is sharp - synonymous only if you to 1.8 aufnimmst. I have no experience ... Who has right now? ^ ^ These were all analog Snap. And if a lens is sharp or not, could be on the 1st Look not see (if we are to cheap Dinger times ignore) - not to recognize the expressions loose 13-18 times today megapixels are equivalent. Your video has 1-2 megapixels. Question answered?
The Aperture is not the only quality characteristic:
The WW we need is already secure.
We are often synonymous in small spaces must rotate. Beautiful?
If you have experience with 28mm did, I would be very grateful therefore synonymous for instruction. How light it should be heavy and expensive as some. 28mm is 2.8 standard.
Antwort von Asjoker:
Hardly a lens has the best optical quality for the largest apertures. So for example, to hide from photographers. My Nikon 1.4er at 2.0 has the best optical imaging. That was not what I meant. What I meant was MartinMcFly or a 1.4 average in the process is better than a 1.8 lens and thus the 1.4 to 1.8 is better than the 1.8 to 1.8.
_
The Bokeh, I can hardly test except when I try the lens can not really now what is (only need my adapter) and even then I could judge for lack of experience bad obs good.
Maximum number s.der slats can I change the quality of Bokeh's estimate, which is - at least in ebay - almost never given.
The seldom mentioned as compensation synonymous, I can not judge whether there is an exception or not. I've accepted every lens except the compensation gaaanz old knows it is not synonymous.
The same game with picture quality - no way to test ... not yet.
Question answered? So pretty.
Beautiful? grmpf ...^^
28mm is 2.8 standard. Actually I would not ask but I have all the time the echo in your head "no savings s.28mm Lens" ring, so I am unsure whether I just take the cheapest. Do Fits scho "or should I really care and extra deep into the pockets?
_
Blub Hmm ich hab mir jetzt mal NEN bought 50mm 1.8 Lens (Canon FD) and for 1.50 ¬ + 5.90 ¬.
used, in very good condition, with flawless Aperture and lentils sounds ok actually s.aber may still be lots of lazy naja no risk no fun.
Now I have it with me only made heavier with the adapter ... pfft
You know not where I accidentally totally broken an old Canon FD SLR & financial? Then I could tell her more scrap and the FD adapter rausnehmen * * totalkrankOo I refuse to pay 50 ¬ ...
EDIT: I know it sounds Gaga s.aber I just want to be sure. When a Lens AUTO, may be cold to me is not it? My manual is still all there. So times I assumed to pay for the "car" is no longer.
Antwort von fantomaz:
Hello,
yes 1.8 is sufficient and secure the canon mf fd 1.8 incidentally has an excellent reputation synonymous. I personally did me trozdem for the 1.4, out of which the principal raymaker already mentioned. with my nikon 1.4 zb. I mostly movies with the hide on 2 to the max. s.schärfe out. the 1.4 version is much more workable than the 1.8 I can not imagine, but have no experience with Canon lenses. ists at nikon determined not so ...
to weitwinkel: I use a nikon 24mm 2.8 with which I am especially outside (with enough light)'m satisfied.
However, if you have a lot in tight spaces inside filming want, you have very good light to max out. ie. illuminate or good but a faster lens.
Quote: I know it sounds Gaga s.aber I just want to be sure. When a Lens AUTO, may be cold to me is not it? My manual is still all there. So times I assumed to pay for the "car" is no longer.
no, there is very probably (AF) lenses both hide than focus exclusively synonymous electronical and can thus slr need.
gruss fz
Antwort von Asjoker:
Hi,
thanks for the reply.
As for the sharpness of the images concerned was already said that it is anyway here is VIDEO, so it probably would be hard to notice, yes anyway because video has a pretty low Resolutionhat.
Well as synonymous is I have the Canon FD 50mm 1.8 today and will have to say I'm disappointed (and yes I am including postage synonymous only paid 7 ¬)
The lens was first completely clean but ...
1. Disappointment: It has only 5 (!!!) slats .... this is pretty poor, I would have expected at least 6 and I still must look at how big the difference is now.
2. Disappointment: It does not fit into my adapter. OK a big surprise is not that but it would be nice anyway ^ ^
3. Disappointment: EDIT: was my fault so fit:) Problem solved.
EDIT: I've got the DIY lens adapter found! Simply the cap of the rear of the lens take a hole inside it and the 35mm adapter stick. If you clean it makes it totally professionally made, actually it is not even stick synonymous Muhahaha problem solved:)
