Why my Canon FD Lens Adaptor put me off FD Lenses!

[@navid_ahmed]

Moral of the Your video in 10 seconds. The adapter has a crop factor

[@colinzed]

and all teleconverters are snake oil

[@superultragiggachigga]

Can’t you use a speed booster to recoup some of that crop factor.

[@irishlostboy]

This video is false information. Please modify it with a pinned comment at the very least. The optic in the FD to EOS is for refocusing, as the EOS bodies have a focal length mismatch. It provides NO magnification to the image. If you put 35mm glass on a sensor which is effectively 16mm film equivalent (APSC or M4/3 sensors) then the sensor only gets about 50% of the image. The rest of the light is dumped meaninglessly into your camera body, giving an image that looks zoomed in, or x2 the mm of the lens. A speed booster (metabones is the most well known, but there are plenty of others) refocuses the 35mm worth of image down to fit better on the smaller sensor of APSC and M4/3, bringing the image back closer to the original mm of the lens. It also results in a higher light concentration, so you get the ability to shoot in much darker environments. The Metabones is overkill for vintage lenses, because there are no electronics that need to be controlled in the vintage lens, so cheaper options by companies such as Laina do the same job for a cheap price.

[@einzeller85]

Get a mirrorless camera if you wanna adapt vintage glass xD then you can use them natively without having to put a pice of glas in.

[@IamExcalibur]

WTF really? Just take off that EF-MFT adapter and use with native FD-MFT adapter. Bonus point since FD are all manual, you can buy Zhongyi Lens Turbo focal reducer for $150 instead of getting ripped off by Metabones. Problem solved.

[@HibikiKano]

John Smith Have my like good sir. Am just wondering if anyone tried the quenox adapter?

[@IamExcalibur]

The general consensus regarding FD focal reducer' image quality is Metabones > Zhongyi > Everything else. HOWEVER if you are doing nonprofessional work, those general brand should be fine. As for me, if say Zhongyi is 1.5X as expensive as general brand, its image is definitely not 1.5X as good, 1.1-1.2X maybe. However that's how diminishing return works, and I pay a little more for the peace of mind for a better adapter. Metabones is just unpractical but I can afford Zhongyi.

[@HibikiKano]

If you are doing professional work you probably wont be Frankenstein-ing adapters one on top of the other till mounts "somewhat fit" either. Have seen a professional on you tube admit he is using Zhongyi and just go with the added chromatic aberration you get. I am in the same boat. Metabones is just way out of reach. I mean 500-600€ for an adapter for a manual lens set. Zhongyi is impossible to find here (and my country is so small half of the online stores don't even ship) I'm trying to look at which one in the "others" general group is the best.

[@roodick85]

Lol yes that's how mine is set up..no issues!😆

[@HibikiKano]

FD works fine with FD bodies and with mirrorless bodies without any optic adapters. Also you can't use an optic adapter for one body then add on another optic adapter + focal reducer for another body without experiencing issues.

[@DanielNorrisEffects]

Axel Alexson i wish people would watch the whole video before commenting. I had the same results using this fd to eos adapter whether i was using a canon 600d or the gh5 with metabones ef to mft speedbooster. Its not the speedbooster that is the problem. its not the lens that is the problem. It is this particular adapter (fd to eos). the video is not having a go at fd lenses which people love, it is stating that using this adapter with your fd lens will crop the image resulting in a 24mm no longer being a 24mm and being a 30mm, which when you are creating a set of primes and want a 24mm for your wide angle and it isnt as wide as it should be, then it is pointless. If i was using this adapter with a longer lens i would care, it is just extra reach, but with a wide angle, no. Also, the reason i am using the metabones with these vintage lenses is for the extra light it gives. Sorry if this sounded rude and blunt, but ever other comment on this video is just people not watching the whole video and making assumptions that i am shitting on their oh so perfect fd lenses when i am in fact not.

[@HibikiKano]

Watched the whole video and still thought I needed to point that out. If you search for crop factors you can calculate how lenses should behave before buying elements. The FD-EOS glass adds a 1,2 crop factor and on top ruins the image because its a shite element. You could find those crop factors in data sheets either from Canon if asked directly or from forums. Can't call it an optical error. It is simply how the lens elements work. Check specs. Calculate. Done. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I think that photographers need to learn basic optics or not complain about a miss-purchase of elements. EDIT: also complaining to your comment that the glass is essential for achieving inf focus. On m4/3 it should work. Maybe it was true for FD-EOS body.

[@IamExcalibur]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/baqtmHqKo56UnKc "...however as it turns out the glass is essential for achieving infinity focus" No. There are glassless FD-MFT adapter that does infinity focus. Heck even your beloved Metabones made one: www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_FD-m43-BM1 "...and the non optical adapters turn your FD lens into a macro only lens" No. See above. kzbin.info/www/bejne/baqtmHqKo56UnKc "...this FD lens adapter which put me off getting FD lenses for this kit" which is because you bought the wrong adapter. "it is stating that using this adapter with your fd lens will crop the image resulting in a 24mm no longer being a 24mm and being a 30mm, which when you are creating a set of primes and want a 24mm for your wide angle and it isnt as wide as it should be, then it is pointless." So if I want a 30mm image, use a 24mm lens with an adapter, and get a 30mm image. But that's pointless because I'm using a 24mm lens and I should get 24mm image, even though I want 30mm image. See how ridiculous you are now? Focal length doesn't matter, what matters is whether that lens will give you the result you want. If I want 200mm image, I don't care if it is a native 200mm or 100mm plus teleconverter. My end result is the same. "Also, the reason i am using the metabones with these vintage lenses is for the extra light it gives." Then how about another Metabones? FD-MFT with extra light:www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPFD-m43-BM1 Or maybe they just want to put people off as well? See, you have no clue what you are talking about, and that's why people jump on you, not because they are fanboy, but you are talk bull. Even your trusted Metabones made two version of FD-MFT adapter. Between you and them, only one can be right.

[@HibikiKano]

John Smith I agree with you fully. I just have no idea why anyone would pay so much for a metaboobs branded focal reducer, strap on an fd-eos adapter, and claim that now he can't use fd lenses anymore because the numbers printed on the lens don't match with his crop without first multiplying crop factors. It's not some inhuman math, it's just multiplication of crop factors. It would be like complaining: "Brand-B foto developer works too fast with brand-A foto paper.", without checking that brand-B has a higer concentration. (Purely a made up example to illustrate that you should learn the basic science behind first. In case of photopaper it's gymnasium chemistry and in the case of mounting adapters it's very basic gymnasium physics) Seriously other brands of focal refucers work just as fine, especially if they are manual lenses like FD where the metabones superior compatibility of lens functions like AF, lens controll through the body, and IS don't even exist. It's either 800€ + 50€ for his set. Or 100€ for any generic focal reducer. Just buy a generic focal reducer for the FD lens. It costs about as much as the branded FD-EOS adapter. As far as optic quality goes all of them fuck up the quality slightly, they all add chromatic aberration even the overpriced ones.

[@RobBob555]

@@DanielNorrisEffects wish in one hand, shit in the other, and see what gets full first.

[@urbanimage]

I think your confusing matters by comparing two adapters that are designed to do different things. The FD adapter you have is just enabeling infinity focus. Where as your Speed-booster is designed as a focal reducer which should, more or less, give you the same angle of view that an attached lens was designed to give.

[@ivanguerra1260]

.... for crop sensors but not for full frames....

[@BizlaC]

No, the issue is that the FD adapter is also messing with the focal length, not simple of the focus distance.

[@maniacm6]

Just use a Canon FD to M4/3 adapter, why are you adapting to EF. FD to EF optical adapters has a 1.25x crop, is a necessity to get infinity focus and some loose in IQ also. If you use an FD to M4/3 adapter you will not have this problem.

[@swesleyharris]

Seems like you didn't really understand what you were going to try and do before you bought the adapter. This optical change is fine when you consider you are doing this to use cheaper lens. You can use the extra money to buy more focal lengths.

[@betz8733]

Since all of you seem very confused on this topic, the problem of FD lenses adapted to DSLR is the flange distance: a FD lens should sit inside the camera in order to achieve infinity focus on a Canon Eos. This is not the case with virtually any other vintage lens mount, since the flange distance of M42, Pentax K, Nikon, Olympus, Contax/Yashica, is greater than the one of Eos mount. So basically, if you have a modern reflex, look for anything except FD and M39 lenses; on a mirrorless you can use anything really, because the flange distance is VERY short.

[@markcrooks3669]

Giacomo Bettini Yep! As long as the design flange distance of the lens is greater than that of the camera then you can adapt without glass. Everything is relative to a specific camera. EF ffd=44mm. FD ffd=42mm therefore FD lens won’t work on EF. M42 lens with an ffd of 45.5mm is adaptable to EF with the adapter being 1.5mm thick en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_mount

[@betz8733]

@@markcrooks3669 oh, and I did not consider optical adapters because I think that they are stupid and they should not exist

[@markcrooks3669]

Giacomo Bettini I agree with you absolutely! We use vintage lenses for the high quality glass and to ruin it all with low quality glass in an optical adapter just doesn’t make any sense.

[@theportraitist4888]

@@markcrooks3669 Your logic is fine. But perhaps missing a few facts. I do not have the metabones, but it is said to use very high quality glass. But I do use a really cheap Pixco FD>MFT unit, and have to tell you I am getting VERY respectable image quality through that. How? Two reasons: First, the image is contracted and thus the real and/or apparent sharpness is increased. And second, the optics in a booster are rather simple, and thus not terribly difficult to produce today. (The electronics are a different matter, but not an issue with FDs.) Plus I will add that if, like me, you are trying to take full frame lenses over to a MFT mount, you quickly realize that the non optical adapters only net you very long focal lengths. To get an MFT standard 25mm lens you need to get a full frame 24mm FD. Want a wide angle? You need to hunt for a 20, or 17mm, both which are very pricey and harder to find. The boosters shift all this and make creating a usable kit far more practical. At least that is my experience. ;-)

[@danncorbit3623]

Because of the shorter distance flange to film of the FD mount, there are always big compromises going to a camera with a bigger distance (e.g. EF mount). However, they can be well adapted to many mirrorless mounts. There are also some speedboosters, and those should work well, but they are also for mirrorless mounts.

[@gearienoxcuses3936]

Thank for this video. I am currently building a canon FL cinema kit starting with the Canon 55mm FL 1.2 and the Canon 28mm FL 3.5. I believe I will more than likely opt to have the mount completely rehoused rather than simply modified based on your video. I was able to successfully replace the FL mount with an EF mount by permanently retro fitting an old EF to MFT adapter. I had some shop sawing to do and precision shimming but it worked out quite well. I was hoping to experiment using a metabones .64 speed booster next time and see how it turns out.

[@markcrooks3669]

Gosh! A lot of ignorance here about flange focal distance.

[@56grizzlymedia]

Yeah, the FD lenses are better on Mirrorless cameras.

[@luisvazquez6633]

The problem are not the lenses .. get the mirror-less camera suits you best and get non-glass adapters for it ! Ahh btw that works not only for FD lenses also for a very long list of vintage lens mounts.

[@DanielNorrisEffects]

I never said it was the lens that was the problem, its the glass adaptors that are giving me an inaccurate focal length compared with the rest of my vintage lens set. Also, i have read up on the non-glass fd adaptors and for some reason they turn it into a macro only lens. whether that is true or not i don't know.

[@HibikiKano]

It's not a macro lens. A non-glass adapter only makes the FD zoom in because of the crop factor. For an APSC sensor its about 1,5 for an m4/3 it's about 2. So your 50mm lens feels like a 100mm, your 28mm like a 56mm, ect. That is why your things appear closer The focal reductors like Metabones make sure the image is narrower at the sensor so more of it hits the sensor. Most are around 0,7x. You recalculate your lenses like they are (sensor crop factor)x(focal reducer factor). So if you have an APSC sensor it makes 1,5*0,7=1,05 making your lenses almost normal, but not really (your 50mm becomes a 52,5mm). On a m4/3 its 2*0,7=1,4. Which is even further from the normal full frame equivalent, about what you expect from a full frame lens on an APSC sensor. What really messes up your shot is using that FD-EOS adapter, it is the worse adapter ever made. It is only useful for the rare ultra long FD lenses that did not have an EOS equivalent and even there it did a shit job. Fix your issue by using a normal empty 30€ FD-m4/3 adapter on your camera body directly and the FD lenses will work perfectly with 2x crop factor and even no issue to inf. Sure you wont be able to use your Focal reducer, but at least you can use your FD lenses.

[@luisvazquez6633]

Alex the crop factor you mention is all true when you get a lens designed for Full Frame sensor properly adapted to a camera with APS-C sensor but that's the point ! it has to be "properly adapted" first; .. The macro effect Daniel mention is correct and is due to the different systems design : take a look at "Flange focal distance" ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance )... from there I get the FD flange distance design was 42mm and EF-S is 44mm which means the adapter would have to place the FD lens -2mm from the EF-S mount which is not possible without modifying the camera, so the non-glass adapters act as a little extension tube, lets say if you get an adapter of 1mm thick .. your lens will be at 45mm (44mm EF-S design + 1mm adapter) but the lens is designed to work at 42mm .. then what you're getting actually is: an "adapted lens plus 3mm extension tube" that way you can focus closer but loose infinity focus, the effect on mirror-less cameras is the opposite because their flange design has shorter distances than SLRs' (no need for mirror in the middle) therefore the adapter needs to ADD mm s' so it has to be thicker but doesn't need correcting glass nor modifying the camera mount in any way.

[@HibikiKano]

Luis A. Vázquez Plascencia So, do you want to say that my comment about how he does not need the FD-EOS adapter to make it work fully well on a m4/3 sensor is wrong?

[@luisvazquez6633]

No at all Axel, I'm just saying that the "macro only lens" Daniel refers in the case of non-glass adapters could be due to flange distance adapting and not to the Crop Factor which are very different things .. That's it !

[@ivanguerra1260]

The original Canon adapter will work properly ( around 200 US$ and maybe not in production today ), but was desing it for full frames cameras, now we are talking here about crop sensors and that is not the same thing !

[@Panacamanana]

Dear god, you sound like a villain from a bad anime.

[@Buckzcloset]

Panacamanana i hollored

[@someoneyoudontknow4319]

This makes sense now... Thank you for the information.

[@carjac820]

Oh I see a problem here. You are adapting a lens from a system with a much narrower flange distance, which means that it needed that optical element in the adapter to redirect the focus to match that on the eos system. the problems would be fixed by just getting rid of all your adapters and just buy a canon fd to micro 4/3rds adaptor or even a speedbooster. don't adapt fd lenses on eos mount, they aren't worth it.

[@petermartinaitis8166]

Can someone explain why you would you a cheap piece of glass on a adapter for what may be an expensive lens ?

[@Leptospirosi]

So what? The metabone is CLEARLY stated as a 0.71x focal reducer. Your camera has a 2x crop factor. The total crop factor WITH the metabone is 1.42x, exactly were it should. Your 24mm x1.42 is exactly a 34mm equivalent lens. Rediscovery of hot water? Moral of the story: read the specs before you buy and stop complaining!

[@BIMLounge]

There is an additional crop, aside from the speedbooster.

[@ЭтоДрючинский]

Camera crop doesn't affect anything here

[@nicholastaylor8061]

As far as the FOV is concerned, 24mm remains 24mm. It's just cropped.

[@BizlaC]

No, you have completely misunderstood the issue. The issue is not that the crop factor of the camera or the speed booster is changing the focal length (this is expected), the issue is that the FD-EF adapter is changing the focal length. He explained it really quite simply in the video, but that still went over your head so i'll explain it in simple terms. I have a 28mm FD lens and a 35mm EF lens, on my 60D with a crop factor of 1.6 this makes the FD lens a 45mm lens and the 35mm a 56mm lens. So I have a 45mm FD and a 56mm EF, and yet once the FD is converted to EF through the use of an FD/EOS adapter, the 56mm EF lens end up having a wider crop than the 45mm, the 45mm is now (and I estimate this based on side by side pictures) around a 60mm focal length. This is why FD lenses on an EF camera don't work well, because the magnification of the adapter means your wide angle lenses become standard lenses, regardless of crop factor.

[@bryanbarajasBB]

Couldn't you use a speed booster? I saw one for FD to Eos-m which I would love use.

[@DanilKarpychev]

The worst part is the white flare circle it gives an image!

[@josephcurry4891]

I know this is an old video but I just got into using vintage lenses ith my 5d and I realized I had a great FD lens from my AE1 and I absolutely hate the adaptor for it. So I went with Nikon mount since I already had a Nikkormat with some lenses.

[@TCGBulkKings]

This told me everything I needed to know. I have an adapter without the optical element in it, and was having trouble getting anything to focus further away than 6 inches or so =[ So it looks like I need to get the adapter with the lens in it....Thanks so much!

[@jmoss99]

What about the coverter kits that are out there?

[@brantmorrison3704]

Luckily, I figured out some years ago that a camera with a less than full-size sensor requires the use of an adapter with glass to achieve the same view. After trying and really disliking optical doublers twenty plus years previous, I have kept my full-size lenses far away from any cameras with reduced-size sensors. Maybe someone has found a glass adapter that works with no drawbacks. For me, adapters with glass are not a valid solution. I had to wait until mirrorless full-frame cameras became available to use the lenses I really wanted to use. Sony has some cameras like that out now, but according to rumors, more are coming from other manufacturers within a couple months.

[@EpicDubstepManiac]

Why do you adapt fd to ef then to mft? Just get fd to mft adapter or speedbooster and you are good

[@raksh9]

FD speedbooster means another purchase, and likely close to full price as FD speedboosters are much less common on the used market than EF. And using a straight adapter means losing the benefits of a Speedbooster.

[@marionobre2678]

raksh9 I m in doubt... I bought second hand a BMPCC original with the metabones T 0.58 for Ef lens, how much quality I loose by adding an adapter for the FD - EF? Is it still worth it?

[@EpicDubstepManiac]

@@marionobre2678 nope, fd-ef adapter can run you like 15 dollars, fd>mft is like 65 on ali, adapting fd to ef is not the best result... but you can get fd glass converted to ef by changing the mount, might be cheapest without sacrificing quality, just wont work on fd camera anymore

[@marionobre2678]

Mc_Pancake wow, I saw a vídeo about that, changing the mount of the fd lens to the ef... going to it out, cause the Boka of the FD... for the price, are the best ones...

[@raksh9]

@@marionobre2678 I haven't tried any FD to EF adapters, they use another lens to compensate for the difference in flange distance. Be careful and read reviews of different adapters, the cheaper ones are likely to be worse than more expensive ones. Do you already have FD lenses, or are you planning to get them? Another option are Pentax SMC K mount or Takumar m42 mount lenses, as these lenses don't require an additional lens in the adapter. They are also great quality lenses, and are inexpensive.

[@shill6449]

Try to find vintage Tamron Adaptall 2 lenses (circa 1980's). The advantage with this range of Tamron lenses is the very fact they were designed with a removable adapter. Thus, one lens could be adapted to suit any make of camera eg. Canon, Nikon, Minolta etc. The other plus, and a big one at that, is you can, for instance, purchase a Tamron Adaptall 2 to Canon EF lens adapter, and you will suffer NO loss of image quality! Unlike you would, trying to adapt a Canon FD lens, which requires an extra glass element to achieve infinity focus.

[@philmtx3fr]

I think it s not good to add 2 different adapters. Remember the FD to EOS adapter was made for people owning old FD lenses and having new EOS body. But the Bodies for FD and EOS lenses were Reflex and so with more or less same distance between the sensor and the lense mount. So for making working FD lenses on EOS you need to add a optic stuff (a lense)in the adapter to "correct" the length of the adapter it self. And this generate the modification of the focal. With the mirrorless camera it's not the same. If you look at them (sony , Panasonic) the sensor is nearer the lense mount. So you can have an adaptor of a certain length which compensate the distance on thereflex without any optic stuff. This is why you find a lot of very cheap and simple adaptors because it's just 2 lens&body mounts + somethging to close the aperture. They work perfectly. True that you loose there your 0,7 metabones factor.... so you should look for a 17mm. As Canon ones are probably expensive have a look on Tokina for Canon or something like that.

[@ChannleDDD]

Thank God, cuz I just saw this video after I bought a 135 f/3.5 canon FD for my EOS M6 MKII, noticed none of the FD-M adaptors had optical parts, but good to know it will actually work!

[@franklekwan5860]

Your video is totally not useful. In fact I believe you have missed many concepts here.

[@paulwright717]

This was super helpful. I just ordered a non optical adapter to use my dad's old canon FD 50mm with my speedboster and was suprised to find it turned into macro. This video helped explain it though. I'll be looking elsewhere for my vintage lens needs!

[@EpicDubstepManiac]

Makes no sense, how exactly did speedbooster make it macro? Did you put it on dslr or mirrorless?

[@paulwright717]

@@EpicDubstepManiac Mirrorless-GH5 and Pocket 4k- Perhaps it doesn't make it technically "macro" but it made the minimum focus distance quite far from the lens, making it not incredibly useful for my needs. Not sure the Speedbooster has anything to do with that, I figure even if I went with a non optical FD to MFT adapter i'd have similar results.

[@EpicDubstepManiac]

Do you use speedbooster for fd>mft or fd>ef>mft? If you just get adapter from fd>mft there is no reason it would not work, there are countless of them on aliexpress and ebay, i use fd lenses on sony E, no reason it would not work on mft unless there is something wrong

[@paulwright717]

@@EpicDubstepManiac I'm going FD>EF>MFT. I was hoping to use the speedbooster because my Canon FD 50 would be close to a 100mm without the speedbooster, but I should try out a passive FD>MFT Like you said

[@EpicDubstepManiac]

@@paulwright717 the fd>ef adapter is the issue, passive adapter might work and speedbooster from fd directly to mft should work as well(they run for about 60-70 dollars on ebay), fd>ef adapters are notorious for being crap usually,

[@jmoss99]

I am dealing with the converter issues right now. Glad I found this video and the comments.

[@brunoeiler8192]

I have a simple rule based on pratical results ..... vintage lenses for infinite focus are really great just for mirrorless cameras ....

[@donadams8345]

When dealing with vintage lenses, you have to take time to work with the lens to study and understand it or you will have problems using it.

[@shawnj8765]

use a fd speedbooster instead of the EF SB, problem solved. Metabones and Zhongyi all make those.

[@nevillegrowcott1824]

Not too sure what the fuss is about. I use Canon FD lenses with an adapter-No problems at all. It's just a dumb adapter etc, no glass, no contacts. K&F Concepts is the brand. See to be the best for the money!

[@markcrooks3669]

Neville Growcott On what Camera?

[@paum7861]

What camera?

[@theportraitist4888]

@@paum7861 any of the mirrorless should work. I use it on a Lumix, and it's fine.

[@johnjon1823]

I can get infinity focus no problem on my canon m5 with a plain no glass adapter. I don't see why you should have any problem on any mirrorless when using FD lenses, you will have a sensor multiplier effect of course. Perhaps if you are using a speed booster there may be limitations, or if you are trying to use it on an EF body but basically every mirrorless that I know of has a native flange distance less than an old slr so there is room for an adapter.

[@RobBob555]

cos its a cropped sensor i think.

[@chakwong]

I reuse my 40+ years-old FD lenses on my Canon RP, via a $20 adapter. No problem.

[@SRKSEP3]

Great to know that you use fd lens I too bought canon FD 50 1.4 and the same adapter shown in this video and with canon 5d mark2 body but I was not at all getting a sharp focus could you please clarify also I have 100 mm fd lens canon also have same problem

[@OccultDemonCassette]

@@SRKSEP3 I recently picked up a FD 50mm f1.4 S.S.C. because I found one listed for around $35, and I was shocked to find that I enjoy it quite a bit more than my nFD 50mm f1.4. The nFD is a tad bit more compact, but the S.S.C. version has a more satisfying build, and it seems like they 8-Blade aperture has better rounding, so it's still pretty circular down to f3.5 or so. Anyway, just wanted to have a quick quarantine rant about it.

[@Sniggiscameras]

Yes, the problem is the distance between the lens and the camera sensor. In your case you are using a mirorrless camera which means that the distance between the lens and the sensor is much smaller because of the missing mirror system. In case of a dslr you have a much longer distance and because of that you cant use any adapter because it will always destroy the focus distance. All the adapter for mirrorless cameras are in a specific width so that you can focus exactly on point.

[@neandertalac]

Thanks for the info. I did think about fd adapter, but only for the tele lenses that are much cheaper when bought used

[@dallasbagley]

Is that an FD to m43 metabones you got? Or are you doing an FD to EF mount, plugged into an EF to m43 speedbooster? I guess my real question is, can you stack adapters? For example, could I take an old m42 lens, place that on an m42 to ef mount, then screw that on to my Viltrox EF to m43 focal reducer?

[@DanielNorrisEffects]

Dallas Bagley yes you can stack them. I have an m43 pentacon that works fine on my gh5 with the metabones. I ruled out the crop caused by the fd adapter being a result of adapter stacking but trying it on my 600d. Crop was still there. I think it is just how they are.

[@Andresvideo]

Yes, I just bought some m42 to ef adapter and put those M42 lenses in my BM Pocket 4K through my Viltrox EOS to m43 adapter... I was surprised at the quality of the lenses! They look beautiful (I have a Porst 35mm and 135mm that really surprised me for their sharpness, and a 28mm Makinon that looked just ok)

[@theportraitist4888]

I think it's safe to say that some adapters can be combined, others not. Obviously, two optical adapters are more likely to run into issues. Compared to two "spacer" type (ie, no optics) units. But even then, stacked units do open the door to more issues, so I would go with a single unit whenever possible.

[@jingtianwang9793]

I personally find to magnification fine as I’m a filmmaker and I tent to use a high focal distance any way, to me the magnification is some what a positive. The only problem it has caused me is when communicating with other filmmakers, I always have to tell them that the actual focal distance is narrower than the one on the lens, but most cases of I need to, I just move he camera.

[@Bill-NM]

Daniel thanks for that informative video...I wondered what effect those adapters with glass might have on focal length. Yeah I think a good option is to use a mirrorless body like a used Sony A7 for example...esp since you mentioned wanting to have a lighter/smaller kit. A used A7 can be had for $600 or so these days.

[@DanielNorrisEffects]

I prefer panasonic's sorry mate :P i am glad somebody finally watched the video before commenting, almost everyone was blaming me for using the metabones in conjunction with the fd to eos adapter even though i did the same lenses comparison using a canon dslr too. :P

[@Bill-NM]

Daniel Norris Dan, I'm a Panasonic fan as well. I have had a G7 for a couple years and find it quite capable...Lots of dials/controls, and a good sized grip, which is frequently hard to find in the MFT world. That said it's really hard to beat a full-frame sensor for IQ. I find the G7 and an A7 to be a good combo. I buy almost all my gear used, so I can kinda control costs with the multiple systems :) Which metabones adapter do you use with your Panasonic?

[@DanielNorrisEffects]

Its the ef to mft speedbooster s. I have only recently bought my first full frame camera, a canon 1ds mk1 so i can see where you are coming from with the full frame. i mainly like it for the difference perspective it gives compared with mft, but would still use mft for video over full frame. the shallow depth of field even at f5.6 is a bit much when you need to track focus run and gun style :P

[@CarlosHwood]

Thanks Daniel, the first actual explanation I've found telling me why I can't get focus on my FD lens. Why do think it is that all the non optical adapters claim to allow infinity focus when if I'm interpreting this correctly that's impossible without glass in the adapter? Thanks again, Carl.

[@BingusDingusDongus]

This video is highly misleading. The issue isn't that you can't get infinity focus with FD lenses on MFT. The issue is that you cannot get infinity focus with FD lenses on the EF mount. You see this youtuber is using an adapter for FD to EF then an EF to MFT. It all comes down to the flange distance (distance between the sensor and the lens. FD lenses require the flange distance to be smaller than EF lenses. Therefore if you adapt MFT to EF and then to FD the FD lenses won't work as the first adapter made the distance too long. You could get great results from an FD lens on MFT with just a MFT to FD adapter without any glass (~$10), but then you still have to deal with the crop factor that any lens would provide. Getting a speed booster (adapter with glass) would reduce the crop factor (any lens you use, even normal MFT lenses have to deal with crop factor). This guy fsr don't want to just use a native FD to MFT adapter for some reason idk.

[@gregcyrus3602]

I tried my 800mm FD on my Canon 60D once (adapt. w/o lens) to shoot a lunar eclipse and got very disappointed. Now I know why. Will buy & try again. TNX!

[@igehring]

You just prevented me from going to a wrong path, thanks !

[@sheldonmurphy6031]

I was just going to say that too! LoL I'm poor, this poor path would had made me feel like someone just kicked my dog!

[@hoverboverer]

Not sure I understand. Why would an M42 mount lens behave any differently than an Fd (on a mirrorless body)? Are you saying that the fd speed boosters (presumably fd to m4/3?) are just not as good as those for other mounts?

[@DanielNorrisEffects]

The speedbooster is an ef to mft speedbooster and does not affect anything in this test as i demonstrated by mounting both the fd lens and the m42 lens on a canon 600d. The point i was trying to get across is that the fd to eos adaptor crops in the image from the fd lens meaning a 24mm lens is now a 30mm lens. This means that the travel kit i wanted to make consisting of a 24mm, 50mm and 85mm would not have a true 24mm lens in it, but a 30mm. Basically, if you want to go vintage with lenses and want all the focal lengths to be consistent with each other, you must either go all fd lenses or no fd lenses. This only applies when adaptor to canon EF mind you, i don't think fd to sony adaptors have any glass in them so there shouldn't be an issue there.

[@hoverboverer]

Oh, OK. So using a glass-less adapter a 24mm should give you a 48mm FOV (2x crop factor on the MFT) but the focal reducer reduces the image circle only so far and gives you a 30mm FOV. Is that right? I think we're a bit stuffed at the wide end re old film lenses on crop cameras. In film days anything less than 24mm was expensive then and fairly expensive now - and, from what I've read, not as good as modern counterparts (or zooms). But on the upside, the normal to tele end is great - and with macro lenses I don't see any advantage in shelling out on modern lenses, where the AF is going to be next to useless anyway. Maybe best to just accept that we are better off using native lenses at the wide end. I only have one 24mm (a 'clubman' - fairly decent, with a short min FD) but that still only gives a FOV of 36mm on my APSC bodies. Curious to try the Tamron adaptall or Tokina 17mm - but only if I can get one cheap :-)

[@DanielNorrisEffects]

hoverboverer i think i am confusing every one. In the video i am using a metabones ef to mft on the gh5. The fd to ef adapter is a completely separate adapter and is not a focal reducer, it is just a straight up adapter that needs a glass element in it to allow infinity focus on ef cameras. The metabones focal reducer does work properly with vintage lenses like the m42 lenses, so a 24mm m42 lens would be a 24mm (i am speaking from a super35 stand point) because the m42 to ef adapter has no glass it. It is easy enough to get wide shots with micro 4/3 cameras, especially with a speedbooster.

[@THSimagery]

The m42 to eos adapter in most cases allows the m42 Lens to sit inside the camera at its native distance from the sensor. The treading is narrow so the eos mount teeth are parallels other m42 threading. When doing an fd to eos, the fd has the same with as the eos, thus needin a glass to convert the distance so it would seam as if it’s at its native distance. I prefer the m42 mounts they work well with adapters.

[@juanjoserubio5716]

You have helped me with my doubt about the small blur in the infinity of the fd

[@akiraryuu2499]

The best way is to modify FD mount to EF mount with conversion kit.

[@dajusta87]

Ya I was just gonna say, FD is only good for mirrorless setups

[@roodick85]

I find my balance of my DSLR is better for my FD lenses due to the weight

[@DeusExAstra]

Does this apply only to FD to EF adapters, or to FD adapters in general? How about the FD to E-mount adapters?

[@DanielNorrisEffects]

DeusExAstra i havent seen many e mount versions but from what i have seen they don’t have a glass element in them so they should be fine in that case.

[@DeusExAstra]

Ok, thanks. Yeah it's probably that the flange distance for the EF mount is longer than the FD, so it needs the corrective lens element. For e-mount the flange distance is less, so a simple extension tube does the job to get the focus at the right distance on the sensor. That's good to know! However, with the lens in the adapter, i'd imagine that the focal distance would be correct. I mean, that's why it's there in the first place. Maybe it's just a bad design? Can all of them really be bad?

[@DanielNorrisEffects]

DeusExAstra i don’t know, maybe. All i know is that i am sticking to m42 lenses for my little vintage kit

[@agent_soshi]

Mate I think you may be a bit misinformed here

[@BizlaC]

No shit, that was the entire purpose of the video, him explaining that he was ill informed on the subject of FD adapters.

[@davidheadonvisualsandsound]

us a sony mirrorless instead- FD adapters are cheap!

[@AM-js8fv]

I want to use some FD lenses of a canon T50, on a Canon 3tI or canon 70D EF body, I'm confused about buying the FD-EF adapter, if I buy a non-glass means that I won't be able to focus to infinity and if has a glass then I can go to infinity focus?

[@DanielNorrisEffects]

A M without glass no infinity focus. With glass, infinity focus, but it will also crop in.

[@RainsalotProductions]

LOL my friend... Use ur metabones adapter and put on a FD to EF dull adapter on the metabones and then try ur FD lens on that. It will work, I tried

[@mastekhw]

Mater could you confirm this. i have a metabones and bunch of fd lenses, i want to use witouth buying another speed booster. dos it archieve infinity focus?

[@RainsalotProductions]

I said it works lol try it. The dull adapter is like 10 dollars lol what do you have to lose?

[@ЭтоДрючинский]

Useful info, thanks! I didn't know it's magnifying

[@crowell5521]

Bro your page have just answered so many questions for me and why I can only shoot macro 🤦🏾‍♂️

[@ManofTones]

Almost the same reason why I am dissappointed that I can't use my Minolta MD glass. those optical adapters soften the image aswel in most cases... not the look many people would go for Great video Daniel!

[@DanielNorrisEffects]

Visualluuks - Thanks, i am going to keep my eye out for mainly m42 lenses now i think. Though the Jupiter 9 is still something i would like to try for my 85mm choice :).

[@ManofTones]

Yeah, you should try and make a m42 Russian Zeiss copy set (helios, jupiter, mir and tairs) like I did! Whole different look than the modern lenses of your kit but fairly cheap and a really nice image!

[@DanielNorrisEffects]

Yeh a mate of mine uses a helios and i see the appeal, but i am not a fan of the swirly bokeh or the focal length. i dunno 58mm just feels odd :P the three lenses i want for it is just a new 24mm to replace the fd fail, i have the 50mm pentacon which is quite nice apart from a slight blue shift in shadows, and then an 85mm which will hopefully be the jupiter 9 if i can get a reasonable price on one. Yesterday i had an impulse buy on a taylor Hobson 6.5mm D mount lens for about £12 but didnt notice the description saying its rear element was "Pitted" i am hoping it is just a bit of surface marks and not a full on divet in the glass because i would like to do a video on it :P should really stay off ebay after 12pm XD

[@ManofTones]

you can also look for the zenitar-m 50mm F1.7 if the helios doesn't fit your style :) too bad about that taylor hobson lens!

[@Studio-el8xd]

Do none fd lens require optics to get infinity focus?

[@RalphInRalphWorld]

Thinker Brain Not unless the lens could originally forcus past infinity. The distance from the lens mount to the film is 42mm on FD cameras. On EOS cameras distance from the lens mount to the sensor is 44mm. That extra 2mm plus the thickness of the adapter acts like a macro tube, and you will lose infinity focus.

[@djmarzek]

FD to EOS adapters suck, also Minolta MD to EOS, the best vintage lens mounts for Canon EOS are M42, Yashica/Contax and Olympus... nikkor manual lens also!

[@LeahWinfield]

Hey, if i was to use an M42 adapter, would i be able to use my 50mm fd lens to infinity? I'm having such trouble with this :(

[@djmarzek]

You can use fotodiox FD to EOS adapter with glass for achieve infinity focus but it will degrade your image quality, add extra crop and you wont be able to use faster apertures (1.2 -1.4 - 1.8 - 2.0), the best option its to mod the lens (expensive) or change your camera for a mirrorless (like sony) so for me the best option for Canon DSLR is m42 lenses (Takumar FTW!) sorry for my bad english! Saludos!

[@HibikiKano]

leah A bit late but to clarify better. It depends on your camera. If you are using an EOS camera with a Flange Focal Distance of 44mm (Or actually most modern DSLR / SLR have that distance) you will have issues with the FD lenses that have a FFD of 42mm. If you are using a mirror-less camera (they all have a much smaller FFD) all adapters are just a tube with a mount on both sides. FD -> new DSLR/SLR probably needs an element inside for infinity focus FD -> Mirror-less camera. Adapters for infinity focus are cheap as hell. Mirror-less has that small (well I wouldnt call it a disadvantage really) quirk. Because some mirror-less cameras have a smaller sensor you get what seems like a larger image. You actually still have a 50 mm lens. But the image is cropped. For a full frame mirror-less the image is perfect. (Sony) For a APS-C sensor the crop factor is x 1,519 (lets say x 1,5) (Sony and some Fujifilm) For a micro 4/3 sensor the crop factor is x 2 (Panasonic/Lumix and Olympus) Now a focal reducer (what metabones and Zhongyi and others make and call something with speed). What they do is add a crop factor the other way. usually around x 0,7 (some do x 0,69 some x0,75 the smaller the number the more it widens the shot) So most focal reducers negate the APS-C crop factor (1,5 x 0,66 = 1), and lessen the micro 4/3 crop factor (0,75 x 2 = 1,5). The crop factor is not a bad thing. It wont reduce image quality. You just need to keep in mind how the lens works now. micro 4/3 is not bad either. The small sensor gives in body image stabilization for a fraction of the price. A body stabilized m4/3 camera (no lens) costs around 600€ , while a body stabilized APS-C camera (no lens) costs 1200€, and full frames the cheapest I could find with body stabilization were over 2000€ (again all without lenses) You gain a great feature for an affordable price. But you need to put work in calculating vintage lenses over a bit. I mean ...you have a screen that shows you exactly what the camera will take. Soooo..... it's not as hard really. But if you plan on using an M42 adapter to put on another longer FFD lens focal reducer adapter a different camera. Sorry no idea there. You need to calculate specs. OR: Ask more precisely, describe or show me your parts (EDIT: I mean camera parts) and what you plan to do with them.

[@cpmaverick]

FD lenses work great with an adapter on my Sony a6400, no glass required. I think you could have the same results if you used one adapter, instead of two. Just get a FD to your camera adapter without any glass or speed booster, make it simple and you'll have no problems.

[@fish3010]

He's not using a Sony. He can't adapt without the glass.

[@cpmaverick]

@@fish3010 They make FD to 4/3 adapters without any glass. That's what he should have done.

[@ivanguerra1260]

FD Lenses rocks with BlackMagic cameras ( video of course ), But Cine guys love them and FDs are getting expensive.

[@arcanics1971]

Yes, the problem is not there on mirrorless cameras- no optic required. It's a DSLR issue.

[@geonerd]

Don't blame the adapter. Blame Canon for designing the EF mount with a longer flange distance than the old FD. They deliberately made every FD lens largely obsolete.

[@EpicDubstepManiac]

Still makes no sense to use optical adapter to put on mirrorless camera, just get one from fd to mft, i use fd lenses on my a6000 and it is great,adapter is like 5 eruro.

[@ivanguerra1260]

Is not, Canon designed an original adapter ( Like 200 US$ not in production today ).

[@valjmoto]

take the glass elements out and flip them around. PROBLEM SOLVED

[@gabberattak]

what do you mean?

[@DarnocTechCH]

@@gabberattak he is correct in that aspect. Flipping it around will mak it a focal reducer instead of a teleconverter.

[@jmoss99]

What? You mean the lens in the adapter? Having cheap glass in there is a mistake in the first place.

[@MrBaskins2010]

Feel this 100% even on my EOS M

[@DanielNorrisEffects]

Mr. Baskins yeah, i am focusing on m42 for now. Just seems the better option.

[@cristobalin]

thank you your video help me to make a decision

[@gwEmbassy]

Good tips here, thanks

[@SuperRexProductions]

Thank you for the review

[@franki3flash808]

change the mount bro. Dont use adapters

[@hampuslytz5393]

And would you go about doing that exactly, since FD mount bodies have not been manufactured in over 30 years

[@franki3flash808]

@@hampuslytz5393 there several sites that can do it for you and also sell kits to do it yourself.

[@hampuslytz5393]

@@franki3flash808 Are you telling me that you are selling kits to change the lens mount in a current DSLR (EF mount) to a lens mount that had not had a lens made for it in decades (FD mount)? Please enlighten me, as that sounds ludicrous.

[@mystery6088]

@@hampuslytz5393 No, you change the lens mount from FD to EF, there is plenty of tutorials on KZbin if you are interested in that

[@hampuslytz5393]

@@mystery6088 All the research I've done and never come across this before, unbelievable! Thx for the tip, will have to look into that :)

[@GrainOnTheGo]

Just use a speed-booster?

[@janbonne]

Great succinct video!

[@ghosttownsentinel5288]

As awesome as they are, I found it best not to use old Canon glass on a modern Canon DSLR. An irony. Thankfully, the M42 screw mount lenses work fine with proper adapters, without any of the FFD related drama.

[@garygurr5883]

I use my FD lenses on what they were designed for, a film camera. No problem.

[@dfgoijoi]

yes this was helpful