Canon FD

The place for questions about shooting with Blackmagic Cameras.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

AbdoulUK

  • Posts: 187
  • Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:53 pm
  • Real Name: Abdoul Mohammad

Canon FD

PostSat Jul 24, 2021 10:48 pm

Hi guys,
Hoping someone can help me. I've recently bought a canon FD 50mm 1.4 lens for my Ursa G2. I assumed one of those cheapo converter rings that are specifically branded to transform them to an EF mount would work. I've tried 2 now, both with the same result...when connected, turning the manual aperture ring does nothing and the lens only works in a macro mode. Anything further than a few inches is out of focus.

Has anyone had any luck successfully getting this lens to work properly and if you have the time, could you link me to a UK amazon link maybe of which is the right adapter. Heres the one currently that doesn't work: https://www.amazon.co.uk/WANBY-FD-EOS-A ... 798&sr=8-8

from researching, it seems like I need one with a converting lens, but can't seem to find the right one.

Thank you
Offline

Dune00z

  • Posts: 349
  • Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 3:40 pm
  • Real Name: Duane Eues

Re: Canon FD

PostSat Jul 24, 2021 11:21 pm

FD mount isn't compatible with EF natively. You need to either change out the mount on the lens to ef or you will need to use an expander adapter which I don't recommend.
Offline

AbdoulUK

  • Posts: 187
  • Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:53 pm
  • Real Name: Abdoul Mohammad

Re: Canon FD

PostSat Jul 24, 2021 11:49 pm

It seems so many are using them with their ursas though, is there really not an adapter that will allow me to use without too much compromise?
Offline
User avatar

Kim Janson

  • Posts: 1531
  • Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2015 6:54 pm
  • Location: Finland

Re: Canon FD

PostSun Jul 25, 2021 2:03 am

Proper adaptation of FD to EF requires an adapter with lens or converting the FD mount to EF. (I have not tried this, just googled the link https://fdtoef.com/wp/)
LeViteZer Smooths the movement, www.levitezer.com
Offline

Uli Plank

  • Posts: 11041
  • Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:48 am
  • Location: Germany and Indonesia

Re: Canon FD

PostSun Jul 25, 2021 5:53 am

Such optical adapters are ruining the excellent quality of your FD-lenses.
You’ll need a BM camera with MFT mount, which is much shorter.
Don't approach Resolve with your expectations from other NLEs! They are all different.
Resolve Studio 17.2.2 and Fusion Studio 17.2.1, macOS 11.5
iMac 2017 Radeon Pro 580 8 GB VRAM, 32 GB, eGFX Breakway RX 580
Mac mini M1, 16 GB RAM
Offline

Kays Alatrakchi

  • Posts: 1149
  • Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:22 am
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Canon FD

PostSun Jul 25, 2021 6:52 am

AbdoulUK wrote:It seems so many are using them with their ursas though, is there really not an adapter that will allow me to use without too much compromise?


Who? Can you post a link to someone using an FD lens with an URSA EF? I never heard anyone doing that.

My advice is either forget about FD lenses for your URSA, or change camera to either a M4/3 or an L-mount one.
>>Kays Alatrakchi
Filmmaker based in Los Angeles, CA
http://moviesbykays.com
Resolve 17.2.2, Mac OS X 11.4 (Big Sur), i9 10980XE, 64Gb RAM, RX 5700 XT GPU, Decklink Mini 4K, LG C9

Mac Book Air M1, Mac OS X 11.5.1, 16Gb RAM
Offline

WahWay

  • Posts: 481
  • Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:54 am
  • Real Name: Simon Chan

Re: Canon FD

PostSun Jul 25, 2021 8:48 am

Has anyone tried a Metabones FD to MFT speedbooster?
Offline
User avatar

carlomacchiavello

  • Posts: 1560
  • Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:04 pm
  • Location: italy

Re: Canon FD

PostSun Jul 25, 2021 8:57 am

WahWay wrote:Has anyone tried a Metabones FD to MFT speedbooster?
Ursa is ef/pl/nikon/ bmount mount, not use mft mount


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk
Offline
User avatar

carlomacchiavello

  • Posts: 1560
  • Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:04 pm
  • Location: italy

Re: Canon FD

PostSun Jul 25, 2021 8:59 am

I remember in past that ed Mika did mount change, but now he is out of business.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk
Offline

WahWay

  • Posts: 481
  • Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:54 am
  • Real Name: Simon Chan

Re: Canon FD

PostSun Jul 25, 2021 9:17 am

carlomacchiavello wrote:
WahWay wrote:Has anyone tried a Metabones FD to MFT speedbooster?
Ursa is ef/pl/nikon/ bmount mount, not use mft mount


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk


YesI know but I want to know about Canon FD with MFT mount and Speedbooster.
Offline
User avatar

Kim Janson

  • Posts: 1531
  • Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2015 6:54 pm
  • Location: Finland

Re: Canon FD

PostSun Jul 25, 2021 10:35 am

I see no reason why FD speedBooster would be any different that EF speedBooster from same manufacturer, probably uses exactly same lens system. I think the Metabones EF speedBoosters are pretty good. FD speedBoosters I have not tried.
LeViteZer Smooths the movement, www.levitezer.com
Offline

Garth McElroy

  • Posts: 69
  • Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 10:14 am

Re: Canon FD

PostSun Jul 25, 2021 11:00 am

You definitely need to convert your FD to an EF mount. In the past I've converted several fd's to ef using the Ed Mika kits. I think he's teamed up with Simmod Lens now and they just started selling a limited number of conversion kits. They can be tricky to convert but it's not to bad if you take your time. Simmod Lens also offers the conversion as a service.

https://www.simmodlens.com/product-page ... ersion-kit
Last edited by Garth McElroy on Mon Jul 26, 2021 12:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

John Griffin

  • Posts: 1167
  • Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 4:18 pm

Re: Canon FD

PostSun Jul 25, 2021 2:18 pm

Hardly worth the effort with the 50mm FD as there are plenty of as good or even better legacy 50mm 1.4 lenses that will easily adapt to EF with the simple addition of an adapter ring and no optics. If you have some of the exotic legacy FD L lenses then there is probably a good argument for getting the conversion done.
Offline

Uli Plank

  • Posts: 11041
  • Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:48 am
  • Location: Germany and Indonesia

Re: Canon FD

PostSun Jul 25, 2021 4:26 pm

If you are looking for a nice vintage lens in the 50mm range, look for a Super-Takumar 55mm f1.8.
It comes in M42 and can be adapted to EF.
Don't approach Resolve with your expectations from other NLEs! They are all different.
Resolve Studio 17.2.2 and Fusion Studio 17.2.1, macOS 11.5
iMac 2017 Radeon Pro 580 8 GB VRAM, 32 GB, eGFX Breakway RX 580
Mac mini M1, 16 GB RAM
Offline

Garth McElroy

  • Posts: 69
  • Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 10:14 am

Re: Canon FD

PostMon Jul 26, 2021 12:41 am

I'll second the super takumar. I have the 50mm 1.4 and it's a fantastic lens. I've compared it to two of the FD 50mm 1.4 variants and it's just as good as those. By the time you convert an fd 50mm you could have bought a super tak and adapter for the same price. Maybe less.
Offline

Kays Alatrakchi

  • Posts: 1149
  • Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:22 am
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Canon FD

PostMon Jul 26, 2021 1:58 am

Why do you guys like the Super Takumar? Just curious. Would it be possible to assemble a lens kit with those? Not sure how many focal lengths were made.
>>Kays Alatrakchi
Filmmaker based in Los Angeles, CA
http://moviesbykays.com
Resolve 17.2.2, Mac OS X 11.4 (Big Sur), i9 10980XE, 64Gb RAM, RX 5700 XT GPU, Decklink Mini 4K, LG C9

Mac Book Air M1, Mac OS X 11.5.1, 16Gb RAM
Offline

Dune00z

  • Posts: 349
  • Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 3:40 pm
  • Real Name: Duane Eues

Re: Canon FD

PostMon Jul 26, 2021 4:11 am

I owned a takumar 50 f1.4 and takumar 55 f1.8 and I wouldn't recommend them over any decent modern 50. Soft with aberrations until at least 2.8 and the 50 had very busy bokeh. If you like softness and aberrations then go for it, but not for me thanks. I also didn't particularly like the fd50 f1.4 either but preferred it to either takumar. I found the FD 50 rather weak compared to the FD 24, 35, and 85 I owned.
Offline

Uli Plank

  • Posts: 11041
  • Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:48 am
  • Location: Germany and Indonesia

Re: Canon FD

PostMon Jul 26, 2021 5:23 am

Well, neither are FD lenses on par with modern glass, like Sigma Art. I assumed AbdoulUK was into vintage glass.
The Zeiss Contax C/Y line would be a compromise between vintage and modern and can be adapted to EF, but the prices are higher. Most FD lenses are relatively cheap because they can't easily be adapted to the most popular mount of today.
Don't approach Resolve with your expectations from other NLEs! They are all different.
Resolve Studio 17.2.2 and Fusion Studio 17.2.1, macOS 11.5
iMac 2017 Radeon Pro 580 8 GB VRAM, 32 GB, eGFX Breakway RX 580
Mac mini M1, 16 GB RAM
Offline
User avatar

Kim Janson

  • Posts: 1531
  • Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2015 6:54 pm
  • Location: Finland

Re: Canon FD

PostMon Jul 26, 2021 7:42 am

It would require some DIY but looks like Blackmagic URSA Mini Pro EF Mount could be well modified to FD. If there would be enough demand BMD certainly could make a Blackmagic URSA Mini Pro FD Mount.
LeViteZer Smooths the movement, www.levitezer.com
Offline
User avatar

Adam Langdon

  • Posts: 507
  • Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2015 9:15 pm
  • Location: Ohio USA

Re: Canon FD

PostMon Jul 26, 2021 2:46 pm

i had been following the Canon FD lenses since watching Media Division's episode on that line of lenses.
Simmod Lens has just came out with a v2 mod kit for FD to EF.
The price of the FDs has nearly tripled in some cases, as more and more people are getting into them. Simmod even came out with a Canon FD mount for Arri and RED cameras!

Personally, I haven't had the best experience trying to use vintage still lenses for video. They tend to be inconsistent with quality, overpriced for CZ & FD, and lack professional cine lens features that i've grown to love. Every since i got my APO Microprimes, i haven't looked back.
Ursa Mini Pro G2 - Pocket 6K Pro - Vintage Russian Glass - Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 - Canon 17-55mm f2.8 - SLR Magic APO Microprimes (w/ Tokina 17mm f3.5 RMC) - Mac Pro 2019, 96GB Ram, Two W5700XT GPU Modules, 24-Core CPU
Offline

Kays Alatrakchi

  • Posts: 1149
  • Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:22 am
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Canon FD

PostMon Jul 26, 2021 4:14 pm

Uli Plank wrote:Well, neither are FD lenses on par with modern glass, like Sigma Art. I assumed AbdoulUK was into vintage glass.


Exactly. People who are looking to get into those vintage lenses from 50 years ago are looking for the exact opposite of what modern lenses offer as a way to counter the perception of an overly perfect image reproduction. Many people, including myself, feel that the imperfections of vintage glass gives character to digital footage in a way that is construed as pleasing, particularly for narrative uses. This is not unlike the audio industry's adoption of vintage tube amps and mics in order to achieve similar desired imperfections.
>>Kays Alatrakchi
Filmmaker based in Los Angeles, CA
http://moviesbykays.com
Resolve 17.2.2, Mac OS X 11.4 (Big Sur), i9 10980XE, 64Gb RAM, RX 5700 XT GPU, Decklink Mini 4K, LG C9

Mac Book Air M1, Mac OS X 11.5.1, 16Gb RAM
Offline

Dune00z

  • Posts: 349
  • Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 3:40 pm
  • Real Name: Duane Eues

Re: Canon FD

PostMon Jul 26, 2021 5:13 pm

Adam Langdon wrote:i had been following the Canon FD lenses since watching Media Division's episode on that line of lenses.
Simmod Lens has just came out with a v2 mod kit for FD to EF.
The price of the FDs has nearly tripled in some cases, as more and more people are getting into them. Simmod even came out with a Canon FD mount for Arri and RED cameras!

Personally, I haven't had the best experience trying to use vintage still lenses for video. They tend to be inconsistent with quality, overpriced for CZ & FD, and lack professional cine lens features that i've grown to love. Every since i got my APO Microprimes, i haven't looked back.


There are plenty of lenses made today that can provide character without the headache. The SLR Magic APOs look really nice and I would easily recommend the look from those over any vintage glass I have used which to an extent... includes Takumar, Zeiss CY, Canon FD. The Zeiss are I think OK and best of the bunch, but still I would prefer modern Zeiss over the old ones.

I do not personally find busy bokeh, lots of aberrations, fringing, ghosting, excessive veiling glare, and unacceptable sharpness to be "good character" in a lens, its just annoying to shoot around. Lots of times the "character" with these lenses are due to putting them onto a sensor instead of film and other times the glass has problems like fungus, decentering, lenses out of alignment, etc. that users do not get fixed.

To each their own as they say.
Offline
User avatar

Kim Janson

  • Posts: 1531
  • Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2015 6:54 pm
  • Location: Finland

Re: Canon FD

PostMon Jul 26, 2021 6:25 pm

Some of these have really ridiculous asking prices, the justification must be something else than the image-quality.
Screenshot 2021-07-26 at 21.20.33.jpg
Screenshot 2021-07-26 at 21.20.33.jpg (453.28 KiB) Viewed 1731 times


But there is also plenty of inexpensive ones (100 euro range), and these have very nice manual controls and maybe the character one is looking after.
LeViteZer Smooths the movement, www.levitezer.com
Offline

John Griffin

  • Posts: 1167
  • Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 4:18 pm

Re: Canon FD

PostMon Jul 26, 2021 7:27 pm

Kays Alatrakchi wrote:
Uli Plank wrote:Well, neither are FD lenses on par with modern glass, like Sigma Art. I assumed AbdoulUK was into vintage glass.


Exactly. People who are looking to get into those vintage lenses from 50 years ago are looking for the exact opposite of what modern lenses offer as a way to counter the perception of an overly perfect image reproduction. Many people, including myself, feel that the imperfections of vintage glass gives character to digital footage in a way that is construed as pleasing, particularly for narrative uses. This is not unlike the audio industry's adoption of vintage tube amps and mics in order to achieve similar desired imperfections.

Vintage tube amps and mics are not chosen for their imperfections.
Offline

John Griffin

  • Posts: 1167
  • Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 4:18 pm

Re: Canon FD

PostMon Jul 26, 2021 7:34 pm

Kim Janson wrote:Some of these have really ridiculous asking prices, the justification must be something else than the image-quality.
Screenshot 2021-07-26 at 21.20.33.jpg


But there is also plenty of inexpensive ones (100 euro range), and these have very nice manual controls and maybe the character one is looking after.

They are not run of the mill FD lenses but early examples of aspherical elements.
The main 'character' of FDn lenses is low micro contrast, busy and distracting bokeh and sloppy focus control due to use of a lot of plastics which are now worn.
Offline
User avatar

Kim Janson

  • Posts: 1531
  • Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2015 6:54 pm
  • Location: Finland

Re: Canon FD

PostMon Jul 26, 2021 8:32 pm

[/quote]
Vintage tube amps and mics are not chosen for their imperfections.[/quote]

Well actually they are, kind of. The tube distortion typically is much more than on any modern amplifier, it is just more pleasant.

I think it is just the same with vintage lens, on absolute measurable scale they are not the sharpest ones, do not have the best contrast, etc. but still might have something that please the eye.

The few original FD (not FDn ) lenses I have do have very nice manual focus.
LeViteZer Smooths the movement, www.levitezer.com
Offline

Robert Castiglione

  • Posts: 125
  • Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:36 am

Re: Canon FD

PostTue Jul 27, 2021 12:48 am

Totally Kim.

I have tube amplifiers and preamps and would not go back. The rich analogue quality they impart is just delicious.

The analogy with the perfection of modern lenses is worth exploring further. Are edge to edge sharpness and massive resolving power good things? Some people have gone in that direction but I am not so sure. I am planning on getting some of these uber sharp lenses like the sigma art series or maybe the Zeiss Otus to give them a try.
Rob Castiglione
robcastiglione.com
Offline

Kays Alatrakchi

  • Posts: 1149
  • Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:22 am
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Canon FD

PostTue Jul 27, 2021 5:23 am

John Griffin wrote:Vintage tube amps and mics are not chosen for their imperfections.


Depends on your definition of imperfection doesn't it?

If you're looking at audio strictly as zeros and ones, the introduction of such elements as even harmonics distortion and saturation, roll off or peaking of certain frequencies, and uneven reproduction across the frequency range, then those are imperfections -- pleasant imperfections for sure -- but imperfections no less.

I know colorists who have spent a ton of time trying to find a way to accurately replicate film halation which used to be though of as an undesirable artifact until it was cool. The very existence of products such as FilmConvert shows just how much of demand there is for imperfections in order to counter harsh digital exactness.
>>Kays Alatrakchi
Filmmaker based in Los Angeles, CA
http://moviesbykays.com
Resolve 17.2.2, Mac OS X 11.4 (Big Sur), i9 10980XE, 64Gb RAM, RX 5700 XT GPU, Decklink Mini 4K, LG C9

Mac Book Air M1, Mac OS X 11.5.1, 16Gb RAM
Offline

John Griffin

  • Posts: 1167
  • Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 4:18 pm

Re: Canon FD

PostTue Jul 27, 2021 6:16 am

It can easily be argued that digital is full of imperfections as it has no smooth roll off, can suffer from all sorts of errors in audio (jitter, digital clipping) but this argument can go on forever…..
If you want the vintage / analogue look then Canon FD is not the place to find it IME. If you want low micro contrast and irritating bokeh then yes you should buy a set. They even have pretty good resolution across the field so if you want soft edges then also look elsewhere. I’m not someone who sees emulating analogue film as a goal but I do go to great lengths to eliminate digital artefacts such as moire, highlight clipping, compression macro blocking artefacts and banding from low bit depth. Non of these will be achieved with ‘ vintage look’ lenses.
Offline
User avatar

Kim Janson

  • Posts: 1531
  • Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2015 6:54 pm
  • Location: Finland

Re: Canon FD

PostTue Jul 27, 2021 7:17 am

The modern lenses sharp and expensive, but leave much to desire on build quality. I doubt anyone has any interest for them after 50 years...

Just some pictures I found.
Attachments
Screenshot 2021-07-27 at 10.13.55.jpg
Screenshot 2021-07-27 at 10.13.55.jpg (392.35 KiB) Viewed 1586 times
Screenshot 2021-07-27 at 10.13.32.jpg
Screenshot 2021-07-27 at 10.13.32.jpg (673.13 KiB) Viewed 1586 times
LeViteZer Smooths the movement, www.levitezer.com
Offline

John Griffin

  • Posts: 1167
  • Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 4:18 pm

Re: Canon FD

PostTue Jul 27, 2021 7:22 am

Kim Janson wrote:The modern lenses sharp and expensive, but leave much to desire on build quality. I doubt anyone has any interest for them after 50 years...

Just some pictures I found.

Modern lenses are exceptionally well built at the pro quality level. The kind of complex AF, IS, aspherical element zooms simply didn't exist in the 'vintage' era.
Offline
User avatar

Kim Janson

  • Posts: 1531
  • Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2015 6:54 pm
  • Location: Finland

Re: Canon FD

PostTue Jul 27, 2021 7:47 am

Not sure, but that lens looks to me as Canon RF 400mm F/2.8L IS USM, a 13 000 euro lens. For that I would imagine one gets a pro quality, but looks like pretty weak plastic.

Yes we do have now lenses with many good qualities that where not possible before, Also good lenses at very low price, well optimised often plastic constructions, that work surprisingly well, and there is also well build lenses, but out of the reach for many as the especially higher end FD lenses where at their time.

I am just saying, those above pictures got me shocked, a 13 000 euro lens should not be build like that.
LeViteZer Smooths the movement, www.levitezer.com
Offline

John Griffin

  • Posts: 1167
  • Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 4:18 pm

Re: Canon FD

PostTue Jul 27, 2021 9:04 am

Kim Janson wrote:Not sure, but that lens looks to me as Canon RF 400mm F/2.8L IS USM, a 13 000 euro lens. For that I would imagine one gets a pro quality, but looks like pretty weak plastic.

Yes we do have now lenses with many good qualities that where not possible before, Also good lenses at very low price, well optimised often plastic constructions, that work surprisingly well, and there is also well build lenses, but out of the reach for many as the especially higher end FD lenses where at their time.

I am just saying, those above pictures got me shocked, a 13 000 euro lens should not be build like that.

Assuming the lens took a fall or a hit from an object rather than just fell apart under it's own weight then likely it's designed to break there under stress rather than damaging the camera mount or the lens group assembly i.e good design.
Offline

Dune00z

  • Posts: 349
  • Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 3:40 pm
  • Real Name: Duane Eues

Re: Canon FD

PostTue Jul 27, 2021 12:57 pm

I don't think picking out a singular image of a big lens with a break is indicative of the whole of modern glass. The FDn glass I had were constructed with plenty of plastic parts were not ideal for focusing and mounts had a lot of give, not to mention problems with the glue used which results in lens separation over time.

There's plenty of modern lenses with full metal designs but cost quite a bit and are heavier, and most of these don't have AF so you'll likely be able to use them for a long time. I expect a big lens like the 400 to be made to be as light weight as possible so I compromise on building material in certain areas is likely. Everything in lens design is a compromise.
Offline
User avatar

Kim Janson

  • Posts: 1531
  • Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2015 6:54 pm
  • Location: Finland

Re: Canon FD

PostThu Aug 05, 2021 10:00 am

Giving UV treatment for a radioactive lens, it had very yellow tint, lets see how it works.
Attachments
Screenshot 2021-08-05 at 12.57.35.jpg
Screenshot 2021-08-05 at 12.57.35.jpg (728.57 KiB) Viewed 957 times
Screenshot 2021-08-05 at 12.56.34.jpg
Screenshot 2021-08-05 at 12.56.34.jpg (545.35 KiB) Viewed 957 times
LeViteZer Smooths the movement, www.levitezer.com

Return to Cinematography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bmpcc6k and 21 guests