Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Astrophotography and Imaging Equipment and Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #21  
Old 18-09-2005, 07:07 AM
[1ponders]'s Avatar
[1ponders] (Paul)
Retired, damn no pension

[1ponders] is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Obi Obi, Qld
Posts: 18,778
Ok you could look at this chart http://opd.usa.canon.com/eflenses/pdf/spec.pdf but this is probably more what you're after http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon...0D_lenses.html or try this one http://www.patrickmurphystudio.com/canoneos/
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 18-09-2005, 08:05 AM
RB's Avatar
RB (Andrew)
Moderator

RB is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 22,086
Great links Paul,

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 18-09-2005, 10:06 AM
Iddon's Avatar
Iddon
Registered User

Iddon is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 226
great info - thx
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 18-09-2005, 10:13 AM
Iddon's Avatar
Iddon
Registered User

Iddon is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 226
hey Paul - I am pondering (poor choice of words) the older FD lens options.
1. Do these fit on the 300D ?
2. How important is EF/AF ? I assume not very for astro.....
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 18-09-2005, 10:24 AM
acropolite's Avatar
acropolite (Phil)
Registered User

acropolite is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Launceston Tasmania
Posts: 8,988
Grant, I have seen an adapter listed somewhere for older FD to EF. The downside is that none of the features such as autofocus and autoiris (fstop) adjustments work. Of course manual focus is probably more desirable and it's no big deal to set the aperture manually either. Also lenses designed specially for digital have improved coatings to minimise reflection between the rear of the lens and the sensor. Here's a link for an adapter on ebay for around $33.00 US. http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EOS-Camera...QQcmdZViewItem Actually I might get one myself as I have a perfectly good 50MM FD lens and a 135 Tokina FD lens which worked very nicely on my AE1 Canon.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 18-09-2005, 10:53 AM
[1ponders]'s Avatar
[1ponders] (Paul)
Retired, damn no pension

[1ponders] is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Obi Obi, Qld
Posts: 18,778
If you get one Phil I'd be interested to know how it works out. There are certainly a lot of older FD lenses available at lower prices than the EF lenses.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 18-09-2005, 11:09 AM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
There is a problem with FD lenses on EOS systems.Without a lens in the adapter you can't obtain focus at infinity.The lens in the adapter ends up acting as a tele extender about 1.2x.The cheaper adapters (non Canon) degrade the image noticeably.The genuine Canon adapter is almost impossible to obtain and when available fetches a high price.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 18-09-2005, 11:21 AM
[1ponders]'s Avatar
[1ponders] (Paul)
Retired, damn no pension

[1ponders] is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Obi Obi, Qld
Posts: 18,778
avandonk, would the issue of not being about to achieve focus also apply to zoom lenses? I've noticed with many zoom lenses when focusing on infinity (stars) there is still considerable focus travel available, unlike my prime lens? I know that zooms aren't necessarily the best way to go but it might be suitable for someone just starting out on a limited budget.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 18-09-2005, 11:27 AM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
Here is a site with all the info about FD lenses on EOS systems.Took me awhile to find it,otherwise would have refered to it before.

http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-manual-lenses/

Bert
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 18-09-2005, 11:42 AM
[1ponders]'s Avatar
[1ponders] (Paul)
Retired, damn no pension

[1ponders] is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Obi Obi, Qld
Posts: 18,778
Thanks for that Bert. It helped to clarify a few issues. Its a shame really as some of the reading I've done on canon lenses mention that some of the old FD lenses were very good quality.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 18-09-2005, 11:49 AM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
The screw mount Pentax and Nikons (also AF) work fine in Eos systems with an adapter as the 42mm thread is smaller than the bayonet fitting of the Canon.So focus at infinity is attainable.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 18-09-2005, 11:56 AM
[1ponders]'s Avatar
[1ponders] (Paul)
Retired, damn no pension

[1ponders] is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Obi Obi, Qld
Posts: 18,778
Are they cheaper than canon lenses for similar or better quality?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 18-09-2005, 12:20 PM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by [1ponders]
Are they cheaper than canon lenses for similar or better quality?
Yes they are cheaper because of the need to manual focus,but for astronomy doesn't matter,Check out Ebay for adapters and lenses.Also haunt camera stores that sell second hand.Quality depends on the lens, but generally the smaller the F number the better the quality,ie F2.8 to F1.8, F1.4, F1.2, under 200mm.Above 200mm don't settle for anything less than F4. and at and above 600mm F5.6.
The really unfortunate thing is you can easily pick the quality lenses as they have the highest asking price.Also check out the other thread in this forum Sigma lense for widefield

Bert
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 18-09-2005, 02:41 PM
RB's Avatar
RB (Andrew)
Moderator

RB is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 22,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk
but generally the smaller the F number the better the quality,ie F2.8 to F1.8, F1.4, F1.2, under 200mm.Above 200mm don't settle for anything less than F4. and at and above 600mm F5.6.

Bert
G'day Bert,

Can you expand on this point. Why is it better to go for above F4 for 200mm and up? Wouldn't it be better to go for lower F, ie. F2.8 (if you can afford it, that is).?



Andrew
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 18-09-2005, 03:27 PM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Boy
G'day Bert,

Can you expand on this point. Why is it better to go for above F4 for 200mm and up? Wouldn't it be better to go for lower F, ie. F2.8 (if you can afford it, that is).?



Andrew
Yes your correct.Big aperture small F number confuses.By anything less I meant say F5.6,F2.8 better than F4.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 11:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Astromechanics
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
EQ8-R
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Star Adventurer
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Celestron RASA
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement