Was the FA*200 macro really adapted to Canon?

eurostar · 12-31-2008, 02:11 AM

I read several times (even on this forum) that the FA* 200/4 macro was so exceptionally good that several ones where permanently adapted to Canon and Nikon mounts, making this lens even more rare.

There is a friend of mine that don't want to believe this, so I am looking for links to reports about that, but it seems I am unable to find anything.

Are you able to help me?

Thanks in advance

**roentarre** · 12-31-2008, 02:50 AM

Yes, you can get the adaptor to mount this lens on canon 5D but you cannot do macro with A* 200mm f4 macro though. You can only do telephoto shot with this lens. As the manual focus ring is adjusted for macro work, the lens will somewhat hit the SLR mirror of 5D

**roentarre** · 12-31-2008, 03:00 AM

You can get 5D to be modified to take the lens properly though. There are some photogs that will modify the 5D to take A* 200mm f4 macro.

I know a macro photographer from US that does quite a series of macros using this lens. But I lost his new website details.

*Wheatfield* · 12-31-2008, 07:18 AM

There is a cult of people who are adapting some of Pentax's better lenses to other camera mounts. I think it's rather a dumb idea, but that's just me.

*Blue* · 12-31-2008, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by Wheatfield

There is a cult of people who are adapting some of Pentax's better lenses to other camera mounts. I think it's rather a dumb idea, but that's just me.

I know what you mean. If there is a lens out there in a particular mount that I want, I'll get a body for it rather than screwing it up. Plus, I'm rarely impressed with a conversion. The exception may be the Leitax mount for some of the Leica R stuff, but the jury is out there.

Torphoto · 12-31-2008, 08:56 AM

People have adapted Pentax lenses to fit both canon and Nikon cameras, Namely the 31 and 77 limiteds, the 200mm F4 macro and a few others. The reasoning they had was the didn't like the Pentax cameras at the time ( *ist series ) but they did value those lenses greatly. That was understandable then but things have changed somewhat now.

*Blue* · 12-31-2008, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by eurostar

I read several times (even on this forum) that the FA* 200/4 macro was so exceptionally good that several ones where permanently adapted to Canon and Nikon mounts, making this lens even more rare.

There is a friend of mine that don't want to believe this, so I am looking for links to reports about that, but it seems I am unable to find anything.

Are you able to help me?

Thanks in advance

I fail to understand why any Canon person would want to screw up an FA 200mm macro when they have the EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM available which can be had for $12-1300 dollars.

Edit: If there is anything to motivate me to get a EOS digital body, that lens is it in addition to the Canon Macro Photo MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Manual Focus Lens for EOS that can go from 1:1 to 5:1 macro!

**roentarre** · 12-31-2008, 02:44 PM

I had fun with Canon 65mm f2.8 macro and it is something very good to use with twin head flash.

Canon 180L macro somehow lacks contrast in general. A* 200mm f4 macro is very contrasty including bokeh area. Very often, the background bokeh appear nervous and harsh. However, it has the look of takumar rusty image look. Quite an unique feature.

A lot of macro commercial shooters often use pentax A* 200mm f4 macro specially modified to fit on Canon 5D, making images in a studio setting (shock and stun the insects inside some lab containers and torture!)

*Blue* · 12-31-2008, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by roentarre

. . .(shock and stun the insects inside some lab containers and torture!)

Hey, that sounds like my job.

**roentarre** · 12-31-2008, 06:37 PM

Somebody told me that we all have this kind of traits...

eurostar · 01-02-2009, 01:53 PM

Thanks for the answers.