[Jean Poitiers]

Another new "Franken-lens" ... S.F.O.M. 100/3.2 projector lens stuffed in an emptied, dead T-4 lens body (M42) on bellows. First test shot with K-5 (x-post) ...

[kacansas03]

I recently modified an older Canon FD 55mm F1,2 so that it works like a K or M lens on Pentax DSLR.

The modification took several days since the margins are so very very tight and Im afraid it could have looked much better if I had more time and better tools but it at least works well and should last a long time. Its a joy to use and of course focus to infinity.

First is a poor shot of the modded lens. You can see the Pentax arm that connects to the cameras aperture lever.



Then some shots with it, both full frame and 100% crop.







Then some straight shots just to look at the rendering.




Unfortunatly this lens was for someone else so I need to get one myself. In the mean time I guess I have to satisfy myself with my Canon FD 85mm F1,2 ...

WOW that is quite a feat making an FD into a Pentax mount complete with functioning aperture lever. Sure like to know how you did that one!!

[ivanvernon]

I recently modified an older Canon FD 55mm F1,2 so that it works like a K or M lens on Pentax DSLR.

The modification took several days since the margins are so very very tight and Im afraid it could have looked much better if I had more time and better tools but it at least works well and should last a long time. Its a joy to use and of course focus to infinity.

First is a poor shot of the modded lens. You can see the Pentax arm that connects to the cameras aperture lever.



Then some shots with it, both full frame and 100% crop.

Then some straight shots just to look at the rendering.

Unfortunatly this lens was for someone else so I need to get one myself. In the mean time I guess I have to satisfy myself with my Canon FD 85mm F1,2 ...

-------------------

I am the lucky Forum member who benefited from alisant's hard work on the Canon FD 55 mm f 1.2. I love having it on my cameras. It is a black, heavy but compact, chunk of Canon glass from the old school. Of course it is a moderate telephoto (83 mm) on cropped sensor digital cameras, but it is a focal length that I personally find very convenient. This is an excellent focal length for portraiture as well as the flowers that I often do. I am planning to try the lens on my MZ-S film camera, but have not gotten around to it--using a 50 mm on full frame may seem a little strange.

The lens is wonderful for low-light and interesting DOF effects. Anyone with a new f 1.2 has to go through a stage of using the lens wide open and checking on DOF effects, which is a good thing because focussing is not the easiest with this aperture, and a bit of practice is needed. Once that stage is past with this lens, you can start enjoying its sharpness and rendering at 5.6 or 8.0, and you still have f 11.0 and f 16.0 for overly bright lighting situations.

The first three photos illustrate the use of this lens wide open, and the last two at 5.6 shows its sharpness when stopped down to a more normal level.

This project would probably run you around $500 to $600, including purchase of a suitable lens for conversion, and many are readily available on eBay. I think that is a reasonable cost for a lens of this quality and versatility.

Now I am looking at the Canon FD 55 mm f 1.2 aspherical, but those lens are running around $1,000 to $2,000 before making the modification. However, the lens is said by some experts to be the best 50/55 ever produced by anyone anywhere, which includes a lot of 50/55 mm lens from both Germany and Japan. The lens is said to produce an absolutely sharp image from corner to corner, side to side, but not to yield the quality of blurred background that is highly valued in a fast lens.

[lmd91343]

ivanvernon,

Great lens! Better than the FDn 50 f1.2.

I had my FL 55 f1.2 converted by Brian. It has the same optics but lesser coatings.

I have that Canon ASPH 55 f1.2 and I agree with your assessment. It will be the last lens I ever get rid of. I just got the original cap. Yay me!

I would be careful about buying that lens only to convert. I understand that the rearmost element is held in by the mount. Check out this YouTube video about converting this lens (non destructively) to EOS EF: "EdMika FD 55mm 1.2 Aspherical Conversion kit instructions"

I cannot see how to convert it to Pentax. I have thought about getting a FF Canon or that new FF short registration Sony to use it on.

-------------------

I am the lucky Forum member who benefited from alisant's hard work on the Canon FD 55 mm f 1.2. I love having it on my cameras. It is a black, heavy but compact, chunk of Canon glass from the old school. Of course it is a moderate telephoto (83 mm) on cropped sensor digital cameras, but it is a focal length that I personally find very convenient. This is an excellent focal length for portraiture as well as the flowers that I often do. I am planning to try the lens on my MZ-S film camera, but have not gotten around to it--using a 50 mm on full frame may seem a little strange.

The lens is wonderful for low-light and interesting DOF effects. Anyone with a new f 1.2 has to go through a stage of using the lens wide open and checking on DOF effects, which is a good thing because focussing is not the easiest with this aperture, and a bit of practice is needed. Once that stage is past with this lens, you can start enjoying its sharpness and rendering at 5.6 or 8.0, and you still have f 11.0 and f 16.0 for overly bright lighting situations.

The first three photos illustrate the use of this lens wide open, and the last two at 5.6 shows its sharpness when stopped down to a more normal level.

This project would probably run you around $500 to $600, including purchase of a suitable lens for conversion, and many are readily available on eBay. I think that is a reasonable cost for a lens of this quality and versatility.

Now I am looking at the Canon FD 55 mm f 1.2 aspherical, but those lens are running around $1,000 to $2,000 before making the modification. However, the lens is said by some experts to be the best 50/55 ever produced by anyone anywhere, which includes a lot of 50/55 mm lens from both Germany and Japan. The lens is said to produce an absolutely sharp image from corner to corner, side to side, but not to yield the quality of blurred background that is highly valued in a fast lens.

[ivanvernon]

ivanvernon,

Great lens! Better than the FDn 50 f1.2.

I had my FL 55 f1.2 converted by Brian. It has the same optics but lesser coatings.

I have that Canon ASPH 55 f1.2 and I agree with your assessment. It will be the last lens I ever get rid of. I just got the original cap. Yay me!

I would be careful about buying that lens only to convert. I understand that the rearmost element is held in by the mount. Check out this YouTube video about converting this lens (non destructively) to EOS EF: "EdMika FD 55mm 1.2 Aspherical Conversion kit instructions"

I cannot see how to convert it to Pentax. I have thought about getting a FF Canon or that new FF short registration Sony to use it on.

Thanks for that response. Brian also converted and annodized my FL 1.2, and I really love it. It and/or the FD 1.2 is almost permanently on my K-7.

Thanks for the words of warning on the aspheric lens. I will give up thoughts of conversion, and I am disinclined to buy into another camera system in order to use the lens digitally. I do not believe it is worth the investment to me to use the aspheric on my Canon F-1 or A-1 cameras as I simply do not use film that much any more, and when I do I like to use the Pentax MZ-S. I am afraid I would be buying another dust collector! (If I lived near you, I would certainly try to insinuate myself into your good graces in order to cadge a visit and lens tryout!)

As it is, I am very happy with both my 55 mm impossible lenses. I will look forward to your continued comments on the use of your FL.

[lmd91343]

What differences you see between the FL and the FD 55 f1.2 lenses? I don't recall any between the FD 55/1.2 and the FL 55/1.2, but I did not compare my film results. The FD was so much easier to use that I stopped using the FL.

The 50/1.2 did not produce as good OOF and I did not see any resolution advantage, so I sold it. It was significantly lighter. The 55/1.2 ASPH is better than all of Canon other 50ish f1.2 lenses. However I have not owned the FL 58/1.2,
but I understand it is least of the group. I also have not seen the hand ground, blue ring FD 55/1.2 ASPH. They are quite rare. I have NEVER seen one for sale anywhere. I don't know how it compares to the "more common", but still rare gold letter ASPH (mine).

Thanks for that response. Brian also converted and annodized my FL 1.2, and I really love it. It and/or the FD 1.2 is almost permanently on my K-7.

Thanks for the words of warning on the aspheric lens. I will give up thoughts of conversion, and I am disinclined to buy into another camera system in order to use the lens digitally. I do not believe it is worth the investment to me to use the aspheric on my Canon F-1 or A-1 cameras as I simply do not use film that much any more, and when I do I like to use the Pentax MZ-S. I am afraid I would be buying another dust collector! (If I lived near you, I would certainly try to insinuate myself into your good graces in order to cadge a visit and lens tryout!)

As it is, I am very happy with both my 55 mm impossible lenses. I will look forward to your continued comments on the use of your FL.

[ivanvernon]

What differences you see between the FL and the FD 55 f1.2 lenses? I don't recall any between the FD 55/1.2 and the FL 55/1.2, but I did not compare my film results. The FD was so much easier to use that I stopped using the FL. .

The 50/1.2 did not produce as good OOF and I did not see any resolution advantage, so I sold it. It was significantly lighter. The 55/1.2 ASPH is better than all of Canon other 50ish f1.2 lenses. However I have not owned the FL 58/1.2,
but I understand it is least of the group. I also have not seen the hand ground, blue ring FD 55/1.2 ASPH. They are quite rare. I have NEVER seen one for sale anywhere. I don't know how it compares to the "more common", but still rare gold letter ASPH (mine).

Good question. I have not made a systematic examination of the FD & FL 55s, though I have used both of them extensively. I can certainly say that the FL is producing marvellous results, sometimes better than the FD results, but that observation is purely impressionistic. Perhaps I will try a few test shots on the same subject matter, same settings in order to resolve the issue. I have used neither of these lenses on film as of this date, but hope to do so. I will say that both produce very fine results on the Av mode setting. I tend to take a shot using Av, check the result, and then switch to M mode to modify the setting more to my own liking to yield a result closer to what I have in mind . . . chimping, I guess this is called? I still need to rig up some sort of hood for the FD as I have already done for the FL. Actually, now that I think of it the lack of a hood for the FD may be an explanation for the better FL outcomes, although I have not identified flare as a specific problem with the FD. The necessity of manually stopping down the FL lens does not bother me that much--I mean, using a manual focus lens is already fiddly, so one more fiddly exercise just sort of fits in!

Interesting comment about the hand-ground aspherical 55 f 1.2. I had not previously heard of it. I would definitely love to have this aspherical lens on my K-5ii, but certainly will not move ahead with the project until someone can confirm their cofidence in being able to make the conversion.

I notice that the eBay listings for Canon f 1.2 lenses show prices of around $600-900 on the 50 mm 1.2 L (red band), but much higher prices on both the FD and FL 55 1.2s. Are the optical designs different? On what limited sources as I have been able to locate, the 50L is very highly rated, and one source even calls it the best 50 mm ever manufactured. I will be interested in your thoughts on this.

I hope you will continue posting your work with these lenses as I plan to do.

---

Last edited by ivanvernon; 07-24-2014 at 09:37 PM. Reason: Added statement

[lmd91343]

Canon Camera Museum

It has a detailed description and specification for everything they have ever made sine 1933. They track small variations in the products too. I wish Pentax did something similar.

Here is the "Blue Ring" page
Canon Camera Museum | Lens Hall - FD Lenses

The "Blue Ring" was made at the same time as the "Chrome Nose" lenses.

Good question. I have not made a systematic examination of the FD & FL 55s, though I have used both of them extensively. I can certainly say that the FL is producing marvellous results, sometimes better than the FD results, but that observation is purely impressionistic. Perhaps I will try a few test shots on the same subject matter, same settings in order to resolve the issue. I have used neither of these lenses on film as of this date, but hope to do so. I will say that both produce very fine results on the Av mode setting. I tend to take a shot using Av, check the result, and then switch to M mode to modify the setting more to my own liking to yield a result closer to what I have in mind . . . chimping, I guess this is called? I still need to rig up some sort of hood for the FD as I have already done for the FL. Actually, now that I think of it the lack of a hood for the FD may be an explanation for the better FL outcomes, although I have not identified flare as a specific problem with the FD. The necessity of manually stopping down the FL lens does not bother me that much--I mean, using a manual focus lens is already fiddly, so one more fiddly exercise just sort of fits in!

Interesting comment about the hand-ground aspherical 55 f 1.2. I had not previously heard of it. I would definitely love to have this aspherical lens on my K-5ii, but certainly will not move ahead with the project until someone can confirm their cofidence in being able to make the conversion.

I notice that the eBay listings for Canon f 1.2 lenses show prices of around $600-900 on the 50 mm 1.2 L (red band), but much higher prices on both the FD and FL 55 1.2s. Are the optical designs different? On what limited sources as I have been able to locate, the 50L is very highly rated, and one source even calls it the best 50 mm ever manufactured. I will be interested in your thoughts on this.

I hope you will continue posting your work with these lenses as I plan to do.

[Jean Poitiers]

A Panasonic "TV Slide Zoom Lens 9-54mm 1:1.4" ... removed most internal elements and aperture; leaving only front element and selected portions of rear elements ... it was "trail and error" to get an image. Focal distance is stuck at about six inches, but still going to try other combinations. J

Here are some images of the lens and some initial test snaps ...

[Jean Poitiers]

Franken-lensing again ... Got these images from an Chinon 8mm movie lens after modification and much trail & error ... Better images later; these are first tests using the K110D and minor LR4 adjustments. Shooting "wide open" here due to absence of an aperture ... J

[Jean Poitiers]

Being not quite happy with the output, I decided to add an "ad hoc" aperture at the end of the rear element via two round plumbing washers and some wall poster sticky putty to "stop down" the lens a bit ... All guess work here, but got some different results. Here ya' go with some better later evening light and on the K-5 ... J

[kacansas03]

Being not quite happy with the output, I decided to add an "ad hoc" aperture at the end of the rear element via two round plumbing washers and some wall poster sticky putty to "stop down" the lens a bit ... All guess work here, but got some different results. Here ya' go with some better later evening light and on the K-5 ... J

I have read that the "C" mount or Cine lenses will only work as macro lenses. But your results look great! Keep up the good work!

[Jean Poitiers]

I've been experimenting with some aperture diaphragms pulled form microscope condensers as a potential way of adding aperture control to lenses that do not have one. I initially was trying to shoehorn one into a Zenit 85mm f/1.8 night vision lens, but it looks like the helical design won't allow it. However, I'm toying with the idea of machining a T mount to m42 adapter to accept it. A similar approach might be feasible for C mount lenses, particularly on mirrorless bodies

Bonjour dc,

Sounds very interesting ... Please let us know how it comes out. Salut, J

[Jean Poitiers]

Here's a new Franken-lens creation ...

Using a Chinese PK extension tube mount. Will only close focus at about 5 to 6 inches ...



First sample images ...

[kacansas03]

Bonjour dc,

Sounds very interesting ... Please let us know how it comes out. Salut, J

I saw the 9 to 54mm slide zoom lens. Are you saying that it only focuses at short distances? Or does it work farther out?