Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-25-2013, 12:59 AM   #1
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Durham, nc
Photos: Albums
Posts: 895
Canon lenses?

There are some reasonably priced long lenses in the Canon lineup, specifically the 300mm f4 FD lens. It goes for under $200 on ebay. I'm curious what the quality is like, and how it works with the Q.

Some other inexpensive, and interesting lenses:

Vivitar 200mm f3.5 ($50)
Canon FD 200mm f4 ($125 ish)
Canon FD 200mm f2.8 ($150ish)
Tokina ATX 80-200 f2.8 ($200)

Anyone have experience with Canon glass on the Q?

Charles.


Last edited by ChopperCharles; 01-25-2013 at 07:30 AM.
01-25-2013, 01:09 AM   #2
Veteran Member
VisualDarkness's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,441
At the moment there only seems to be the Canon EF 70-300 f4-5.6 II Ultrasonic, so we need somebody to try them out. I know you want to!
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/209474-adapted-lenses-tested-q-r...ce-thread.html
01-25-2013, 01:35 AM   #3
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: San Diego
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 883
I used to use the canon FD 300mm f/4 (surgically adapted to pentax) and the tokina 80-200mm f/2.8 on my K-5 back when i shot a lot more sports. The canon was exceptionally sharp, its only weak points being some vignetting wide open and that it would get a little bit of purple fringing sometimes. The tokina was a tad soft and suffered from quite a bit of CA, but was a solid lens and had decent IQ stopped down a stop or two.
01-25-2013, 07:31 AM   #4
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Durham, nc
Photos: Albums
Posts: 895
Original Poster
Hrm, a little bit of purple fringing on a regular body means a LOT of purple fringing on the Q.

How did you surgically alter it for the Pentax and still retain infinity focus? I thought it was a lot more involved than just replacing the mount.

Charles

01-25-2013, 07:32 AM   #5
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Durham, nc
Photos: Albums
Posts: 895
Original Poster
Also, what exactly is the difference between purple fringing and CA? I see them used interchangeably it seems.

Charles.
01-25-2013, 07:45 AM   #6
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Liverpool, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,836
QuoteOriginally posted by ChopperCharles Quote
Also, what exactly is the difference between purple fringing and CA? I see them used interchangeably it seems.

Charles.
Chromatic aberration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

QuoteQuote:
The term "purple fringing" is commonly used in photography, although not all purple fringing can be attributed to chromatic aberration. Similar colored fringing around highlights may also be caused by lens flare. Colored fringing around highlights or dark regions may be due to the receptors for different colors having differing dynamic range or sensitivity -- therefore preserving detail in one or two color channels, while "blowing out" or failing to register, in the other channel or channels. On digital cameras, the particular demosaicing algorithm is likely to affect the apparent degree of this problem. Another cause of this fringing is chromatic aberration in the very small microlenses used to collect more light for each CCD pixel; since these lenses are tuned to correctly focus green light, the incorrect focusing of red and blue results in purple fringing around highlights. This is a uniform problem across the frame, and is more of a problem in CCDs with a very small pixel pitch such as those used in compact cameras. Some cameras, such as the Panasonic Lumix series and newer Nikon and Sony DSLRs, feature a processing step specifically designed to remove it.
On photographs taken using a digital camera, very small highlights may frequently appear to have chromatic aberration where in fact the effect is because the highlight image is too small to stimulate all three color pixels, and so is recorded with an incorrect color. This may not occur with all types of digital camera sensor. Again, the de-mosaicing algorithm may affect the apparent degree of the problem.
01-25-2013, 08:07 AM   #7
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 165
QuoteOriginally posted by ChopperCharles Quote
There are some reasonably priced long lenses in the Canon lineup, specifically the 300mm f4 FD lens. It goes for under $200 on ebay. I'm curious what the quality is like, and how it works with the Q.

Some other inexpensive, and interesting lenses:

Vivitar 200mm f3.5 ($50)
Canon FD 200mm f4 ($125 ish)
Canon FD 200mm f2.8 ($150ish)
Tokina ATX 80-200 f2.8 ($200)

Anyone have experience with Canon glass on the Q?

Charles.
A better choice would be a Pentax M 200mm f4. I just bought a mint, like new copy from KEH for $83. It is superb.

I now need a K to Q adapter...
01-25-2013, 09:11 AM   #8
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: San Diego
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 883
QuoteOriginally posted by ChopperCharles Quote
How did you surgically alter it for the Pentax and still retain infinity focus? I thought it was a lot more involved than just replacing the mount.
I had bought the lens after it had already been surgically altered for use on pentax. Turns out, the FD 300mm f/4 had quite a bit of empty space between the lens mount and the rear element. With this in mind, the fellow I had bought it from had basically chopped off the original mount as well as part of the rear part of the lens barrel, measured it down to where the pentax flange distance would be and attached a dumb adaptall mount to it with the aperture coupling attached as well.

01-25-2013, 11:38 AM   #9
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 1,535
Hi Charles,

I'm the current owner of that Canon FD 300 f4 L that adpo mentioned. I pretty much bought it for the Q, but have actually used it more on my K-5 with an F 1.7x AFA since that combo is so convenient with AF. It was very good on the Q, but I haven't retested it since FW v 1.1, so haven't posted a review here yet.

The mount is actually a flanged M42 to K adapter, and there is no aperture coupling in the mount, but the aperture ring works to some extent, but is not necessarily accurate. This is really not much of a problem since the lens will be used wide open or close most of the time. The conversion seems to be well done as it seems to focus correctly, but I use these lenses mostly at close distances, so infinity focus isn't a high priority for me, so I didn't test rigorously for it with this lens. This is the L version which usually sells for $300+ which is still a bargain for this class of lens IMO. The standard version that you've been seeing for under $200 does not use Low Dispersion glass and is more prone to CA/PF than the L, which controls both of these about as well an F*/FA* 300 f4.5. The L version is about in the same class as the F*/FA* 300 f4.5s optically IMO, which is not too shabby. From what I've read, the L version originally was priced at @ $1500 when new.

The standard version is, according to reviews that I've read, very close to being as sharp in the center as the L, but suffers towards the edges and does not control CA/PF as well. I'd say that this would be a good bet for the Q since the crop would only use the center of the lens' image circle. Under $200 is about half of what you'd have to pay for a good example of the K mount lens in this class, the M* 300 f4, though the K 300 f4 is a bit less expensive, but not that much.

The Canon FD 300 f4 and the L version both focus to @ 3m. The K , M* and A* 300 f4s all focus to 4m, and the F* and FA* will focus to 2m. The DA* focuses down to 1.4m

Here are a few examples with this converted Canon FD 300 f4 L from the K-5 + 1.7x AFA that I got playing around very late in the season. The HB is at close to MFD, only cropped to 8x10 from the sides, and the Cedar Waxwing was shot at @ 30 ft and is a full height vertical 8x10 crop from a landscape frame. Both have been lightly processed with NR and lightly sharpened, and downsized for posting.





This bodes well for this lens' performance on the Q IMO, possibly even with a TC.

Just one more comment about the lenses you mentioned. . . The Tokina 80-200 f2.8 AT-X SD -- this is a good lens, but IMO the best in class for this in MF is the Tamron SP 80-200 f2.8 Adaptall 2 model 30A. The Tamron is usually pricier, but it's a more worthwhile lens to own, IMO.

Scott
01-26-2013, 09:46 AM   #10
Pentaxian
hnikesch's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,254
One down side to the EOS lenses is you need a EOS body to change the aperture before you can put it on the adapter. Having an old cheap film EOS I had to set the aperture I wanted in manual then shoot at a 10 sec. shutter speed and remove the lens before the shutter closed. Once set @ f8 (or whatever aperture you want) it will stay @ f8 until you put it back on a EOS body.

Hans
01-26-2013, 01:51 PM   #11
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Durham, nc
Photos: Albums
Posts: 895
Original Poster
I never said anything about EOS lenses. I'm only interested in FD lenses.

Charles
01-26-2013, 09:09 PM   #12
Pentaxian
hnikesch's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,254
Sorry title just stated Canon lenses
01-28-2013, 10:19 AM   #13
Pentaxian
Mistral75's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 2,956
QuoteOriginally posted by hnikesch Quote
One down side to the EOS lenses is you need a EOS body to change the aperture before you can put it on the adapter. Having an old cheap film EOS I had to set the aperture I wanted in manual then shoot at a 10 sec. shutter speed and remove the lens before the shutter closed. Once set @ f8 (or whatever aperture you want) it will stay @ f8 until you put it back on a EOS body.

Hans
Alternative route: use the depth-of-field control button on your EOS to close the diaphragm and remove the lens before releasing the button.
01-28-2013, 02:54 PM   #14
Pentaxian
hnikesch's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,254
QuoteOriginally posted by Mistral75 Quote
Alternative route: use the depth-of-field control button on your EOS to close the diaphragm and remove the lens before releasing the button.
No DOF button on the cheap plastic film Rebel X, it was a freebee, no one wanted it.

Hans
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
200mm, camera, canon, f2.8, f4, fd, lenses, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q10, q7
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Old Canon lenses? morpho Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 11 03-04-2012 01:51 AM
Canon lenses; why only 8 blades? TOUGEFC Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 64 02-27-2012 02:28 PM
canon lenses on pentax? 18whlr Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 7 02-16-2011 09:46 AM
Switching to Canon 5D, advice needed on adapting Pentax lenses on canon camera hangu Photographic Technique 4 08-19-2010 09:09 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:45 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top