Discussion Forum for various Lenses of different major labels in a shared environment at Photography In Malaysia

1. From : Robert Glenn Middleton (the_redd_groyne@hotmail.co.uk)
Url : http://
Date : 11:06 PM Saturday 14 January, 2006

With reference to my earlier posting on the 'rare' Canon 50mm/f2 standard lens. As I stated this lens is exactly the same optically as the f1.8 version, part numbers for the elements/groups are the same. the only difference is that max aperture is f2 and min aperture is f16. The lens was marketed as a set with the Black AV-1 and most people refer to it as a cheaper lens than the f1.8. However as the parts count is the same as the f1.8 and the only differences are name ring, aperture ring and helicoid ( different lettering/numbers), where is the cost saving? My guess is that when set up as a f2 lens the adjustment was easier/quicker. The Canon references are 'FD-NEW General Information 8CL12 address B13' and 'Parts List reference No C21-6181'. This information has been available for years in the official nFD repair manuals.I cannot find the reference to a specific market for this body lens combination, so my memory may be wrong about this aspect.

In answer to AK's question about not mounting the FL 19/3.5, 58/1.2 and R58/1.2, 100/3.5 on the A Series. Canon gave those specific instructions for a very good reason - try to mount them and you will wreck the camera, just placing the FL19/3.5 on the mount will leave you with a cracked/ruined mirror. The others will leave you with damage to the internal linkages or worse. Just follow Canon's instructions because J.W's basic rule does not hold for these four lenses.

2. From : JWoods (centurywoods@yahoo.com)
Url : http://
Date : 02:38 PM Saturday 14 January, 2006

Not sure with the FD canon/FL combination. I can share some experience with the Nikon though. Technically speaking, with the common F-mount all older Nikkor can be mount and used on any Nikon body - except for the metering. For many entry and mid range AF Nikon, looks like it matches perfectly which is essential for other advance camera functions on exposures and metering. I read about the warning of older Reflex Nikkor on some bodies like the pro-grade F4, F5. I can used them, shoot normally and obtained good results. KInd of over-cautious official statement in the manual (esp the older non-AF models) but I do know what I have given out on the functionality when some AF Nikkor are used on older Nikon models. Well, may be I can picked up something from fellow Canon folks with the replies on your question on such possibilities. Whatever, the basic rule is, when you feel there are resistance when mounting, stop being a hero.

3. From : AK (ivansbacon@hotmail.com)
Url : http://
Date : 11:59 AM Saturday 14 January, 2006

first time question:
in reading about the canon a1 it was stated :
"Out of the several series of Canon lenses there are a few individual lenses which cannot be used on the A-1. Do not attempt to mount the following four lenses:

FL 19mm f/3.5
FL 58mm f/1 2
R 58mm f/1.2
R 100mm f/3.5 "

it says " do not attempt"
will this cause damage , what will happen?

4. From : Robert Glenn Middleton (the_redd_groyne@hotmail.co.uk)
Url : http://
Date : 09:58 AM Saturday 14 January, 2006

From what I have read the Canon 50mm f2.0 nFD lens is basically a cheaper re-badged f1.8. It was produced for a specific camera and market, one of the later A Series and Asia seems to ring a bell. However at the moment I cannot lay my hands on the specific file box. I will post the references when I find them, but at least one document is an official Canon publication. As to the rarity of the lens; they have appeared on eBay over the years and whilst uncommon in the UK, I suppose it all depends on the production run for the intended market giving a true indication.

5. From : rick oleson (rick_oleson@yahoo.com)
Url : http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-99.html
Date : 09:36 AM Thursday 12 January, 2006

Hi Simon:From what little I can see in the photo, that does look like an OM mount. If it won't fit on your OM2, it won't fit on any other OM camera either, there is no difference in the mounts. If you are able to take good close digital photos of it, email some to me and I'll see if I can figure out what's up with it.

6. From : simon (sting@oceanfree.net)
Url : http://
Date : 07:26 AM Thursday 12 January, 2006

Hi I recently aquired a Promura C.P. Hi-Lux MC 1:3.9/4.9 f=28 to 80mm lens (serial 211891) advertised as OM mount in eBAY. However, when it came, it did'nt fit my OM-2 camera at all. I was wondering if anyone would know what type of lens mount this this? Here's a link to the camera http://cgi.ebay.ie/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7574858332&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWN%3AIT&rd=1

Thanks.

7. From : Miti Ruangkritya (miti139@hotmail.com)
Url : http://www.flickr.com/photos/minkminkmink
Date : 02:13 AM Thursday 12 January, 2006

Hi Rick, Clearly someone is having quite an issue around here... I suppose the best way about this thing is just try and ignore it. Thanks for your information again. I probably will look at keh.com and see if 50mm f1.2 does come up on the market otherwise I might just go for the f1.4 kind regards,

8. From : J-Ho (private_jerryPP@hotmail.com)
Url : http://nil
Date : 05:54 PM Wednesday 11 January, 2006

This is not the most popular message board system on the internet (sorry, the top have minimum 500,000 posts and above). So, I hope this action is not personal aiming at the host. But strange, I don't seem to read offensive matters so far (even the personal site, except fo the humor).

9. From : Gen Holst (genholst@excite.co.uk)
Url : http://nil
Date : 01:33 PM Wednesday 11 January, 2006

Wow... nice to be back to a "clean" environment of the Message Board. Why these people lack ethical internet culture, even knowing none of us bother of what they are trying to promote ? Paid to do so, I think. Then the appointtee must be stupid, because it creates more negative than positive results. huh ?

10. From : rick (rick_oleson@yahoo.com)
Url : http://rick_oleson.tripod.com
Date : 08:11 AM Wednesday 11 January, 2006

Hi Miti: My 50/2.0 weighs 194 grams; my 50/1.4 weighs 308. These are both old Non-AI lenses with the silver nose and metal focusing rings. My 50/1.2 AIS weighs 369 grams, and it's so fat that the camera won't quite sit flat on a table with the lens attached. Despite the weight, I now use the 50/1.2 more than the 50/2.0 on my FM2n; the 50mm normal lens I usually choose for my Nikon F is the 50/1.4. This is more because it's the "correct" lens for that camera than any particular optical preference. The older 50/2.0 stays on the Nikkormat that it originally came on. So, which lens I use depends more on which camera I happen to pick up than on a preference for the lens.

Very sorry about the blizzard of spam that has been pouring onto this site; even though these spammers are subhuman life forms, they have shown a remarkable abilty to adapt and avoid extermination.... much like an antibiotic-resistant parasite (which, in fact, is what they are). The site maintainers are struggling constantly to clean up the messes these cretins leave, and are doing all they can to find ways to better fight against them. :)=

PAGE | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216