What Lenses can I use on Canon DSLR ?

E

En7ropy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4
Edit My Images
No
Hi I am new to all this and have a Canon eos 700d.
Is it possible to use old glass on these cameras?
I cant afford the new auto focus primes and have noticed some older manual focus lenses on Ebay.
I am after a 20 to 28 mm focal length.
Thank you.
 
So long as they are eos mount they will fit your camera
 
Some of the older lenses on ebay will be FD mount and so won't work on the 700D without a mount adapter. This might make it more of a pain to use them properly and might negate any benefits you gain.

All Canon EF and EF-S mount lenses as well as Canon mount lenses by Sigma, Tamron and Tokina will fit and work with your camera and there can be some good bargains to be had out there.
 
You can use any lens on Canon APS-C or cropped body if you can find the right EF/EF-S mount, adapter or not.
 
If you are looking at older manual focus lenses, you can use just about anything that's not Canon FD with a suitable adapter. That said, there are FD-EF adapters about which include an optical lens, though they will degrade the quality of the image.

There will be no autofocus (obviously :)) and you'll have to be working with manual aperture control stop down metering (no auto diaphragm on the lens). Some of the more expensive adapters may feature a focus confirm chip, which will indicate the points in focus in the viewfinder.

You may get away with Aperture Priority metering, but IME with Olympus OM lenses on a 5D, you're better off with Manual Exposure and an external light meter, as I've found the built in metering on the camera to be unreliable. Other people have fared better, though.

Wider manual primes in the 20-28mm range have gone up in price over the last few years as they have been adopted by CSC camera users.
 
Thank you all for the replies.
I was told the old glass is a lot sharper and in some cases better value for money.
Does anyone know what adapter I need to be looking at is it possible to get one without anything optical?
I dont mind manual focus.
thanks.
 
Last edited:
En7ropy said:
Thank you all for the replies.
I was told the old glass is a lot sharper and in some cases better value for money.
Does anyone know what adapter I need to be looking at is it possible to get one without anything optical?
I dont mind manual focus.
thanks.
Click to expand...

Manual focus with a DSLR? Live view should be ok but very possibly a pain. I wouldn't bother.

You could go for an Olympus Zuiko 28mm f2.8 and a £10 adapter off ebay.

My advice is to not to spend too much until you're sure you're happy with manual focus.
 
Last edited:
Thanks.
From what I have read about recording video on a Dslr manual focus is the only way to go!
 
For vid I believe you may be right but manually focusing a DSLR through the VF can be difficult. I've tried it but I decided it wasn't for me although I've very happy to use legacy lenses on my Panasonic G1 as it has a magnified view which aids focusing no end.

I have 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8 and 135mm f3.5 Olympus Zuiko's and they work well on my 5D with a £10 adapter but accurate focus is difficult.

Still, it'll only cost you £30 or so to give it a try.

Good luck if you do!

PS. One thing about Zuiko lenses and possibly others... if you're shooting vid will you be changing apertures whilst shooting? If so you should probably give some thought to how smooth and/or noisy changing apertures is. My Zuiko's aperture rings are rather clunky.
 
En7ropy said:
Thanks. From what I have read about recording video on a Dslr manual focus is the only way to go!
Click to expand...

Nope, not with the new STM lenses.
 
En7ropy said:
I was told the old glass is a lot sharper and in some cases better value for money.
Click to expand...
Sharper? No. Lens design has come on in leaps and bounds in the last decade or so. A good modern lens will blow away a good old lens.

Better value for money? That's in the eye of the beholder.
 
En7ropy said:
Thank you all for the replies.
I was told the old glass is a lot sharper and in some cases better value for money.
Does anyone know what adapter I need to be looking at is it possible to get one without anything optical?
I dont mind manual focus.
thanks.
Click to expand...

A lot of the older lenses - from the quality manufacturers - are better built than their modern consumer equivalents, but I think the perception that they're sharper is largely a myth. Colour and contrast may be better though, if we're comparing high quality lenses from the film era with budget ones today. Better value? It depends how you look at it. Many of them are available at low cost now, and can still have impressive performance, but there are some inconveniences, and not everyone wants to deal with these.

Lots of adapters don't have the optical element - and are usually cheaper - but there can be infinity focus issues. Canon did offer adapters for some of their telephotos when they changed from FD to EF mount, which have the optical element, but these are difficult to find and expensive now.

MF on a DSLR crop body is a bit of a pain. These cameras were designed for use with AF lenses, the viewfinders are small/dark compared with the old SLRs, and they don't incorporate the focus aids (microprisms and split image) we took for granted in the film days. Some adapters are chipped to retain the focus confirmation indicator, and I suppose you could use live view, but I think you have to decide if this is worth it for you.

FWIW, I do use my old Nikkors on a 30D body with adapters, occaisonally, but my eyes are ageing now and I struggle a bit with MF, unless the light is good. I prefer using them with an F2, which is what they were designed for!
 
Last edited:
MartynK said:
A lot of the older lenses - from the quality manufacturers - are better built than their modern consumer equivalents, but I think the perception that they're sharper is largely a myth....

Lots of adapters don't have the optical element - and are usually cheaper - but there can be infinity focus issues....

MF on a DSLR crop body is a bit of a pain...
Click to expand...

I have Rokkor, Zuiko, Sigma and Vivitar legacy lenses and IMVHO every single one of them can stand comparison with modern lenses for sharpness. Brick wall tests against modern lenses gives some interesting results.

Infinity focus issues are specific to lens/body combinations such as Canon bodies and Canon FD or Rokkor lenses. It's only then that you need an adapter with a lens in it but even with these problem bodies there's often a legacy lens that you can use without a lens in the adapter, for example for Canon DSLR bodies Zuiko lenses just need a metal spacer without lens.
 
barratt1988 said:
On for a 550d for exaple a stm lens wont make a difference.. you still cant autofocus while recording
Click to expand...

nope, but with 70D you actually can get pretty decent results.

Bring on 5D mkIV with video AF and 4K RAW video!
 
I use an old 135mm hoya 1.8 m42 mount on my canon occasionally, if you grasp manual focus then you can produce some very good results but it is a bit tricky and not ideal for fast moving subjects.
I picked the m42-ef adapter for under a tenner off ebay
 
woof woof said:
I have Rokkor, Zuiko, Sigma and Vivitar legacy lenses and IMVHO every single one of them can stand comparison with modern lenses for sharpness. Brick wall tests against modern lenses gives some interesting results.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that many of the older lenses will stand comparison with modern ones for sharpness, but I was responding to the OP's comment that 'I was told the old glass is a lot sharper'. This implies significantly or considerably sharper, as a rule, and I'm not convinced that it's true, if we compare lenses of roughly equivalent quality. I'm not going to debate the results of tests based on shooting brick walls, because I'm not interested in doing this. I do use my old Nikkors on a 30D body sometimes, and I'm very satisfied with their performance in the field.

Infinity focus issues are specific to lens/body combinations such as Canon bodies and Canon FD or Rokkor lenses. It's only then that you need an adapter with a lens in it but even with these problem bodies there's often a legacy lens that you can use without a lens in the adapter, for example for Canon DSLR bodies Zuiko lenses just need a metal spacer without lens.
Click to expand...

Sure, but the OP is a beginner, and you need to learn what combinations will work with a simple mount adapter, and which require an optical adapter. This can get a bit complicated for someone starting out and looking for inexpensive solutions.
 
MartynK said:
I have no doubt that many of the older lenses will stand comparison with modern ones for sharpness, but I was responding to the OP's comment that 'I was told the old glass is a lot sharper'. This implies significantly or considerably sharper, as a rule, and I'm not convinced that it's true, if we compare lenses of roughly equivalent quality. I'm not going to debate the results of tests based on shooting brick walls, because I'm not interested in doing this. I do use my old Nikkors on a 30D body sometimes, and I'm very satisfied with their performance in the field.



Sure, but the OP is a beginner, and you need to learn what combinations will work with a simple mount adapter, and which require an optical adapter. This can get a bit complicated for someone starting out and looking for inexpensive solutions.
Click to expand...

Well there's the key. If you don't do the test then you simply don't know.

If you want to compare like for like then it's a complicated issue. What are you going to compare a Rokkor 50mm f1.7 or f1.4 to? A modern Canon AF 50mm f1.8? Or a Sigma AF 50mm f1.4?

If money is no object then the best modern lenses will probably be the best but at the price point some of these legacy lenses go for I think you'll have to look long and hard for a modern lens that'll match them and in that respect I suppose legacy lenses could be said to be a lot sharper. What modern lens is going to match a legacy 50mm f1.8 at a price point of £20-£50? :D A kit zoom? No chance :D

As for the complications of which lens will work with which body with or without an adapter, I don't think it's a complicated issue at all. All the OP or anyone else needs to do is Google the adapter they'd need, for example Canon FD to Canon eos, and the technical information will be easy enough to find. Personally I'd probably avoid the body and lens combinations that require a lens in the adapter but even with these when judging your real world images rather than my killer brick wall test perhaps even body and lens and adapter with lens combinations will still produce good results, mybe even sharper than a modern lens at the same price point.
 
woof woof said:
If money is no object then the best modern lenses will probably be the best but at the price point some of these legacy lenses go for I think you'll have to look long and hard for a modern lens that'll match them and in that respect I suppose legacy lenses could be said to be a lot sharper. What modern lens is going to match a legacy 50mm f1.8 at a price point of £20-£50? :D A kit zoom? No chance :D
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but you're twisting the OP's question to suit your answer. What he said was this:

En7ropy said:
I was told the old glass is a lot sharper and in some cases better value for money.
Click to expand...

Two separate issues here. "A lot sharper"? No. "Better value for money"? Quite possibly.
 
daugirdas said:
nope, but with 70D you actually can get pretty decent results.

Bring on 5D mkIV with video AF and 4K RAW video!
Click to expand...

Haha good luck with that. 4k will be a no show... what are you going to display it on? Your the only person I know of who actually wants video on a 5d. Id rather not have video and have a cheaper stills camera
 
barratt1988 said:
Haha good luck with that. 4k will be a no show... what are you going to display it on? Your the only person I know of who actually wants video on a 5d. Id rather not have video and have a cheaper stills camera
Click to expand...

We didn't get video on DSLR's because there was a massive clamour of photographers asking for it. It was a happy accident, and it'll follow whatever quality standard comes off the sensor.

Camera manufacturers wanted to appeal to all those digital P&S shooters who were used to a big rear screen (and stupid shooting position but I digress) so they fudged a 'live view' shooting mode.

Once this was done, it was a simple step to record the feed coming off the sensor - thus DSLR video was born - there wasn't a large number of videographers lobbying for video from stills cams, but when they discovered it they were hooked. The only 'improvement' required only for video is frame rate.

As for it being a small market :cuckoo:, there's not a week goes by that I can't spot some DSLR shot video on TV, on a wide variety of shows, it gives a very different 'look' to even broadcast quality video cameras. The market for HQ video on DSLR's is massive, you need to understand how cheap it is in comparison to HQ video cam's.
 
Phil V said:
We didn't get video on DSLR's because there was a massive clamour of photographers asking for it. It was a happy accident, and it'll follow whatever quality standard comes off the sensor.

Camera manufacturers wanted to appeal to all those digital P&S shooters who were used to a big rear screen (and stupid shooting position but I digress) so they fudged a 'live view' shooting mode.

Once this was done, it was a simple step to record the feed coming off the sensor - thus DSLR video was born - there wasn't a large number of videographers lobbying for video from stills cams, but when they discovered it they were hooked. The only 'improvement' required only for video is frame rate.

As for it being a small market :cuckoo:, there's not a week goes by that I can't spot some DSLR shot video on TV, on a wide variety of shows, it gives a very different 'look' to even broadcast quality video cameras. The market for HQ video on DSLR's is massive, you need to understand how cheap it is in comparison to HQ video cam's.
Click to expand...

I cant remember askin for the history of video on dslrs?

And yes they are being used more for tv as they are cheap. My point is ask a photographer if hed rather a cheaper camera which doesnt have video and im very sure hed take the stills. Every man and his dog had HD video now.. does anyone use it?... no
 
For anyone buying legacy lenses for DSLRs, be aware that as a general rule of thumb, decent prime lenses are still decent prime lenses and will generally beat a modern zoom (and probably many modern, cheaper end of the scale primes). Old zooms however are not so good and have been vastly improved over the years. There are some exceptions e.g. Tamron SP 35-80mm, but it's best to go for primes unless you are simply after a competant zoom for little money.
 
barratt1988 said:
I cant remember askin for the history of video on dslrs?

And yes they are being used more for tv as they are cheap. My point is ask a photographer if hed rather a cheaper camera which doesnt have video and im very sure hed take the stills. Every man and his dog had HD video now.. does anyone use it?... no
Click to expand...

Does anyone use it - Yes, loads of people (clearly not you though ;), I appreciate you often have difficulty between 'anyone' and 'me' :))

And the point of my "history of video on dslrs?" :shrug:; Would the camera be cheaper without it? - No! Video came free with Live View (like I explained), which most people use sometimes (even if rarely). So removing video wouldn't give you a "cheaper camera which doesn't have video", it'd give you the same priced camera without video :shrug:

"There are none so blind as those that will not see"
 
Yes, manual focus on DSLRs is more difficult than it used to be on 35mm SLRs years ago. The old camera were FF, had brighter viewfinders and often split image screens which made manual focus easy.

Manual focus on DSLRs is not impossible, not by a long way, it just takes a bit of practice and the focus confirmation in the viewfinder does help. However, this is a personal view and others may find it far too difficult.

But for the comparatively small cost of many old lenses I reckon it is worth a try.

Dave

The two shots I posted (post 12) on this - http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=494014 - thread were taken with a manual focus lens.
 
Tringa said:
Yes, manual focus on DSLRs is more difficult than it used to be on 35mm SLRs years ago. The old camera were FF, had brighter viewfinders and often split image screens which made manual focus easy.

Manual focus on DSLRs is not impossible, not by a long way, it just takes a bit of practice and the focus confirmation in the viewfinder does help. However, this is a personal view and others may find it far too difficult.

But for the comparatively small cost of many old lenses I reckon it is worth a try.

Dave

The two shots I posted (post 12) on this - http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=494014 - thread were taken with a manual focus lens.
Click to expand...

Spot on, I've been using manual lenses on DSLRs for five years now, starting with a humble Sony a200 and Helios 44M / Pentacon 135/2.8 combo. The rewards are amazing for the little expense made.
 
Tringa said:
Yes, manual focus on DSLRs is more difficult than it used to be on 35mm SLRs years ago. The old camera were FF, had brighter viewfinders and often split image screens which made manual focus easy.

Manual focus on DSLRs is not impossible, not by a long way, it just takes a bit of practice and the focus confirmation in the viewfinder does help. However, this is a personal view and others may find it far too difficult.

But for the comparatively small cost of many old lenses I reckon it is worth a try.

Dave

The two shots I posted (post 12) on this - http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=494014 - thread were taken with a manual focus lens.
Click to expand...

Yip. Split image focusing aids were common. I know Nikon and Canon offered various interchangeable screens for different purposes for some of their models, and other manufacturers may have done so too. Nikons normally came with the K screen IIRC, which was a fresnel/matt screen with a split image aid in the centre surrounded by a microprism collar. It worked well, and mine still does!

I can use MF with my DSLR in good light, but it's a bit of a challenge with my ageing eyes and I don't have live view.

I suppose we have to remember that these cameras, and their lenses, were designed long before AF became mainstream. A lot of modern lenses still have an MF focus ring, but it's really meant for tweaking the AF, and they lack the long throw, dampened, MF rings of the older ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top