jrobichaud
Member
Canon FD lenses can be used with no image degradation if no glass is used. The secret there is to use the ED Mitka adapter (very thin and precise) and if the lens is long enough, you can keep infinity. The 800mm 5.6L worked, but the 300mm 2.8 doesn't make infinity. Strangely enough, the easiest to use MF lenses with Canon are the older EDIF Nikkors. The 500mm that you owned is among the best. Sounds like size is a concern there so I would put the Nikkor 300mm f 2.8 or the Nikkor 400mm 3.5 against the Leitz 280mm any time. And you can find them all day long. I still have a 400mm 3.5 EDIF if you like to give it a go. It's user grade, but cheap.No, I am looking for the best optical quality regardless of AF, MF, IS, or else, as I wrote in the original post:Hang on a second, first off it sounded like you were looking at AF lenses, now you are saying you don't need AF, so that would mean you would be looking at the Canon FD mounts of long tele lenses. Or do you plan to buy AF lenses and turn the AF off. I'm getting confused here
What exactly are you after ??.
"What I am looking for is the best optical qualities (bokeh, apo correction, color fidelity, etc.), not the best AF or IS stuff."
I am simply looking for the best (optically) lens in the 300-400mm range with my budget, if it's MF, then be it, if it's AF, it's a bonus.
Here is an issue, weight vs focal lengh. I used in the past an old Nikon 500mm ai-p, all MF but for hiking/trekking it was quite a pain, also because with a big lens comes a big tripod, tripod head and big backpack. Talking about FD lenses, did you changed the original mount to the EOS one or did you use an adapter? I was told the Canon adapter FD to Eos takes its toll on image quality.
Best,
Jon
