1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Looking for Canon FD 17mm samples here specially if you have the SEL16F28 too

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by shaolin95, Jun 28, 2014.

  1. shaolin95

    shaolin95 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    942
    Jul 3, 2013
    Hi!
    As some may know, I am starting a FD lenses collection for my soon to arrive Lens Turbo 2 and was wondering about the 17mm FD lens and how it may compare to the SEL16F28 with UWA. So far have not found direct comparisons so if if by any chance you guys have, I would love to see them to see what I can improve (if any).
    Thanks!
     
  2. mingus2112

    mingus2112 TalkEmount Regular

    142
    Jun 16, 2014
    I don't have any constructive input - just jumping on the thread as i'm interested as well. I think at that wide an angle, though, what you would gain the most on the SEL lens is correction for any distortion of the image. . .automatically. You won't get that on the Canon. What I want out of a lens that wide is mostly for things that you wouldn't notice a but of mild image distortion.

    Glad you went with the Canon LT, by the way. As you can tell from my posts, i'm a hardcore Minolta enthusiast. . .but even I can tell when it's not the way to go. The Canon prime you've got is clearly a winner! A 17mm would be a great addition to that if you determine the Canon version is worth it!

    -James
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. shaolin95

    shaolin95 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    942
    Jul 3, 2013
    Thanks amigo.
    I got a 35-105mm 3.5 and a 200mm 2.8 IF coming in too so I am super excited about next week! :D
     
  4. izTheViz

    izTheViz TalkEmount Top Veteran

    537
    May 10, 2013
    Paris
    Yannis Marigo
    Hey,

    Would rather go for the 20/2.8. Better IQ, less disto, wide enough.
     
  5. shaolin95

    shaolin95 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    942
    Jul 3, 2013
    I don't want to go back in terms of wideness though so I guess I better stay with the SEL16F28 and uwa.
     
  6. izTheViz

    izTheViz TalkEmount Top Veteran

    537
    May 10, 2013
    Paris
    Yannis Marigo
    In that case I think the FD 17 will give better result than the SEL16.
     
  7. Bugleone

    Bugleone TalkEmount Veteran

    210
    Aug 21, 2011
    If I remember correctly, the 17mm is NOT a retrofocus design like the other FD wides. It was never either common of inexpensive and only worked on the bodies that had mirror lock up because the rear element almost touches the shutter curtain. a separate optical viewfinder was supplied with the lens.

    In practice this means that all the problems with using ultra wide rangefinder lenses are also likely to apply with the 17mm, since it was essentially a rangefinder lens remounted for SLR. Although I like and value my old FD collection, I have toe say that you would probably be better off with the sony 16mm which will be much smaller and lighter too.
     
  8. Rollin

    Rollin TalkEmount Regular

    97
    Jul 2, 2014
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa
    Long time lurker, first day posting;
    I have the Canon 17mm f/4 FD (no mirror lock needed on my T90 or F1 in the day) and can shoot it against a SEL16 this weekend for you. So far I am not impressed with it on my a6000 and thinking of selling it. My Canon 35mmm f/2 & 50 mac FD's have been very good. When I tested it against my SEL1670Z I was surprised to to find the zoom better. Think I deleted all my files from it, but will look on my other computer.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. shaolin95

    shaolin95 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    942
    Jul 3, 2013
    Please do so. Looks like it may not be the awesome lens I wanted but I would like to see it against the SEL16 for sure. I will be using it with a Lens Turbo 2 so maybe that will help or maybe not. :)

     
  10. Rollin

    Rollin TalkEmount Regular

    97
    Jul 2, 2014
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa
    Had time for quick test. All shot on a6000 at ISO 100, f/8, SOOC jpgs, DRO off, on tripod, 2 sec. delay, detail crops are of flies on the left mid of the image. I'll add some more to this album in a bit:

    I could not get the image embed to work and ran out of time to mess with it anymore. Photos can be seen/downloaded here:
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/banderob/14611932783

    If you can afford it also consider the Sony E 10-18 f/4. I have shot with our Sony reps copy and liked what I saw.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Rollin

    Rollin TalkEmount Regular

    97
    Jul 2, 2014
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa
    Up loading a few more to the same Flickr album. Not taking time to label them as you can see that in Flickr - the one with no lens named is the Canon 17mm f/4. Same standards as mentioned before on all of these.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. shaolin95

    shaolin95 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    942
    Jul 3, 2013
    Thanks a lot for sharing those man!
    I am seeing that the 17mm is really not that different from the SEL16, in fact, the 16 comes out looking sharper in those images although on the tree pic I prefer the Canon rendering. I wonder if the Lens Turbo will help with the CA (I have seen it help with other lenses like my 200mm 2.8) but right now, I am feeling like just keeping the SEL16 unless I can find a cheap 17mm or maybe later get the SEL1018 :)
    Thanks for this help!