If they can make a teleconverter or an extension tube that couples with a lens and a lens that contains its own focusing motor, they can make an adapter from a Nikon body to a Canon FD lens. To say that it’s impossible to adapt a Canon lens, or any other lens with a negative flange-to-film-plane distance for that matter, is simply a lie. If like me, You’re a Nikonian with a considerable investment in Canon glass, you might consider getting one of these. In exploring the option of converting my FD lenses for use with my new Nikon body, I came across many a claim that this is simply not possible. A means to use Canon FD lenses on a Nikon body. They said it could not be done and yet here it is. True, it would no longer function as a telephoto lens, and the reproduction ratio scale on the lens itself would be off, but it would certainly give this very useful lens a new purpose. With the 1.4x element removed, there would be no degradation in image quality. Would it not be worth $39.99 to have a dedicated 150mm f/3.5 macro lens? In addition to the Canon FD to Nikon F lens mount adapter, Fotodiox also offers a Minolta MD/MC to Nikon adapter. When I acquired my Minolta SRT-201, it came with a beat-up Vivitar standard zoom, and a Genuine Rokkor-X 100mm f/3.5 macro lens in pristine condition.
It might even have something to do with the $500.00-$900.00 price tag. I can’t help it I’ve been having so much fun exploring all the ways I can get around it. If you dont want or need the eye-focue of the EOS3 you could get a 1V and a second hand 70-200 2.8 L non-IS model - there's quite a few around and they're reasonably priced now.or stick with the EOS3 and get the IS version.Īt the end of the day, they're all great cameras, and it depends which one you like most.for me the canon handling and lenses make them the top choice.So I guess it’s pretty clear by now that I’ve been consciously avoiding the purchase of a dedicated macro lens. So, my call is Canon with the 70-200 2.8 L IS, if you cant stretch to the IS model, the older 70-200 2.8 L was equaly brilliant, but dont buy the 70-200 f4 - its really bad (well for a canon USM!) autofocus especially in low light. Also, i could never get on with the eye-focus which is the major difference between the two. I tried both before i bought mine, and just prefered the 1V. As far as the choice goes - I use a 1V, a very close friend has the 3. I've had mine for about 6months and my god is it good! Autofocus is instant and silent. Personally, being a Canon user I am probably biased however, the 70-200 2.8 L IS lens is the sharpest of its kind from any manufacturer. Well, this old chestnut again! At the end of the day it's personal choice - as Pete said, try them all and see. The chance to try things is worth the saving.
Just another point on courtesy if the shop is very helpful and is willing to spend time with you so you can try lots of things don't then buy from a different dealer down the road because you'll save a few quid. Look for a low light area in the shop that will come close to the levels you want to shoot in and point at different parts of the shop to see how each cope. If you go early on in the day (or later in the afternoon) when the shop isn't busy they will find it easier to spend more time with you than at a busy lunch period. Both Minoltas will have a similar speed so try the Dynax 7 against the Nikon and Canon. To be sure about focusing I would find a friendly dealer and ask to check out each for speed using a 70-200mm lens. A more important decision may come down to features and whether the available accessories will suit your future requirements.
But these days all three are similar and it would be hard to pick a winner. In the past I would have said Canon had the best aufofocus speed, followed closely behind by Minolta, with Nikon lagging at the back.