Question about an old lens (Page 2): I wish I could give you more info but could not find mych about the one I had either. About 10 years ago I had one come in to my store stuck on a...

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Altprocess wrote:

Does anyone have any information on a Canon FD mount Sigma 40-300mm f4.5-6.5 lens? It has an 82mm filter size. I posted this question in the Canon FD Facebook group but got only "nos". I have performed multiple searches on the web and even emailed Sigma corp directly. It seems to be really well-made. I'm hoping the collective knowledge here has an answer.

I wish I could give you more info but could not find mych about the one I had either. About 10 years ago I had one come in to my store stuck on a Canon A-1 body, the owner could not get it off the body. I tried for about an hour and finally got it off but the mount was damaged. Customer said to just trash it as he no longer wanted it.
I took an FD mount off an old 200mm F4 lens that had fungis in it and put that on the 40-300. It was a bit cumbersome on my F1 body but the pictures weren't too bad overall. My research came up dry though as far as any info, but I thought it strange that it only had a VERY low 5 digit serial number, don't remember exactly what the number was but I think it was 10006.
Sold it to a collector out of the Seattle area.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Altprocess wrote:

You’re right but I’m happy with what I have. Don’t want to sell me EF L glass but I’m sure there are adapters for that too. Shoot a lot of film still. I have a Pellix, AE-1P, EF, New F-1, T70, 80, and 90. Three EOS film bodies too. I’ve had my right wrist rebuilt twice and have no strength in it. Film cameras are easier for me to use without a tripod. I can really only use my 100-400 L on a tripod now.

I have no experience with the lens.
A Canon mirrorless camera starting at about
$700 or less though will let you use all your FD lenses with an adapter not requiring a glass element to get infinity. I find the Urth adapters be well made and well priced.
And then get the Canon EF-RF adapter for your EF lenses.
One body using all your lenses.
I have done this with the R7 for IBIS being added to my FD, FL and R manual lenses.
Your 40-300mm then can be used without an adapter with extra glass in it.
a good FD to EF adapter work well but I have found that the FD to RF adapter gets the full potential of the FD lens better than I thought it would.
Good luck.

BebuLamar

Altprocess wrote:

I put it on the EF today and took the last shot of a roll.

I have 2 EF's. One fully working and one not fully working. The EF is much nicer than the newer AE-1.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

BebuLamar wrote:

I have 2 EF's. One fully working and one not fully working. The EF is much nicer than the newer AE-1.

Yes, I have an EF as well.
It was the automatic equivalent to the F-1.
Built like a tank.

Mojaveflyer Loc: Denver, CO

I just found one on EBAY and got it for astrophotography. I found adapters for both EF and the R bodies. It's manual but it appears to be a well made lens. It's just that the f stop and focus will be manually adjusted. I bought a Rokinon 14 mm lens that completely manual and have had very good results with it.

gwilliams6

I used Canon AE-1 and Canon A1 back when I was a staffer on Newsday Newspaper in New York. Used Nikon and Leica back then also. But my all-time favorite Canon SLR were my F1. So tough, it just always worked even under the worst conditions, like while covering the War in Nicaragua in the jungles and rainforest mountains.

Still have one working copy. I use it when I teach my 35mm B&W film course at a state university. Still have a few Canon SLR FD lenses too, but never had that Sigma one. I have owned modern FE-mount Sigma, and E-mount Sigma lenses.

I tried, but couldn't find much on that lens.

Cheers and best to you.

josquin1 Loc: Massachusetts

gwilliams6 wrote:

I used Canon AE-1 and Canon A1 back when I was a s... (show quote)

Yes I still have my Canon F1 system and pulled it out a couple of months ago replaced the battery and she still worked. Quite a camera.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

josquin1 wrote:

Yes I still have my Canon F1 system and pulled it out a couple of months ago replaced the battery and she still worked. Quite a camera.

gwilliams6

josquin1 wrote:

Yes I still have my Canon F1 system and pulled it out a couple of months ago replaced the battery and she still worked. Quite a camera.

I agree, quite a camera.

Cheers and best to you.

Altprocess Loc: Connecticut

Thanks to everyone who replied. I guess I should have been clearer that I know how to use the lens and how it attaches, etc. I've been shooting Canon FD since 1986. I was hoping to find information on when it was built, the number of elements/groups, that sort of information. The serial number is 6600105, but that is currently meaningless to me since I do not what the start number was. I am including an image noting that it is a Sigma but that it also has a horizontal 3 followed by II. I don't know what that indicates, but maybe a Sigma afficionado will. The 86mm front element makes this lens massive and it does not have a tripod ring. Cannot imagine it would sell on eBay so I'll keep it as an oddity and see what kind of images I get from it.

gwilliams6

Altprocess wrote:

Thanks to everyone who replied. I guess I should h... (show quote)

Enjoy.

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

If it is a FD mount Sigma it was made in a time when a Canon zoom had exceptable image quality, it was a time when, if you wanted a good image you bought a prime lens. Now when you moved from a major maker, like Canon or Nikon, to one of the aftermarket, off brand name zooms, they were crap. Just saying, if is is a pre auto focus, it was not computer designed and zooms were few and far between and considered poor quality.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

wmurnahan wrote:

If it is a FD mount Sigma it was made in a time when a Canon zoom had exceptable image quality, it was a time when, if you wanted a good image you bought a prime lens. Now when you moved from a major maker, like Canon or Nikon, to one of the aftermarket, off brand name zooms, they were crap. Just saying, if is is a pre auto focus, it was not computer designed and zooms were few and far between and considered poor quality.

Sidestepping the question of quality of film-era zooms, my problem with manual focus zooms is the difficulty of using them effectively. It's one thing to adjust the lens to a specific focal length within the zoom range, than focus and shoot. It's still another exercise completely to dynamically adjust the focal length to a subject, especially a moving subject, and manually focus the lens. At least on a digital body, you're not wasting film along with your time.

gwilliams6

CHG_CANON wrote:

Sidestepping the question of quality of film-era zooms, my problem with manual focus zooms is the difficulty of using them effectively. It's one thing to adjust the lens to a specific focal length within the zoom range, than focus and shoot. It's still another exercise completely to dynamically adjust the focal length to a subject, especially a moving subject, and manually focus the lens. At least on a digital body, you're not wasting film along with your time.

Millions of shooters, hobbyists and pros like myself, did just that for decades before there were autofocus lenses. All our sports and action shots were accomplished with zooming and focusing at the same time. Most zoom lens were par focal back then which helped.

Shooters today have it so much easier. If I miss AF on even one shot out of a 30 fps burst, I have to remind myself of the past and calm down, LOL

Cheers and best to you.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

gwilliams6 wrote:

Millions of shooters, hobbyists and pros like myself, did just that for decades before there were autofocus lenses. All our sports and action shots were accomplished with zooming and focusing at the same time. Most zoom lens were par focal back then which helped.

Shooters today have it so much easier. If I miss AF on one shot out of a 30 fps burst, I have to remind myself of the past and calm down, LOL

Cheers and best to you.

Given the limited choices of relevant film-era zoom lenses, your memories of accomplishments past are likely more vivid than accurate ...