I have a Canon T3 DSLR, and like most digital SLRs it has a part of the body that overhangs the lens attachment area. I am wondering if I bought one of those fat looking mirror telephoto lens if it might not connect to the body because of the overhang. I am thinking when the older lens were made the film SLR's did not have this overhang so mounting was no problem. I wonder if it is now? I am thinking of the M42 screw mount Bower or Opteka 500mm mirror lens. BTW, can you render any opinions on mirror lens in general or these in particular? P.S. Don't recommend some $2K lens to me. They are out of the question. Thanks for your feedback.

Watch out for the language police!

What is the right thing to do here? Before you get the wrong impression, let me tell you this. In 1995 I made a $15K withdrawl from my savings account. The teller mistakingly credited it as a $15k deposit. I could have done one of 3 things: 1. Kept my mouth shut and be 30K ahead. 2. Tell the bank manager and do the right(?) thing, my account is back to where it should be, and one teller has lost her job. 3. Wait an hour in line and dance around until I could see the same teller and let her correct the mistake herself, and save her job. I will let you guess which one I picked. All actions have consequences, sometimes unintended. So think first.

Yes, by all means, notify them of their mistake, and you can feel righteous while some poor chump loses his job.

I can make a recommendation. I bought an M42/EOS lens adapter that allows you to mount screw mount lenses to a Canon camera. It has the contacts that allow it to interface somewhat with the camera. Manual focus, manual setting of SS and ISO, but still using those old lenses you love so much. The cost? $5.50! IE. five and a half bucks. with free shipping on a slow boat from China, ebay user wea.jo. It works! I just bought one for a test, but now I will buy more so I will have an adapter permanent on each lens.

[quote=Peterff]Does one need to blow the dust off a Durst?

Could be interesting to explore!

:I will look for it and see how dirty it is.

Do they still make film for brownies? I think it was 127 if I remember right. Actually a brownie can take an excellent picture if A. subject is at infinity range B. Plenty of sunlight C. subject doesn't move around. When I was in Vietnam I saw a little boy riding on a water buffalo. It was twilight, but I had to get that picture. I put a flash bulb in, walked in front of them (a buffalo must be tame, right? I mean a 5 year old kid is riding on him), and was within a few feet when I shot it. Flash! The damn buffalo freaked out and almost gored me. Fortunately I was within his horn radius. The picture was blurred (the buffalo moved and I was closer than infinity), and badly lit. So I got a crummy picture and almost got killed. But other than that they worked fine.

I still have my Durst enlarger. Haven't used it in years.

My first cameras were a Kodak Brownie and a Polaroid J33. My first SLR was a Mamiya/Sekor 1000 TL with a F1.8 lens. Later I added Vivitar 35mm wide angle and 135mm telephoto lens, as well as a 2X and a 3X teleconverter. They all worked fine, but when I first went to Europe in 76 I found that most of my shooting was wide angle, and 35mm wasn't wide enough. About 80% WA, 15% tele and the rest, usually in low light situations, with my F1.8. Later I got an F1.4, and zooms for WA and Telephoto. I also find with my Canon digital that most of my shooting is with the 18-55. I am overwhelmed with all of the features. Variable ISO (!) up to 6400 makes me think a F3.5 is capable of low light shots. This ring only cost me 5.50 so I really have nothing to lose. I had been pondering getting a Canon EF F1.8 or F1.4, but thought I would try out my old lens first. Is there any market on ebay, or elsewhere, for old 35mm film equipment? I have 2 Mamiya/Sekor bodies, 1 Praktica, and 1 Pentax, as well as 2 zoom lenses. Just wondering. I know the minute I tried digital I knew I would never go back to film.

I haven't yet received the ring, it is on a slow boat from China, but when I do I will report my results and impressions. My Canon came with a 18-55 mm lens and I bought a 55-250 mm lens on ebay. When I shot low light pictures with them I did get exposures, but the light sources were blurred and over exposed. I am still learning this thing, it is another universe with a substantial learning curve. I also bought two lens extenders. Both Vivitars, one was a wide angle extender with macro, the other a 2.2 X tele-extender. They were cheap so I figured what the heck, I will see what happens. The wide-angle actually turned out pretty good, auto-focus thruout, with clear exposures with a widened range and only slight distortion except at the very furthest end. As for the tele-extender, forget it. Auto focus drops out about halfway thru, and beyond that you simply do not get a focusable image, even with the manual focusing ring. Garbage. 1 for 2 I guess.

I am new to both automatic and digital photography. However, I am an old fart with 35mm SLRs and no doubt my terminolagy would betray that even if I didn't confess it up front. When I was gifted with a Canon T3 I was delighted with the advantages of digital vs. film, but saddened that my M42 screw mount lenses I had accumulated over the last 40+ years were now useless. Or so I thought until I saw, on ebay, adapters that would allow me to mount an M42 lens to a Canon EOS body. You had to give up autofocus and automatic exposure, but since the primary idea was to be able to use my Pentax F1.4 lens for low light situations, I don't mind manual focus and using only the aperture priority setting. Am I missing something? I have no doubt the purists will consider me a Philistine, but I am the pragmatic type. Feedback please.