Canon EOS3 - lens compatibility

Thomas Bertilsson

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,708
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
So,

I bought an EOS3 in almost new condition. In the near future I plan on buying the 50mm f/1.8 EF lens, which I have used in the past with an Elan 7e to great effect and with results that outperform my own abilities as a photographer. It's more than good enough.

But, I read somewhere that it's possible to use M42 screwmount lenses, like a Pentax M42 50mm f/1.4 lens via an adapter. What do I need to make this work?

Thanks for your help. I'm used to Pentax where everything is compatible with everything. The Canon world is a little confusing to me.
 

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,546
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format
You need a 3rd party lensmount adapter. There are lots of these on eBay, but they are of varying quality. Go searching for reviews on m42-Canon EOS adapters to find which ones are best - some will not give you infinity focus because they're too thick, others may be likely to get stuck on your camera (I had that happen, frighteningly, on my Canon 5D with a Contax MM/Canon EOS adapter, and it bent part of the focusing screen retaining clip by the time I got it off). This is one thing NOT to cut corners on because solving the problem(s) a cheap one can cause may be far more costly than the better grade adapter.
 

baachitraka

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
3,553
Location
Bremen, Germany.
Format
Multi Format
I try to adapt OM Zuikos with an adapter for EOS 650(One that I really like).

It works, but focusing was a problem for me since I do not have any focusing screens apart from one which came with the camera.

For me the infinity is two or three degress turn before lens infinity :-(

---

With EF lenses, negs come out really really well.
 

Hatchetman

Member
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
1,553
Location
Chicago, IL
Format
Multi Format
The body/mount/mirror situation on the EOS 3 is exactly like the 5Dii, so you can find a lot of info on the net about which lenses work. I picked up a $12 adapter from B&H. Works fine, but no auto-focus confirm. It is worth buying it to see if you really want to mess with this proposition and buy an expensive adapter. The screen is not designed for manual focus, so it can be a little difficult to focus depending on your eyes. The Takumar 50mm 1.4 will not work. I suggest the 55mm 1.8, which is an awesome lens. Given it costs like $25 it is a no brainer. I have both and think the 55mm is better. 28mm f3.5 is another great cheap lens.
 

erikg

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2003
Messages
1,444
Location
pawtucket rh
Format
Multi Format
Interesting that takumar 50 1.4 does not work. I use one on my 5D and it does. CameraQuest sells high quality adapters, well worth it if you are doing this a lot.
 
OP
OP

Thomas Bertilsson

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,708
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
Thanks, all.

It sounds too complicated. I think I'll just go with the Canon lenses, or those that fit it without adapter.
 

baachitraka

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
3,553
Location
Bremen, Germany.
Format
Multi Format
For some reason, all those adapters are not the same. Some are happy and others are not(including me).
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,019
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Some of the Canon EOS cameras don't seem to meter accurately with some adapters.

My Elan IIe works fine with a focus confirming adapter for my Olympus lenses, but my Elan 7e doesn't.
 
OP
OP

Thomas Bertilsson

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,708
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
erikg said:
Very true. I wouldn't bother with it if I wasn't shooting on a non-film camera. Lots of nice spotties out there.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have a very nice Spotmatic too. But my eye sight is starting to fail me a little bit, so I wanted some help from the camera. The EOS 3 deal came along, and it was an easy decision.
I've used the 50mm f/1.8 lens a fair bit, and like the results a lot. The print scan attached is from that lens, and I have no complaints.
Foma 400 film in Edwal 12, silver print on Foma 112 in Ethol LPD, toned partially in Kodak sepia II, followed by Kodak selenium.

If there's anything wanting from the print, it certainly isn't the camera's fault.
 

Attachments

  • dock_001.jpg
    439 KB · Views: 137

Shawn Dougherty

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
4,129
Location
Pittsburgh
Format
Multi Format
Nice pic up, Thomas! I used an EOS 3 with the 50mm f1.8 for several years in the early 2000s. It's a great combo! (I always wanted the f1.4 version for the quieter focusing but couldn't justify the price.)
 

baachitraka

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
3,553
Location
Bremen, Germany.
Format
Multi Format
50 f/1.8 is no bad lens, except the construction.

New 40mm pancake is indeed a good performer and cheaper when compared with 50 f/1.4
 
OP
OP

Thomas Bertilsson

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,708
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
baachitraka said:
50 f/1.8 is no bad lens, except the construction.

New 40mm pancake is indeed a good performer and cheaper when compared with 50 f/1.4
Click to expand...

Tell me about this pancake lens.
 

baachitraka

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
3,553
Location
Bremen, Germany.
Format
Multi Format
Its not a fast lens whose max aperture is f/2.8, but its performance is very good from f/2.8-f/11.0

Aperture is circular, expect bokeh little softer than 50 f/1.4

Price falls around $190. Unfortunately, I only saw some jpegs from my friend.

More over its very tiny compare to big plastic ugly barrel 50mm f/1.4
 

Dr Croubie

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
1,986
Location
rAdelaide
Format
Multi Format
baachitraka said:
50 f/1.8 is no bad lens, except the construction.

New 40mm pancake is indeed a good performer and cheaper when compared with 50 f/1.4
Click to expand...

My Shorty mcForty spends most of its time glued to my EOS 3, eye-control and small for discrete street shooting, it's great. Here's some Tri-X 400 I shot on it recently:

(just a quick'n'dirty triage scan in the film holder, haven't wet-scanned or processed or printed yet, it probably won't need much work by the looks)

As for the Tak, mine works fine. Specifically, my Super-Takumar 1:1.4/50 3527xxx works fine, to infinity and all. Focusses to infinity, mirror doesn't hit the lens on the return. There's multiple versions of this lens so maybe others have problems.
The adapter and chip that I've got are the good ones, from ml-gvalt on fleabay, specifically this one. I paid $25 in 2011 but the price seems to have gone up since. But they're the best.
(also, I do have other lenses that hit the mirror, but only on the return path, the mirror must be travelling fast enough on the upswing to inertia-past the elements. Good news is, the photo still gets taken, just focus closer to release the mirror and turn off/on each time. Annoying but works.)

Another thing is that the EOS 3 has a little quirk. I'm not sure on what bodies exactly, my 3 has it but my 7D doesn't, I don't have any others.
When you look at the body-mount, in the top-left corner there is a little switch, activated by turning the lens as you mount. From my own research (which may be wrong, I'd love to hear from others):
- If your adapter activates this switch, you must have an AF chip, or you get a 'BC' error when you take a photo. (you can test this with a toothpick pushing the switch and no lens)
- If you have an AF chip, your adapter must activate this switch, or you get a 'BC' error.
- If you don't activate the switch, and don't have a chip, then you're fine.
That's my experience anyway.

Also, someone mentioned focussing screens. I've got an EC-Civ (stock screen from the 1Dmk4), it's brighter and focusses a lot better than the stock screen that came with the 3.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dennis S

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
1,761
Location
Vancouver B.C.
Format
Multi Format
The EOS 3 that I use for M-42 lenses takes a bit of sanding/grinding in the one area of the switch on the adapter but once you get everything set up it is a pleasure to use. I have a few M-42s in my small collection which I would rather use than some of the EF lenses. Here is my favorite adapter:

View attachment 74679View attachment 74680

There is a small tab that prevents the adapter from coming off unless you press the button on the camera. I experimented with a few of the cheap ones that did not work as well. It also has the lens stop so you can not over tighten it to do mirror damage. The one post with the adapter looks the same. Of course I don't have the chip but I use it manually with no problems. By the way the grinding/sanding is ONLY on the adapter NOT the camera in case I worded my explanation wrong. The M-42 is always a very good build with metal instead of plastic EF
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,019
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
baachitraka said:
50 f/1.8 is no bad lens, except the construction.

New 40mm pancake is indeed a good performer and cheaper when compared with 50 f/1.4
Click to expand...

I tried out a rental 40mm f/2.8 two weeks ago.

It is fun to use, it seems to be sharp, but it has a bit of a caveat.

Purportedly it suffers from a bit of distortion. The digital users just correct for that using the computer, but us film shooters ....

In my brief trial, I didn't really shoot anything that would test for the distortion.
 
OP
OP

Thomas Bertilsson

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,708
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
I think I'm leaning toward the 50 1.8. I know it's good enough for anything I can accomplish.

Thank you very much for your input everybody!
 

Dr Croubie

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
1,986
Location
rAdelaide
Format
Multi Format
MattKing said:
Purportedly it suffers from a bit of distortion. The digital users just correct for that using the computer, but us film shooters ....

In my brief trial, I didn't really shoot anything that would test for the distortion.
Click to expand...

Doesn't look too bad to me, even Dead Link Removed than the Nifty Fifty...
(sorry, it's a digital review site link, but if you take a photo of a chequerboard on film it'll still look the same)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…