File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hi /p/,

I recently bought my first dSLR kit (EOS400D + EF-S 18-55 lens) and whilst searching for an additional lens in the x-200/300 mm range, I stumbled uponone of my dads old lenses. I found out it's a Panagor PMC Auto Tele Zoom Macro 1:3.5 75-205 mm (pic related).

With regards to aforementioned lens:
- will a simple m42 adapter allow it to be mounted on my 400D?
- will mounting it be worth it, quality wise? I've also been looking at the Canon EF-S 55-250mm F/4.0-5.6 iS. AF, iS and other modern features aside, can quality (as in: good enough for the beginning dSLR photographer) images be expected when using the Panagor?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTDCamera ModelE-10Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 2.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2002:10:20 15:48:35Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating80Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length34.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width356Image Height320
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
1. Yes
2. The image quality is unlikely to be good, but try it with your dad's old camera first to see if it's a sleeper. AF is essential (for me at least) with longer lengths, so this may not be much fun to use.
>> Anonymous
My dad's cam was sold a long time ago (don't ask me why the lens is still here) so I can't check the lens' functionality.

Seeing as the Canon 55-250 is obviously far better and a good addition to my 18-55 kitlens: Will the Paragnor bring any additional features when used next to the 55-255, enough to justify buying an adapter? Or will it just be dead weight in my bag?
>> Anonymous
save yourself the trouble

and buy the 55-250
>> Anonymous
One more question if I may.

I've ruled out using the Panagor for shooting far away objects. The lack of AF and especially iS won't produce anything more than frustration.

Thing is, it's f/1.8 and it has a macro setting. Does anyone think it's worth using for macro shots (in low light conditions)? I will be using a tripod.
>> Anonymous
>>224529
It's not f/1.8
>> Anonymous
respond to your questions:
1. yes, definitely. That's one of the strengths of the EOS mount. Not all adapters are created equal (some have the wrong flange-focal distance and don't allow you to focus as close as you should be able to...infinity isn't a problem) but for the most part they work great. Mine cost me $15.

2. Who knows? Try it out. I don't have any of the old zoom lenses but I've always wanted to try one on my 300D. Old zooms were notorious for being soft and distorted but you might like the effect. I have one prime lens that is razor sharp when stopped down, but opened up to f/2 it has just enough spherical aberration to give highlights a hint of glow. It's very pretty and not at all what I was expecting from the lens.

>>224529
It's not f/1.8. I don't believe there has ever been a zoom lens faster than f/2. You said in the first post that it's a 3.5. Using 3.5 at the long end of the zoom may cause problems with shake, but use it in the day and it'll be ok.
>> Anonymous
just to continue my last post, cause I realize it's a bit unclear -- get the adapter regardless. You'll be able to test this lens, it only costs $15, and there are literally hundreds of really excellent M42 lenses out there. They're basically all I ever shoot with.
>> Anonymous
Big thanks for all the replies. The f/1.8 part was a piece of misinformation on my part.

What's 15 bucks on a good time experimenting? Not to mention showing off to people who know little about photography (huge ass lens = has to be good).

Now to find a heavier tripod...
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>224541
Pfft, that's not huge at all.

I have a feeling it may focus closer than your 55-250, and that's a decent reason to keep it around until you get something better.
>> Anonymous
Oh, and about using it on a tripod. Is that possible without screwing up the mount on my 400D? The Panagor weighs over 1kg as opposed to the some 400g(?) that's the 400D body.

Seeing as te lens doesnt have a tripod mount of it's own: will it break my cam's bayonet mount and if not, won't a tripod simply topple over?
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>224685
It really doesn't look that heavy - about on par with the other old 70ish-200ish zooms I've used. Should be fine on a tripod, though if your tripod falls over with such a small load you should look into getting one that isn't made of toothpicks.
>> Anonymous
all these off brand teles from that era with "macro" in the name probably still have a MFD of like.. fucking 3 ft

i'm willing to bet the 55-250 focuses as close as it
>> Anonymous
>>224685

The lens' weight definitely won't break your lens mount. That's a very strong piece of metal. It's more likely that the large off-center mass will cause the tripod screw to loosen up over time, if anything. I wouldn't worry about it. I regularly mount a 200mm f/4 prime (read: big heavy metal lens) on my camera, using the body's tripod mount, and there are no problems.