Bob,
Thank you for the info.

Tom

The flange to focal plane distance for Exakta lenses is 44.7mm, while for EOS lenses it's 44.0mm, so, in theory, a mechanical adapter should allow focus to infinity. It would need to be thin and only add 0.7mm to the flange thickness, but in principle it is possible.

So I suspect that the adapter he is using is too thick and that there's probably nothing wrong with your lens, especially if you were having no problems with infinity focus on your exakta camera body.

I have sold a Angenieux f 28 mm lens to a customer on Ebay. He claims it will not focus to infinity. The Angenieux lens has an Exakta mount. He is using a Exater-EOS adapter mount on a Canon  5D Mark II. I cannot find any info on Exater mounts. I do know that the lens focused correctly on my Exakta camera.
He states he wants me to share in a mechanics labor fee to make the lens work. Does anyone have info on a lens of this type being used on a Canon 5D MKII?.

Thanks for your help,
Tom(Canon 20D owner)

Not unless they are M42 lenses. The AX-5 has a bayonet mount, so I presume your lenses do too. I think all the X-Fujinon lenses are bayonet mount.

If Fujica X (bayonet lens) adapters exist for EOS, they would need optics for infinity focus since their back focus distance is 0.5mm less than EOS lenses (43.5mm vs 44mm).

See http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html

hey
i was wondering the same thing
i'd like to use my Fuji lens from an old fujica AX-5
i have the following lenses:
X-Fujinon 1:1.6 f=55mm DM
X-Fujinon-z 1:3.5-4.5 f=43-75mm DM
X-Fujinar-z 1:3.8 f=80-200mm DM
would any of these work with an M42 adapter?
thanks

Thanks Bob for the good advise.

The 80-200/2.8L is a good lens. At the right price (under $500?) it's well worth owning. However it does lack image stabilization and a USM motor and I don't think it will take the Canon TCs, so it's not ideal.

I'd probably look at the newer 70-200 lenses, either the f2.8 or f4 versions and I'd go for one with stabilization. All the 70-200 lenses will accept the Canon TCs, though I'd recommend the 1.4x over the 2x.

Your other option would be the EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS USM. Not fast, but it has good reach and effective stabilization.

I'm in the market for a quality telephoto lens for my Canon EOS 50D. I have the 300mm prime, f/2.8L lens and need to fill in the gap between this big guy and my 28-135mm. I've read your (Bob's) comments on the 80-200mm, f/2.8L lens and it appears to fill that void. I suppose my next move is to tell you what I typically shoot to get good feedback from you. I shoot people in a crowd such as civic events, sporting events where the big lens is not practical to haul around, and air shows where I'm capturing planes on static display. I have the 2x extender that I use occasionally when reaching deep into the Everglades swamps for wading birds and wonder how effective it will be on the 80-200mm. I mention this because I was expecting to find a 70-300mm in L-glass. I suppose I could get a 1.4 extender as well and just sacrifice 1 f-stop.

What is your valued opinion on my question Bob?

Hi people.

I am in the hopeless novice category so please excuse all the baggage that come with that :-)

For many years I used non-DSLR cameras, automatic, off and on when my business would allow me, till a few months back. Now I am retired and able to indulge myself.I got my first DSLT this February and after much deliberation bought the 17-55 is my first lens (along with a 50mm 1.8  prime). I went travelling to Europe for a couple of months immediately thereafter and my lens served the purpose fairly well.

My main interest is traveling (meaning landscapes, monuments - inside and outside), human interest photography (meaning people), and nature (meaning flora and fauna). I must add here that of all these the wildlife bit is the one I am likely to use the least often although when I do, I would not like to be left 'high and dry' for want of an appropriate lens.

So I need to decide the best range of lenses to help me cover most situations. Being a complete amateur, I understand that I could compromise a bit but being able to afford a bit more I would be disappointed if I did not buy the best only because it was costlier. So the only reason for me to strike a compromise would be the trouble of carrying, as well as constantly changing, between a large number of lenses.

So I am in the need for advise on the lenses I should get.

To my 17-55 I have just added a 10-22 F3.5-4.5 which should arrive today. Since traveling is one of my major occupations I thought I needed a really good wide angle. I relied on people like you on the net to make this choice too. This also became my second lens purchase since I felt I could have done more inside those Italian Cathedrals if I had a zoom although 17-55 dod a very decent job.

My next two lenses need to be a macro (only because I love all those great shots of insects  ) and a lens to cover longer focal length. I have zeroed in on the 100mm macro and the 70-200 (the latest version) but I need a confirmation that this is a good choice.

So here is my list of questions.

1. Does the 100mm macro, the 10-22 wide angle, the 17-55 and the 70-22 (perhaps with a 1.4 extender) cover my needs adequately as a set or do you think I could have fewer lenses to serve my purpose OR that I SHOULD add more lenses ?
2. For the purposes I need them, could I make better choices ?
3. Specifically for the wildlife usage should be satisfied with a 200 plus an extender? If yes, does a 2x extender also suggest itself to help me increase the 'range' because I get mixed opinions on this from whatever I read on the net?
4. Which lens would you advise for which purpose from the set you recommend?

Just an aside. The 70-200 (IS II USM) is almost universally rated as one of the finest lenses from Canon and it does appear to cover so much of what I would want to use my camera for that one is most determined to acquire it. The only question that remains then is if I was to add another lens for wildlife, I would be having two long and heavy lenses to tug around. In the last couple of days, I have read quite a bit said in favour of the 100-400 from Canon. It would appear to offer an acceptable compromise. What do you think? 

The 70-300is won't take a TC.

Prime vs. zoom is always a personal choice. The prime will cost more but give you a bit better image quality and the option of using a TC. The zoom is much more convenient, smaller and less expensive.