It's been a long time since I played with an FD lens but I believe it's wide open.
J. C. O'Connell wrote: >No one ever answered my question - what is the default >Status of the aperture on a canon FD lens when not >Mounted on a camera? ( Stopped down like PK, or wide >Open like M42?) > >As far as the registration change, I do not know >For sure why it was done, there may have be >Technical advantages to do so and the FD lenses >May not have been compatible for other reasons >Already in the EOS mount so that the registration change >a was moot issue. >JCO > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >William Robb >Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 10:01 AM >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: The JCO survey > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Kostas Kavoussanakis" >Subject: Re: The JCO survey > > > > >>On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, William Robb wrote: >> >> >> >>>Truthfully, it's like asking Pentax to put an aperture cam follower >>>onto >>>a DSLR. The big difference between Canon and Pentax regarding this is >>>that it's recent history with Pentax. >>> >>> >>I cannot see how an aperture cam removal is the same as a register >>change. To me that's the major difference, not how recently it >>happened. We have discussed economics, so let's not go into the the $5 >>times 35 gazilion years argument. >> >> > >They are both changes to the mount, done for purely economic reasons. >Had Canon so desired, they could have left the register distance alone, >and it should have allowed adapting FD lenses to EOS cameras, though the > >lenses themselves may have needed modification. >It's a pretty simple concept to get ones head around. > >William Robb > > > > > > > -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
