Lens adapter help please

BADGER.BRAD

BADGER.BRAD

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,252
Edit My Images
Yes
I intend to buy a second hand Digi camera soon ( not sure whether it will be Mirrorless or DSLR !) and use My film camera lenses with it (mostly M42) I did do this before with an old Canon DSLR and a cheap adapter but it was later proved faulty. On looking at lenses adapters today I wondered one what AF confirm will do (mine doesn't have this) and have also noticed that some of the more expensive ones are fairly thick which would mean the lens would be mounted slightly further forward is there a reason for this ?

Thanks all for your help.
 
the "thickness" is basically to make up the distance between the "registration distance" of the camera's standard lens and the camera that the lens was originally intended for.

here's a list of the "registration distance" for a bunch of different camera types

https://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/mounts-by-register.html

so, for example

a MIcro 4/3's camera registration distance is 19.25mm. a M42 standard 35mm lens is 45.46mm - so the "adaptor" will basically take up the difference - 45.46-19.25 = 26.21mm.

most of the "mirrorless" cameras have a pretty short registration distance compared to a typical SLR - mainly as the SLR needs room for the mirror to flip about in. So, the adaptor will either take up the "space" difference, OR have a lens in it that shortens the point of focus.

this is also why for example that canon FD lenses are a PITA to use on Canon EF or EF-S cameras - because the FD's are 42mm and the EF's are 44. SO, you can't fit a FD lens onto a EF camera and get the lens to focus to infinity unless you add an extra lens into the adaptor (i.e. make the adaptor effectively a very short teleconverter - the Canon own-brand FD>EF adaptor is pretty much a 1.2x converter that loses around half a stop of lens speed.


AF confirm chips pretty much do what it says on the tin. When the image is in focus, focused manually, the camera body will "confirm" it's in focus by whatever means the body usually confirms it. Some of the chips also add a little bit of EXIF data - rather than the EXIF showing "no lens".
 
Thanks Mark much appreciated that explains why the cheap adapter I was using was very difficult to focus and the also cheap EF to Pracktica Bayonet one wouldn't focus to infinity, the lesson I've learned here is don't go for the cheapest !! The AF confirm chip sounds like a good Idea as well , up until this point I've only used manual lenses/cameras so didn't even know that such stuff as an indicator of focus existed !
 
I don't understand why you're seeing size differences. If you get the right adapter for your camera and lens combination it should place your lens x distance from the film or sensor no matter who makes it and if it doesn't the chances are that it's the adapter which is a pile of cr@p and out of tolerance. There really should not be any size difference between cheap and expensive adapters that you can see by eye.

I have cheap adapters costing around £10-15 bought from evil bay and Novoflex adapters which are in the region of £90-100 each and all of them do the job and to be honest apart from looking a bit more expensive the Novoflex ones don't do anything the cheap ones don't.

Here's hoping you get a good one but to be honest there's no real need to go for high end branded ones.

PS.
The focus confirmation may not be all that accurate but may be good enough for whole pictures when viewing normally if not for pixel peeping. I had one for my Canon 5D, it wasn't great.
 
Last edited:
SRB Griturn (may be called something else now but I'd guess that Google will still find them!) sell tried and tested options.
 
:agree: I've had good experirnces with SRB adaptors in the past.

The majority are £29.95 but their machining is excellent.
 
Thanks everyone much appreciated, as an added question using the camera and M42 lens/adapter combination I came across a thing that I couldn't understand only two of my lenses a 28 to 70mm tele and a 135 prime lens worked really well giving very sharp images (when the camera worked) but the other prime lenses (quite a few) seemed to give really soft images on the digital/adapter combination but all were great on the original film cameras , have you any idea why this would be ? This drove me around the bend as one I was (and still am) new to photography so couldn't work out if it was my lack of knowledge or some thing with the equipment I was using .
 
Can't help with your last question -sorry. What I thought I'd add, though, are my recent experiences. For many years a Canon user, I switched to m4/3 about 15 months ago. Although I argued (to myself) that it was all about weight saving, I have to admit that part of it was because of my desire to use my growing collection of old manual lenses. I wasn't interested in using these on a traditional DLSR and went the mirrorless route. My decision was then relatively easy and with IBIS and a good EVF being must haves, it was m4/3 for me.
I have acquired a number of good quality, but reasonably priced, lens adapters. I have settled on one brand and pay around £16 - £19 for each one. Because of the excellent EVFs, focus peaking and magnified view, I haven't and won't go the AF confirm chip route. Not neccessary for me.
I find manual focus relatively easy and even use my kit at motor racing events.
 
goinggreynow said:
Can't help with your last question -sorry. What I thought I'd add, though, are my recent experiences. For many years a Canon user, I switched to m4/3 about 15 months ago. Although I argued (to myself) that it was all about weight saving, I have to admit that part of it was because of my desire to use my growing collection of old manual lenses. I wasn't interested in using these on a traditional DLSR and went the mirrorless route. My decision was then relatively easy and with IBIS and a good EVF being must haves, it was m4/3 for me.
I have acquired a number of good quality, but reasonably priced, lens adapters. I have settled on one brand and pay around £16 - £19 for each one. Because of the excellent EVFs, focus peaking and magnified view, I haven't and won't go the AF confirm chip route. Not neccessary for me.
I find manual focus relatively easy and even use my kit at motor racing events.
Click to expand...
Which brand is that please
 
the black fox said:
Which brand is that please[.
Click to expand...
I remember reading a review (can't be sure where), recommending K&F adapters and having bought one, was sufficently impressed and I purchased several more. I now have them covering FD, M42, OM, Konica and Pentax. However, I'm sure there are plenty of other vgc adapters in a similar price range as well as several more at higher price points.
The one missing in my collection is Minolta where I am still toying with the idea of a focal reducer instead.
Hope this helps
 
well the K&F adaptor just arrived and suitably impressed I will indeed be ordering more .
 
K&F do adapters for Nikon G lenses too, they have an aperture adjustment on them. Not perfect, you're kind of guestimating the aperture but it works. Only useful for anyone who's already got some G lenses, can't see why you'd buy any to adapt when older glass is much cheaper and does the same job.

I have a Canon FD adapter and an M42, need to get some more lenses to fill them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top