Old Lenses New Camera

[EddyWelbz]

Hi All,


First timer here, sorry if this is a repost!

I was recently given an old Zenith Camera by my Grandfather, this came with 3 lenses, a Helios 44-2, Photax Paragon 1:28 along with an Orestor F2.8/135mm.

My question is how would I go about affixing these to my NikonD5000. (I'm aware by doing this I will not have any autofocus and minimal to none camera assistance, this doesn't phase having shot with old Minolta, Canon and the Zenith.)

All responses appreciated, I look forward to being part of the community!

Eddy

 

[Alastair]

My question is how would I go about affixing these to my NikonD5000.

Unfortunately Nikon is the least suitable make of camera for using your Grandfathers old lenses. It's to do with the way the lens mount is designed and the distance between the film/sensor and the back of the lens. With Nikon cameras this is longer than it is for an m42 camera (most Zenits were m42 and the lenses you list support this guess) so a negative length adaptor would be needed. You can get m42-Nikon adaptors and they have a glass element to create the negative length effect, but results reported using these adaptors are variable and generally poor. It's a shame, because both the Helios and the Orestor are nice lenses.

 

[wontolla]

Buy suitable adapters from EBay or Amazon, readily available and cheap-ish

 

[FishyFish]

I have an adapter that I used to mount a Super Takumar 55mm f/1.8 M42 lens onto my Nikon D3200. It has a small focussing lens fitted to allow for the difference in the flange distance. The main downsides are that the focussing lens means you can't focus to infinity, so you're limited to closer focussed shots (I think the in-focus range is dependent of the focal length of the lens used), and that modern DSLRs don't have split-prism or micoprism type focussing screens, so fine focussing when using wide apertures can be difficult. Not sure about the D5000, but on my D3200 the only indicator of manual focus is a small green dot that appears in the display, which is tricky to use on moving subjects - especially at wide apertures. In the end I didn't bother with it very much and sold the 55mm lens with the Spotmatic II camera it was partnered with - something I now regret ).

Here's one shot I took with the D3200 with the adapter and 55mm Super Takumar though:


Knitted penguin in a festive bokeh wonderland by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr

 

[EddyWelbz]

Thanks all for the quick replies,

Alastair,
Thanks, I'll acquire an adapter and get some test shots up, possibly some on film as well to compare, providing I find my XP2 film!

FishyFish,
I mainly shoot Landscapes, so moving targets won't be too much of an issue so long as Birds stay clear of me It'll be a shame that I can't focus to infinity with them, but judging by your above image (Which is adorable by the way!) I believe I could still get some cool shots!

Eddy.

 

[johnf3f]

The lenses will adapt far more easily to Canon cameras due to the shorter register (lens mount flange to sensor/film) distance, but is it worth buying another camera to use them?

 

[EddyWelbz]

The lenses will adapt far more easily to Canon cameras due to the shorter register (lens mount flange to sensor/film) distance, but is it worth buying another camera to use them?

For now budget wise, I would say no. I have an Old Canon Eos 500, so an adapter would suffice for this and if I sweet talk my mate into letting me use his Canon I'd be ok. In the future depending on how I get on with the lenses and the Quality of the image I take would probably change that!

 

[Alastair]

The lenses will adapt far more easily to Canon cameras due to the shorter register (lens mount flange to sensor/film) distance, but is it worth buying another camera to use them?

They'd convert even more readily to a mirrorless body.

 

[Canon Bob]

They'd convert even more readily to a mirrorless body.

Why? As long as the register distance is shorter (as Canon's is) then there's no benefit to it being even shorter.

 

[woof woof]

Why? As long as the register distance is shorter (as Canon's is) then there's no benefit to it being even shorter.

The CSC benefits are IMO more to do with focusing. I briefly tried manual lenses on my Canon APS-C DSLR but it and I suppose more modern DSLR OVF's too just aren't designed for this and anything other than macro/pseudo macro or shooting with detail big and clear in the frame is not ideal to say the least. With a CSC the magnified view allows very accurate manual focus if you have the time to focus accurately.

Of course there's always zone focusing, hyperfocal and Merklinger type shooting which don't require accurate focus or a cooperative manual focus friendly VF.

 

[Alastair]

Why? As long as the register distance is shorter (as Canon's is) then there's no benefit to it being even shorter.

You've never used mirrorless with old lenses have you?

I started using them with a 40D and since switching to Fuji mirrorless it's become far easier and more pleasant to shoot manual lenses. Simple things like focus-peaking and WYSIWYG EVF screens. Plus, whilst the OP is only talking about shooting m42 mount lenses there are very good lenses in other lens mounts that Canon is much less suitable for.

 

[ancient_mariner]

You've never used mirrorless with old lenses have you?

I started using them with a 40D and since switching to Fuji mirrorless it's become far easier and more pleasant to shoot manual lenses. Simple things like focus-peaking and WYSIWYG EVF screens. Plus, whilst the OP is only talking about shooting m42 mount lenses there are very good lenses in other lens mounts that Canon is much less suitable for.

This really, although the same is true for Sony SLT cameras if you prefer a DSLR-type body.

 

[odd jim]

Of course, you can use live view on a DSLR to get the benefits of being able to zoom into the area of focus, obtain the benefits of WYSIWYG and focus peaking, but you'll be looking at the camera at a certain arms length on the back screen, not as handy as through the VF.

 

[Canon Bob]

The CSC benefits are IMO more to do with focusing. I briefly tried manual lenses on my Canon APS-C DSLR but it and I suppose more modern DSLR OVF's too just aren't designed for this and anything other than macro/pseudo macro or shooting with detail big and clear in the frame is not ideal to say the least. With a CSC the magnified view allows very accurate manual focus if you have the time to focus accurately.

Of course there's always zone focusing, hyperfocal and Merklinger type shooting which don't require accurate focus or a cooperative manual focus friendly VF.

I appreciate that it didn't work well for you, Alan, but I have 10 Zeiss Eos mount lenses along with a whole host of others (Canon TS-E's, MP-E and Pentax MF lenses) that I use on my Canon bodies without issues. The bodies that I use have interchangeable focusing screens and I have a choice of matt, split prism and quad prism screens that can be installed in under a minute. Liveview is another option and I use this feature with a loupe (Zacuto Z-Finder). I have tried EVF bodies but my preference is still OVF's.

Bob

 

[woof woof]

I appreciate that it didn't work well for you, Alan, but I have 10 Zeiss Eos mount lenses along with a whole host of others (Canon TS-E's, MP-E and Pentax MF lenses) that I use on my Canon bodies without issues. The bodies that I use have interchangeable focusing screens and I have a choice of matt, split prism and quad prism screens that can be installed in under a minute. Liveview is another option and I use this feature with a loupe (Zacuto Z-Finder). I have tried EVF bodies but my preference is still OVF's.

Bob

Well, there you go then. You're in a good position but most DSLR's can't be equipped with better screens for manual focusing.

In these digital days we have the chance to pixel peep and although we probably do it too much I'm sure we all do it at least now and again and this is where the advantages offered by CSC's come in as you can get very accurate focusing, focusing accurate enough to stand up to extreme pixel peeping and arguably more accurate than the auto focus of a DSLR because that can have variance from shot to shot and the camera doesn't know exactly what you want to focus on. I'd bet that the accuracy you'll get from a CSC will be better and more consistent than a DSLR with an MF friendly focusing screen as the CSC offers a greatly magnified view of what you're trying to focus on and that just has to be an advantage. Slight errors when MF-ing a DSLR if the subject is a bit tricky to MF on may be hidden by DoF or image size but may be visible if we go looking for them.

The only disadvantage of CSC MF focusing that I can see is the time it takes but for a static subject I'd choose a CSC and MF over any DSLR I've owned for focus accuracy.

I've never been a fan of live view. Arms length shooting isn't for me, I rarely use a tripod and then there's the problem of seeing detail on the back screen which often isn't all that great anyway.

 

[Ashburner]

The CSC benefits are IMO more to do with focusing. I briefly tried manual lenses on my Canon APS-C DSLR but it and I suppose more modern DSLR OVF's too just aren't designed for this and anything other than macro/pseudo macro or shooting with detail big and clear in the frame is not ideal to say the least. With a CSC the magnified view allows very accurate manual focus if you have the time to focus accurately.

Of course there's always zone focusing, hyperfocal and Merklinger type shooting which don't require accurate focus or a cooperative manual focus friendly VF.

I was just about to tag you in this
Whenever old lenses crops up, your. AMR is the first in my mind!