Adapting old lenses to modern cameras?

[ChristopherCoy]

Ever since that 1930’s Leitz lens was posted in the classifieds the other day, I’ve been thinking about it. Even more so after researching it. Problem is, I can’t afford the $1700 price tag those lenses sell for.

How are old antique lenses like that adapted to say the Nikon F mount, or the RB67 mount? When lenses stray away from focal lengths in mm, or mounts other than M42 screw mounts, I’m lost.

I have a Helios for my Nikons, but I’d like to try some different lenses that have less than stellar performance standards on both the Nikons and the RB67. Old uncoated lenses with plenty of flare, grit, and vignetting.

I know fotodiox makes some adapters, but what are the limits of lenses that can be adapted to my cameras? Anyone have any good, cheap lens suggestions for each mount that I can experiment with?

 

[Donald Qualls]

RB67 mount is a problem, because the camera body expects the lens to have the shutter. All the body has is the "safety shutter" that keeps light off the film during lens changes (if you do that with the dark slide out). and that fires when you press the shutter release, but resets only when you cock the body. You could probably mount a large format type lens (or one from a medium format folder) on a body cap and use extension tubes, if needed, to get it to focus -- I've considered that -- but then you're adding another couple steps to the process of exposing a frame with the RB67; may as well just use a large format camera with a roll film back mounted (and then you get movements).

 

[bdial]

35mm SLR bodies, especially bayonet mounts like Nikon are challenging for doing such adaptations. In general rangefinder lenses won't work because the SLR flange distance is too long. For SLR lenses, there is a lot of flange distance incompatibility. Then you need some way to focus, if you're working with a long FL lens, using a bellows is possible, but otherwise, you'll need lenses that have a focus mechanism or perhaps some sort of helical adaptor.

You'll have an easier time with experimentation if you get something like a Speed Graphic, and set it up with a roll film back. That way, you have a shutter in the body if you need it, and a bellows for focusing and cobbling up a lens board and sticking a lens on it is easy if you don't need it to be pretty or elegant.
Speeds are plentiful, from the "baby" ones that are 6x9 format up to the 4x5's and not super expensive. If you get one without a grafloc back, adapting a roll back will make for some additional challenges, but it's doable. Another alternative might be one of the Graflex SLR's, you get the ability to focus without removing a back, along with a body shutter, and bellows focusing.

All that said, you can get an M39 screw to nikon mount adaptor that can be used on the bellows, I bought one so that I can do macro or copy work with an enlarging lens (primarily for my digital body, but it would work equally well with a film body). But the compatible lens choices are limited.

If you want to get exotic, Hasselblad made a machinable lens mount for their bodies, it's not a common item, but you can adapt it as needed. Similar mounts might be around for other MF bodies. It needs a lens that has its own focusing mechanism if you don't want to rely on a bellows, and it's best if the lens has a shutter, but the camera's internal shutter is usable for long exposures. I adapted a Petzval using one, but the results weren't that great, the 6x6 format was too small to get any of the swirly off-center effects.

Sad to say, but for smallish cameras, the digi mirrorless cameras offer more flexibility for doing this kind of stuff. They have a short flange distance so they can infinity focus with most anything, and there are a multitude of adaptors available to make it easy, though perhaps not cheap.

 

[Paul Howell]

For the price and trouble of adapting a M39 to a modern SLR you can buy a Canon, early bodies are very Leica like, later P or 7 have more features, or a Russian like a Federal.

 

[Dan Fromm]

OP, I sort of agree with what bdial wrote, but I'm not sure that diving into another system -- 2x3 Graphics, for example -- is a good idea. I like my little 2x3 Graphics but using lenses that cover less than 100 mm -- that's the diagonal of the cameras' 2.25" x 3.25" gates, also of nominal 6x9 -- on one is a waste of film because of vignetting and requires that the lens' native flange-focal distance + mount adapter thickness exceeds the camera's minimum extension.

I've used many unlikely lenses on my Graphics, am not sure I'd do that now if starting over. Prices are much higher now than when I was buying lenses and trying them out and opportunities to resell for a small loss or, sometimes, profit are scarcer.

I've avoided most of the discussions you've started so have no sense of how fully developed a photographer you are. That said, I think you'd do best to stick with your mainstream systems and improve your skills as needed to produce the images you see in your minds' eye. Adding gear, exotic or not, won't help you, um, realize your vision better.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

So essentially I’m chasing a challenge that is on the more difficult side of the spectrum. Got it.

 

[wiltw]

Most reaaally old lenses have manual controlled apertures, or are 'preset' control apertures which you switch from open to closed for shooting via a control directly on the lens itself. Such lenses are mechanically simple to adapt...it merely is making a mount adapter of the appropriate offset thickness to 'covert' your lens' mount to your camera mount. That is simple in concept but the devil is in the details...the 'flange distance' of the lens vs the flange distance of the camera.

Most really old lenses were designed to fit rangefinder bodies, which are relatively thin. So making these fit a dSLR requires the use of image-degrating supplmental optics, so the lens can mount farther away from the focal plane, so it would work properly to focus with your dSLR. Taking old SLR ;lenses and fitting them on your dSLR is simpler, as a number of SLR lenses have flange distances even farther than a Canon dSLR, for example. But there is no direct control of the aperture by the dSLR body, because the lens is mechanical and the body communications is electrical.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

So how are lenses like that Leitz 7.3cm or whatever it is used?

 

[btaylor]

Like Paul says. Relatively recent Canon rangefinders like the P and 7 are great to use and you get to screw on a plethora of LTM vintage glass.

 

[Dan Fromm]

So essentially I’m chasing a challenge that is on the more difficult side of the spectrum. Got it.

Not so much difficult as not worth the effort. Fiddling with Graphics can be very rewarding -- see http://www.galerie-photo.com/telechargement/dan-fromm-6x9-lenses-v2-2011-03-29.pdf -- but I doubt it will get you closer to where you want to go.

 

[Horatio]

Lensbaby for the Nikons? You could check eBay for some fungus-encrusted filters, if you want some interesting fuzzy stuff.

 

[juan]

Nikon F is easy. Buy a bellows extension, either an old Nikon or a modern third party. Buy some cheap camera body caps. Cut a hole in the cap and press fit the lens. Of course the lens needs to be smaller than the cap. The cap fits on the lens end of the bellows. I find the lens needs to be 90mm or more to be focusable.

I’ve mounted meniscus lenses, lenses from old folders, and 2x3 cameras. I’ve used them on my F2 and on my D750.

 

[gone]

These folks make the best adapters around. They're pricey, and there are Chinese knockoffs for sale, but these are the best. I believe the guy who started it was the first to make it possible to mount Leica R lenses on Nikon cameras, something that everyone said was impossible due to the film registry differences. He tackled the problem by making different lens mounts for the lenses instead of just trying to do things w/ adapters. Thanks to him I've been happily shooting Leica R lenses on Nikons for many years. You can't easily adopt m42 lenses to the Nikons, but you can on other SLR's. There are a lot of classic m42 lenses to choose from, and the early Leica R's have tons of character and beautiful IQ.

http://leitax.com/

 

[markjwyatt]

I notice this account on ebay ( https://www.ebay.com/usr/212pro ) converts a lot of classic lenses to Nikon mount.

I have an inexpensive adapter ($24 = shipping from China) that adapts my DKL lenses (i.e., Kodak Retina and Voigtlander) to M42. It works with some cameras but not others, but gives me the ability to use my Schneider Kreuznach DKL lenses on certain M42 bodies. On Spotmatics and my Zeiss Icarex 35S it does not screw in far enough. On Praktica LTL3, MTL5, Fujica STL 605 and 705w, it works well.

The seller is here: https://www.ebay.com/fdbk/feedback_profile/crazyphoto800

They offer one for Nikon AI, Pentax K, and Canon EOS also as well as other adapters.

 

[grat]

Completely ignoring the optics side of the issue, fotodiox makes a wide range of adapters to and from various systems.

I believe they even have a couple of adapters with optics to allow shorter flange lenses to focus-- but of course, those correction lenses may alter the characteristics of the mounted lens.

 

[beemermark]

So essentially I’m chasing a challenge that is on the more difficult side of the spectrum. Got it.

Not difficult just impossible.