Changing Lens Mounts on Canon FL Lenses

[gone]

I really like Canon FD/FL lenses, but my preference is for Nikon/Nikkormat bodies. The other day I took the FL mount off my FL 135 3.5 to clean the helical threads and was surprised at how easily it came off. This lens has the aperture adjustment on the front, so that's not an issue on the rear. Wouldn't this be a good candidate to somehow attach a Nikon lens mount on it like the Leitax method, and shoot it on the Nikon bodies? Am I missing something on the film plane to lens registration? I held the lens up to the Nikon body, and for sure it needs to get closer to the film, but there looks like lots of space could become available by removing the FL mount.

 

[Rick A]

What about aperture actuator lever, does it line up?

 

[David Lyga]

From Canon FL (or FD, for that matter) to Nikon would be an exercise in futility. (If some disagree, enlighten us.)

Nikon's registration is (I think) the widest out there for 35mm SLRs. The Canon lens does not have to retract (at infinity) as much as the Nikon lenses do because Canon bodies are not as 'thick' as Nikon bodies are. But the real problem is with the amazingly complex mount on those Canon lenses.

Seriously, I my comments are amiss here, please correct me, as my knowledge about this is rather cursory. - David Lyga

 

[JW PHOTO]

If you like Nikkormat bodies then save yourself time and money and buy a Canon FTB QL body and have the best of both worlds. I'm not saying it's an impossible conversion, but I will say it's nearly impossible. Besides, I think the Canon FTB QL was one of the finest cameras ever made. It has professional features like mirror lock-up and is built every bit as good as my Nikkormats. Trust me, I've wasted more time on projects like this and got nowhere fast. John W

 

[dynachrome]

David, I don't know what advantage there would be to using a Canon FL 135/3.5 on a Nikon. It's an OK lens but not as nice as the larger and heavier 135/2.5 FL. My Nikkor 135s include a cm f/3.5, several mm f/3.5s, a QC f/3.5, two AI f/3.5s, a 135/2.8 'K' and some Q and QC 135/2.8s. Some are converted to AI. I do not have the later and smaller 135/2.8 or the 135/2. You can certainly do as well with any of these Nikkors as you would with the 135/3.5 FL. Adapting Nikkors to Canon manual focus mount cameras (in most cases) is a lot easier. Canon made an adapter and there are many off brand adapters available. If you have mostly or all Nikon SLRs then you might consider picking up a Canon FTb or FTbN.

 

[dynachrome]

John, I started my post before yours appeared but had to run an errand before finishing it. I agree that the FTb cameras are very pleasant to use.

 

[Steve Smith]

I'm sure it's possible.

The only lens mount modification I have done was to put a Nikon mount on a Helios 44.


Steve.

 

[JW PHOTO]

John, I started my post before yours appeared but had to run an errand before finishing it. I agree that the FTb cameras are very pleasant to use.

I'm a sloooow typist and run into the "two steps behind" post thing often. You and I are on the same page when it comes to the FTB/FTBN cameras from Canon. First rate and super cheap at the moment.

 

[JW PHOTO]

I'm sure it's possible.

The only lens mount modification I have done was to put a Nikon mount on a Helios 44.


Steve.

The lens - flange- film plane distance is what makes it near impossible to convert Canon lenses to other mounts without machining the rear of the lens itself. That's why FD adapter have to have a lens optic built in. Those FD adapters are not just a hollow adapter. John W

 

[AgX]

But if you take off the complete mount from a FL lens you might get enough space for a Nikon mount (I'm guessing).

I'm myself into re-mounting lenses, but in this case (in case of a major operation and with loss of automatic aperture anyway) I do not see the advantage of such modification with similar Nikon lenses available. But I may overlook some special bokeh trait.

 

[Steve Smith]

But if you take off the complete mount from a FL lens you might get enough space for a Nikon mount (I'm guessing).

Exactly. Once you remove the original mount, it's just a matter of putting the new mount in the right place.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)


Steve.

 

[Dennis S]

Beautiful camera in all colours

.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Beautiful camera in all colours

.

Either one of those babies is cheaper and better than a cobbled up mount job. I'll take the black one! John W

 

[JW PHOTO]

The Canon FD mount lenses are a whole different ballgame Steve. Like I said before, it can probably be done with some lathe machining, but it just ain't worth it. You can't even mount them on a Canon EOS camera and get infinity focus. I have a Canon EOS 5D that I can mount just about any brand lens on and focus at infinty, but NOT FD/FL Canon. All those adapters that allow FD lenses to focus to infinity on EOS cameras have an optical element built into them. That tells you right there that it's not just a simple job of unbolting on mount ring and sticking another back on. I've been proven wrong on many occasions and I might on this one too. If it does get done I believe the perso won't say it was easy anyway. Have fun! John W

 

[Steve Smith]

The Canon FD mount lenses are a whole different ballgame Steve. Like I said before, it can probably be done with some lathe machining, but it just ain't worth it.

You're probably right. The advantage I had with the Helios was that by removing its M42 mount, quite a lot of thickness was removed which I made up with a relatively thin Nikon mount and a spacer. It really depends on how thick the casting with the mount is which needs to be removed rather than what the cameras' register distances are.

But as you say, in most cases, not worth it. But sometimes it's fun to do something just because you can!

I've been proven wrong on many occasions and I might on this one too. If it does get done I believe the perso won't say it was easy anyway. Have fun!

The man who says a thing cannot be done should not interrupt the man actually doing it! (old proverb... or internet nonsense... or something).


Steve.

 

[JW PHOTO]

The man who says a thing cannot be done should not interrupt the man actually doing it! (old proverb... or internet nonsense... or something).


Steve.[/QUOTE]
Steve,
I've have taken on many projects just to prove to certain people that "it can be done". My wife and I bought a Microwave oven from Monkey Wards when they first came out(yes, we are that old) and it was a monster. After four or five years she wanted one of those fancy new sleek models and I kept her at bay by saying, "this one still works just fine". Well, the first time it broke down I thought she was going to die with excitement. By the time she got home from work I had it up and running like new. I did that two more times just to prove to her I was not only good, but I could save money too. WWWWWWWWWell (I still stutter from the last repair), on the fourth and last repair try I accidentally discharged the high-voltage capacitor by grounding it through my finger to my elbow. Was it worth it? Let me say that that Microwave was in the trash when she got home from work. Lesson learned??? Yes, somethings are just not worth it. If it's fun then go for it! If it cost more money then it's worth or in my case, dangerous? WWWWWWell, it ain't worth it. With so many really great 35mm cameras out there I definitely know this lens conversion is not worth it.:w00t: John W

 

[flavio81]

I really like Canon FD/FL lenses, but my preference is for Nikon/Nikkormat bodies. The other day I took the FL mount off my FL 135 3.5 to clean the helical threads and was surprised at how easily it came off. This lens has the aperture adjustment on the front, so that's not an issue on the rear. Wouldn't this be a good candidate to somehow attach a Nikon lens mount on it like the Leitax method, and shoot it on the Nikon bodies? Am I missing something on the film plane to lens registration? I held the lens up to the Nikon body, and for sure it needs to get closer to the film, but there looks like lots of space could become available by removing the FL mount.

Let me offer two alternatives:

a) Go for a Canon F-1. If you liked the Nikkormat bodies, you will love the F-1. I have owned a Nikkormat FT2, Nikon F, and own a F2, and F3. I like the Canon F-1 better than the Nikkormat and better than the Nikon F. I'm still deciding if it's better than the F2 (there is another thread on this.) If you liked the vertical Copal shutter on the Nikkormat then go out and get a Canon EF camera. A Canon FTb QL is also an excellent camera.

b) If you really like the FL 135/3.5, Nikon makes a similar, excellent lens, which can be had for cheap: The Nikkor 135/3.5 AI, which I own.

 

[Steve Smith]

If you have a lens you particularly like, it's much easier to get a body it will fit onto than it is to make it fit something else.


Steve.

 

[Chan Tran]

If you like the Canon lenses then get a nice Canon. A Nikon may be better than a Canon but no Nikon is any good after your modification.

 

[Fixcinater]

Closest thing I've done is an FL > EOS conversion with the FL200/3.5 and I would not do it again unless paid good money for my time.

 

[blockend]

If you have a lens you particularly like, it's much easier to get a body it will fit onto than it is to make it fit something else.


Steve.

Agreed.

I'm not sure I'd concur with the Canon FTb being the equal of Nikkormats, my impression is the Nikons are somewhat heavier and more robust, I own and use both. Compared to later plastic cameras, both are mechanical gems, obviously, and neither have endemic faults. Factors like the price and availability of favourite lenses are more important than mystique about bodies in the modern era. Canon FD lenses will fit everything from an F1 down to a T50, Nikon from an F2 to an EM. I can't think of any camera body I love sufficiently to make it the reason to buy that manufacturer's lenses, however I can think of a number of lenses I'd happily buy a body to hang off the back.

 

[AgX]

Canon FD lenses will fit everything from an F1 down to a T50, Nikon from an F2 to an EM. .

How could they fit a Nikon mount with Nikon's flange-to-film distance being larger?

(Aside of losing infinity setting or employing an optical adapter.)

 

[PentaxBronica]

Just buy the best condition FT or FTb you can lay hands on. The former won't offer open-aperture metering but if you use an external meter or Sunny 16 that won't be a problem.

I recently bought an FTb and a Nikkormat Ftn. The latter was something of an impulse buy - couldn't pass a tidy black one up for £15!

My experience of the Canon so far is that it's much like my Pentax KX. I had to free up the mechanism with a few dribbles of GT85 PTFE oil, after which the shutter stopped capping at 1/1000 and the stop down mechanism started working properly. Now a few frames into a test roll with an old FL 100-200mm f5.6 on the front. It came with a modern Varta cell in place of the original mercury one, although I've been using Sunny 16 so far as I find stop-down metering a nuisance.

The Nikkormat seems very lovely, although all I've been able to do so far is try the shutter speeds and see that the meter shows signs of life. Should be buying a lens for it next week, unless the one I've spotted sells before I get to it.

I'm aiming to have something to fit any lens mount so as to be able to use any cheap lenses I come across. So far I have a lot of K mount bodies, an OM10, a couple of M42, Canon FD and Nikon F. Minolta MD will probably happen eventually but I want to get a lens for the Nikkormat (and a slightly more practical lens for the FTb) first.

 

[blockend]

How could they fit a Nikon mount with Nikon's flange-to-film distance being larger?

(Aside of losing infinity setting or employing an optical adapter.)

Nikon on Nikon body, Canon on Canon is what I'm saying. If someone enjoys fettling beyond the limits of sober logic, and has a workshop to confront the inevitable problems (up to and including taking the lens back to its constituent glass), who am I to query their sanity?