Hack a Takumar 50mm to Nikon F3?
-
A
- Thread starter declark
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Compur 3 Shutter
- Started by ivan35mm
-
For Sale Manfrotto 502AH Pro Video Head
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale Canon AF35ML
- Started by Chan Tran
-
For Sale Nikon Lite.Touch AF
- Started by Chan Tran
-
For Sale Chamonix 5x7 Kit
- Started by Yabbo
Forum statistics
Thanks for the link to the adapter. I had no idea one was available since Nikon has a greater flange distance than Pentax and nearly all other 35 SLRs. Infinity focus will suffer a bit but since I am more likely to be using at indoor distances it may just what I am looking for and for the squeamish no lens will be harmed.
Hell yeah, if you don't need it at infinity, that's the quickest and easiest.
X. Phot.
For the adapter that provides an unadulterated image to film, I'm sure there will be leeway to extend focus to the Hyper-focal distance. If accommodating in that respect, this could cover your distant subjects.
Last edited by a moderator:
Simply to wed the lens with the capabilities of the body. Why not?
I have a similar inability to understand why people don't experiment more in this sort of way. Long live experimental photography!
I think you are confusing photography with machining. Experimental photography is about new ways of taking photographs. This is not a new way, because both body and lens existed previous to any hacking and were capable in their own way. What this is, is a desire by someone fascinated with taking things apart and putting them back together in new ways, trying to find a validation for an exercise in machining. And if it is considered experimental photography for a Pentax lens to be used on a Nikon body, then anyone with a lens adapter who mounts XYZ lens to some 2/3 digicam is also performing experimental photography.. which of course they are not. It can hardly be experimental when everyone and their cat is doing something extremely similar.
Not at all.
Yes, it is. And if we all used the same tools to do it....
The history of photography is one nutty experiment after another. People asking, what if I do this or that.
I agree with dhosten.
It's not like adapting the lens changes the result in any way. It's still a 35mm SLR lens on a 35mm SLR, making an identical image on 35mm film either way. The picture will be the same. I don't think that's experimental photography- it's just equipment modification. The result is no different than when I put a screw-mount Takumar on a K-mount Pentax using the adapter Pentax sells. If I used the adapter on a K-mount Ricoh it wouldn't be experimental photography either, any more than if I put the lens on a screw-mount Ricoh. Or Fujica.
It's not like adapting the lens changes the result in any way. It's still a 35mm SLR lens on a 35mm SLR, making an identical image on 35mm film either way. The picture will be the same. I don't think that's experimental photography- it's just equipment modification. The result is no different than when I put a screw-mount Takumar on a K-mount Pentax using the adapter Pentax sells. If I used the adapter on a K-mount Ricoh it wouldn't be experimental photography either, any more than if I put the lens on a screw-mount Ricoh. Or Fujica.
My point is that whatever this person is doing is bringing new capabilities / experiences. It's certainly not going to yield an 'identical' photograph: different bodies and lenses have different capabilities. If nothing else, the experience of doing this will affect how the gear is used.
If you don't realize that there's value in such endeavours, then there's nothing I can do for you, sorry. I and friends have done a lot of mods that completely changed our way of taking photographs.... MF lenses on smaller bodies, smaller lenses on LF bodies, wrong-sized film fed into various cameras, deliberately cross-developed nonsense, pinhole this and that, cheap plastic lenses on expensive cameras, crazy adapters, duct tape on a can, you name it. Not only is it fun but it is experimental... if I knew a priori what I were going to get, or how it would affect my shooting, I probably wouldn't be interested in it in the first place. That's what experimentation is. I didn't know what I would get when I put an rz 110/2.8 on an rb, or when I dremeled out the innards of an rb back to get a larger image. Surprise! I got a lot out of it. I could go on and on....
People who think it's silly to attach A to B are entitled to that opinion, but they should simply shake their heads and go away and use their own cameras to take their own images! It's not about what you think should or shouldn't be done. Just go on and do your own thing! Sheeze, this idea that somebody's logic should dictate what somebody else does, creatively...
As for the definition of 'experimental photography', that seems like a very good topic for another thread. No reason to turn this into a debate over something I said, off the cuff! This thread isn't about my opinion or yours. I'd be very happy to discuss experimentalism elsewhere...
If you don't realize that there's value in such endeavours, then there's nothing I can do for you, sorry. I and friends have done a lot of mods that completely changed our way of taking photographs.... MF lenses on smaller bodies, smaller lenses on LF bodies, wrong-sized film fed into various cameras, deliberately cross-developed nonsense, pinhole this and that, cheap plastic lenses on expensive cameras, crazy adapters, duct tape on a can, you name it. Not only is it fun but it is experimental... if I knew a priori what I were going to get, or how it would affect my shooting, I probably wouldn't be interested in it in the first place. That's what experimentation is. I didn't know what I would get when I put an rz 110/2.8 on an rb, or when I dremeled out the innards of an rb back to get a larger image. Surprise! I got a lot out of it. I could go on and on....
People who think it's silly to attach A to B are entitled to that opinion, but they should simply shake their heads and go away and use their own cameras to take their own images! It's not about what you think should or shouldn't be done. Just go on and do your own thing! Sheeze, this idea that somebody's logic should dictate what somebody else does, creatively...
As for the definition of 'experimental photography', that seems like a very good topic for another thread. No reason to turn this into a debate over something I said, off the cuff! This thread isn't about my opinion or yours. I'd be very happy to discuss experimentalism elsewhere...
Last edited by a moderator:
To paraphrase Jerry McGuire... "You had me at adapter...".
Keith thanks for defending the creativity of modding a lens, but to be honest, I don't even consider it that creative.
As much as I like to machine things, I'd much rather spend 8 bucks for an adapter and preserve the value of the lens.
Keith thanks for defending the creativity of modding a lens, but to be honest, I don't even consider it that creative.
As much as I like to machine things, I'd much rather spend 8 bucks for an adapter and preserve the value of the lens.
Well then, show us how it works out!
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2011
- Messages
- 143
- Format
- Multi Format
There is no reason why you can't take off the rear flange of the lens and replace it with a Nikon flange, making the appropriate adjustments of course. I don't see why this is such a big deal to people. I would suggest a 1.4 Pentax-M lens. Cheap as chips.
It's an interesting idea but it throws up some conundrums.
First why not use a Takumar lens with a far more ergo-dynamic Pentax body, the F3 is an awful beast of a camera.
If you want a lens with more bokeh (a term only used in the US) then wasn't there a Russian Nikon copy, I seem to remember on sale in the late 80's early 90's, my Helios lens in the 70's was a superb performer very sharp etc.
Go look for a Russsian Nikon mount standard lens.
Ian
First why not use a Takumar lens with a far more ergo-dynamic Pentax body, the F3 is an awful beast of a camera.
If you want a lens with more bokeh (a term only used in the US) then wasn't there a Russian Nikon copy, I seem to remember on sale in the late 80's early 90's, my Helios lens in the 70's was a superb performer very sharp etc.
Go look for a Russsian Nikon mount standard lens.
Ian
What? It's the lens projecting an image through a 24x36mm opening onto film. There's a shutter in between. How will that change the image?
True that.
My criticism is specific to this idea. Please don't expand what I said to every modification. I didn't say that, nor mean to imply it.
I think it's great for people to play around with different ways to create an image. I think it's fun to use medium format lenses on 35mm bodies, especially the ad hoc "toilet plunger tilt-shift" sort of stuff. I have enjoyed using 35mm format macro lenses on MF cameras. All good fun. The examples you give don't equate to the idea I criticized- as you say, "if I knew a priori, ... I probably wouldn't be interested in it in the first place". Right! I can tell you that if successful, the most that will be achieved is the same as fitting the lens to any of several common and inexpensive bodies, which will take it without modification, many of which will retain full function.
Look at the thread title-there's a question mark. A solicitation of opinions, I'd call that. I don't think the idea is silly-I think it's unproductive, limits function once adapted and is needlessly destructive given the rationale for doing it. I was a machinist for many years, and am very familiar with the value and outright fun of doing modifications and building specialized stuff.
Okay.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll betcha Marty Forscher could have done it with his eyes closed and both hands behind his back! 
)
)They probably are great cameras and I wouldn't mind a chrome body but then I'll want adapters for my 24 and 105 Ais lenses to the LX. I thought i was clear in my original post that I want to stick to one body and this IS the camera building modification forum.
By Jove you do have a point!
While this of fun to do its not experimental photography. I have the 50/1.4 Takumar M-42 mount and bought an adapter to mount it my C/Y bodies. So is using it on my RTSII any more experimental than using my 50/1.4 Planar on my RTSII? No, of course not.
A chrome LX- hmmm....could be an interesting project. LX's only came in black, except for the rare LX2000 and gold-plated ones.
Lxdude you caught me. I was going to edit out the "chrome" in my post but the server was doing maintenance at the time. I was confusing the LX with the MX, ME bodies which I suspect are very similar to Nikon FE, FM bodies. Pricewise the LX + 50 1.4 ~= Nikkor 50mm f1.2 which still would be my first choice if money was no object.
The MX an ME bodies are superficially similar, but much smaller. They're the smallest 35mm SLR's I know of. The MX has a horizontal cloth shutter where the FM's have vertical metal, and it has a huge viewfinder like an OM-1. The ME is all-auto, all the time; the ME Super has manual speeds changed by push-buttons; both have a vertical metal shutter. The finder is really nice, somewhat smaller image size than the MX. The one thing that turned me off the FM's was the viewfinder, which I didn't like with glasses.
For that same $100 you can get a Pentax body and decide if you like the "bokeh". When you are done, you will have a camera and lens that is saleable, instead of a butchered piece of crap that no one will want.
If you must machine something, just make a new mount to go on the Takumar rather than hacking the original mount. What about the aperture actuation?
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |