Hack a Takumar 50mm to Nikon F3?

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Richard did you chose the Takumar for cost or other reason as Contax should have a stellar 50 f1.4?

Nah, it was just for fun. The 50/1.4 Takumar is so well-reputed I just wanted to try it, and it is indeed a fine performer, but really, what 50mm isn't? I also just love playing with lenses and the M-42 mount has a lot of wonderful, classic and CHEAP lenses. Now I can mount any and all on my Contax bodies. As for difference, nope, nothing significant. I do not own the 50/1.4 Planar anymore, like the 50/1.7 Planar just as much so I sold it. That said my favorite 50's are the 50/2 Nikkor-S for SLR and the 50/2 Summicron-DR for RF.

Makes me wonder, do they make M-42 to Nikon SLR adapters? If so the OP should get the M-42 version of the Tak' and ones of those adapters to mount on his Nikon.

 

[cccpkuina]

Hi there

if you want modifying nikon f mount body to m42 mount

h ttp://www.din.or.jp/~yamato-c/nikonm42-2.html

check this

 

[paul ron]

i saw this adapter and im sure somewhere in this thread it might have been mentioned but im going to post it anyway....


https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/co...iJvnmtQCFdqNswod5EMDOQ&is=REG&m=Y&sku=1238903

 

[Dan Fromm]

Um, Paul,

infinity focus is limited based on the specific lens in use

Pentax thread mount register is 45.46 mm, the adapter's flange has positive thickness, and Nikon F register is 46.50 mm. No M42 lens mounted on that adapter will focus to infinity on a Nikon.

Not to be a complete idiot, but what good is that?

 

[paul ron]

ummm... so you mean all his shots were intended to be at infinity wide open?

hahahhaahahhaha come on, DOF makes up the difference.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Not quite all, but given the range of lenses in F mount I don't see much reason to do the adaptation. Against this, long lenses are usually made to focus through infinity to allow for thermal expansion so there might be some lonh M-42 lenses that will make infinity on the Photodiox adapter on a Nikon.

I ran the link in post #42 above through Google Translate. That product replaces an M-42 lens' male mount (that screws into an M-42 body's female mount, and we'll have no, repeat no, sniggering here) with a Nikon F mount. It isn't an adapter with a male F mount on one end and a female M-42 on the other. I have no idea how thick an M-42 lens' male mount's flange is, but if it has 1.04 mm to spare its seller's claims could well be correct.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Yeah the 50mm f1.2 would be my first choice but don't want to drop 5 Benjamins for one. i have had a long nose 50mm f1.8 and it's bokeh was horrible. Hated the backgrounds. I have the 105 2.5 so I know a nice background when I see it. The f2 is a bit better than the 1.8, but I have just read so much good about Takumar f1.4 it's got me curious and I kind of like a challenge. Not that it matters but the older Tak is such a cool looking lens to boot.

You might not like the Taks... A $15 Spotmatic body is cheaper than adapting a Takumar to a Nikon, and you didn't mention what you would do about the auto diaphragm, either. The Spotmatic F has open aperture metering with the correct lenses. You could buy a Pentax with lens for $25, try it, and resell it if you don't like the lens.
I like the 50 f2 Nikkor H so much that I have four, one for each body.