Leica M adapter for Fuji X mount

[Hassasin]

As I am waiting for a standard M adapter for Fuji XF, had no idea Fujifilm makes own adapter that for some reason has electronic contacts on it too. Fuji seems mum about what those contacts do. Does anyone use this adapter to share advantages if any ?

 

[Hassasin]

Well, did not take long to answer my own question. I'll leave it here as some might need this too.

Here is nice review of the combo.

 

[skahde]

When the adapter arrives, please report back anyway. I would be interested to know if it also has the correct flange-distance. My OEM-adapter doesn't and lenses wont focus to infinity when the lenses scale indicates it. All of my lenses need a little bit more extension which annoys me quite a bit.

 

[Hassasin]

@skahde I'll get the Fuji eventually as for now I'll be getting a KF Concept version. I don't know if infiniti miscue would bother me as much, but mai advantage of getting the Fuji one is electronic linkage to menu line, and allocating manual lens data to memory slot for future recall, something that can be done without it, except the clear convenience of not forgetting where the menu portion is. Some Fuji adapter users are showing perfect focus plane match. I'll get back when I get one.

 

[r_a_feldman]

When the adapter arrives, please report back anyway. I would be interested to know if it also has the correct flange-distance. My OEM-adapter doesn't and lenses wont focus to infinity when the lenses scale indicates it. All of my lenses need a little bit more extension which annoys me quite a bit.

It is fairly easy to shim an adapter to get a longer film-to-flange distance. You can use K&S Metals brass shim stock for 0.001” to 0.005” shims or styrene sheet for thicker shims. Reducing the f-to-f distance is more work, as you need to sand the face of the adapter down. I have a number of inexpensive ($10-$15) Fotasy adapters for Fujifilm X cameras and usually I have to adjust the f-to-f distance on them.

At times I have had to shim individual lenses (e.g., a Nikkor 20mm f3.5 AIS lens) after I adjusted the adapter mount for other lenses, as there is usually some variation in each lens around the acceptable spacing.

 

[Hassasin]

It is fairly easy to shim an adapter to get a longer film-to-flange distance. You can use K&S Metals brass shim stock for 0.001” to 0.005” shims or styrene sheet for thicker shims. Reducing the f-to-f distance is more work, as you need to sand the face of the adapter down. I have a number of inexpensive ($10-$15) Fotasy adapters for Fujifilm X cameras and usually I have to adjust the f-to-f distance on them.

At times I have had to shim individual lenses (e.g., a Nikkor 20mm f3.5 AIS lens) after I adjusted the adapter mount for other lenses, as there is usually some variation in each lens around the acceptable spacing.

Looks like you answered your own approach to making it "perfect" by admitting not all lenses are made equal to start with. In the end no point of messing with adapter when it affects what some lenses end up doing that they did not before.

So long I can focus, I'm fine with an adapter, don't even try to adjust. If adapter is preventing me from proper focusing I don't use it (return it if I still can).

I see similar issues with rangefinder lenses where not all are perfectly aligned with rangefinder itself, clearly visible at infinity as tiny but varied lens-to-lens off-set.

Here the issue is that Fuji made one does give a notable advantage with electronic connection to camera. Is it worth 5 times the price ?

I don't believe the issue of flange distance is in adapter alone, some of that comes from a lens itself.

 

[skahde]

I agree it's moot point if you just want to shoot along with adapted lenses on the digital camera.

But for me and with rangefinder-lenses there is an added benefit if the flange is perfecly shimmed (I will look into this, thanks a lot to r_a_feldman): You can crosscheck the adjustment of the lens for the rangefinder-camera by focussing on objects, taking note of the position of the scale and swapping them to the digital camera. But you need a perfect lens as a reference to start with the shimming or need to improvise a collimation device.

 

[Hassasin]

I agree it's moot point if you just want to shoot along with adapted lenses on the digital camera.

But for me and with rangefinder-lenses there is an added benefit if the flange is perfecly shimmed (I will look into this, thanks a lot to r_a_feldman): You can crosscheck the adjustment of the lens for the rangefinder-camera by focussing on objects, taking note of the position of the scale and swapping them to the digital camera. But you need a perfect lens as a reference to start with the shimming or need to improvise a collimation device.

In all this you are running into a likely different shim for every lens. I can appreciate your desire to have it perfect. I can only see a need for it if there is an actual focusing issue causing miscued photographs as result.

Adjustments are only made at short dead end of scale and infinity.

The more I think about it, the less I see accuracy as main point of distance scale on lens barrel, with some exceptions on macro lenses, but even that is doubtful.

On a rangefinder I need to see a close match between what rangefinder shows as focused on and corresponding result in photograph. Mismatch means rangefinder adjustment. If several lenses on same body show differing focus results, problem is with lenses. How many cases are there of having reputable lenses made for a rangefinder not following alignment formula ? I've not heard of that being an issue. And even more so if the nature of using a rangefinder is considered.

As we are talking adapters for digital body, if focus peak confirms the intended target, there should be nothing else to it, unless in image there is mismatch, but that will have nothing to do with how precisely adapter was made, but issue with focus peak itself.

 

[skahde]

In all this you are running into a likely different shim for every lens.

My own lazyness will sure enough safe me: Take one well collimated lens as a standard and shim the adapter to this, giving infinity focus on the rangefinder as well as the adapter at the same setting. For instance, I know my ZM Planar 2/50 to be spot on when used on my Leica M4 and M3, both being recently serviced.

And you can disregard the actual numbers on a distance-scale in the process. They are only used as a relative indication that the lens is at the same extension on both cameras.

And speaking of the problem of misaligned rangefinder-lenses we are often encountering decade-old lenses which often have a questionable history. I just recently had an Elmarit 2,8/90mm which had been incorrectly reshimmed and even a new index-point had been drilled for the new position of the aperture-scale which resulted. The lens always focussed to close when used on my cameras, infinity seemed alright but I believe that depth of field covered the problem there. On my KF-concept adapter I was able to reach infinity but at suspicously greater deviation from indicated infinity than on the scales of my other leica-lenses. This indication was more vague than I would have wished. A correctly shimmed adapter would have been helpful in this situation.

 

[Hassasin]

For the time being I'm staying with just received K&F Concept M to XF adapter as it appears to work just fine. I would say it's not perfect at infinity with Nokton 75, but same I'd say about this lens on M5. Results however are fine and focusing on H2 is easy and accurate throughout distance scale. By the latter I mean I get sharp plane as intended.

I'll wait for the Fuji M adapter until I get to shoot this combo more, ad solely due to the electronic connection. Otherwise I see no issues with K&F. If I do get one, then I'll update on any differences between the two adapters.