Please provide a listing of which 35mm analog mounts can be employed for digital...

[David Lyga]

...there are many. First, how many DIGITAL mounts are out there? (I'm ignorant on this.) Nikon and Pentax only?

Of course, I am talking about infinity focus capability, WITHOUT any additional lens in the adapter.

We all know that Nikon and Pentax K lenses can be used without adapters on some digital cameras. But which others? For example, M42 adapters are available. Minolta MC/MD as well as Maxxum lenses also have adapters for digital, I think. How about Canon FD and EOS? How about Konica analog? How about the rarer mounts like Fuji-X, Miranda (M44 or bayonet), Petri (!), Yashica bayonet, Olympus OM, Topcon (UNI and RE), Mamiya bayonet, Rollei bayonet. - Thanks. - David Lyga

 

[wildbill]

if you're looking for something in particular, check ebay as they pop up not long after a new lens mount is released.

 

[Halka]

The mirrorless crowd is probably the best off of digital users in this regard, since due to short flange distance they can utilize stuff like rangefinder lenses, Pentax 100 or even C-mount lenses (sensor coverage not guaranteed .

In the digital SLR land, Canon has one of the shorter flanges, M42->EF, OM->EF and F->EF adapters are pretty commonly used. Nikon SLR's can't really mount anything other than Leica R lenses without losing the ability to focus to infinity.

Of the stuff David mentioned, I'm not sure about Topcon, if I remember correctly these don't have a focusing helicoid, which would then have to be a part of the adapter (I could be mistaken though).

Listing of flange distances for a big chunk of lens mounts can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance

As a rule of thumb, you should be able to mount a lens with a longer flange on a body with a shorter flange, but I'm sure there are exceptions.

 

[ath]

Here's a list of lens register data in german.

If the register of the lens is bigger that that of the body there might be a glassless adapter.

 

[removed-user-1]

I'm aware of at least two companies currently marketing a wide variety of lens adapters: Dead Link Removed and Rainbow Imaging. I'm not going to list everything they have available, but they have adapters to put almost any lens mount I've ever heard of on almost any other film or digital camera, and I've even seen reasonably-priced tilt/shift adapters for Nikon or Canon lenses on micro-4/3 cameras. The list is almost endless.

 

[Yashinoff]

Basically every SLR mount out there is adaptable. Why does it matter anyway?

 

[Taslim Abdani]

Look up Cameraquest. He sells just about any lens adapter for digital bodies.

 

[maderik]

Of the stuff David mentioned, I'm not sure about Topcon, if I remember correctly these don't have a focusing helicoid.

Topcon RE uses a version of the Exacta bayonet. I've got EOS and FD Exacta adapters and have used a Topcor RE 58mm f/1.4 with them. The Topcon UV system is leaf shutter and the aperture control is on the body.

 

[PentaxBronica]

Pentax DSLRs can use their K lenses and also M42 lenses with an adapter, there's no glass involved but you have to use the lens like a preset one. It's worth getting the genuine adapter as 3rd party ones aren't usually machined as perfectly. The adapter will also allow you to fit M42 lenses to a K mount film SLR.

What features you get with film lenses on a digital body depend on the age of the lens.

SMC Pentax and Pentax-M lenses - manual focus and stop-down metering in M mode, by pressing either the green button or the exposure compensation button. You can also shoot in Av mode but the lens will be held wide open regardless of the aperture you select, in M you have control over the aperture.

Pentax-A lenses - all exposure modes with aperture ring set to A, manual focus.

Pentax-F/FA/FA-J/DFA/DA lenses - all AF, all exposure modes available, set aperture ring (if fitted) to A, lenses report focal length to body so you don't have to dial it in for shake reduction when you turn the camera on.

There is now an official adapter to use K lenses on the mirrorless Q, I have seen 3rd party ones to fit Auto 110 lenses to it. The K-01 uses the same K mount as the DSLRs but is mirrorless, ergonomics are apparently a bit of an acquired taste.

 

[David Lyga]

Yashinoff: WHY? Because I have lots of lenses and I just sold a Takumar 1.4/50 for USD 40 because the guy wanted to use it on his digital. There is, perhaps, new value to these old lenses since the 'official' digital lenses cost a fortune. - David Lyga

 

[PentaxBronica]

The Takumars seem very sought-after by some digital user communities, but not others. I hear the Sony DSLR forum regards them as the spawn of hell, for example. Given the results I've had from a 1960s Auto Takumar 55mm on my K-5 before now I can only assume that the fault doesn't lie with the lenses...

M42 lenses will always be in demand as there are adapters to fit them to pretty much any current system (and most older ones too). I know there are glass-free adapters to fit them to Canon DSLRs as well as the Pentax ones.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Yashinoff: WHY? Because I have lots of lenses and I just sold a Takumar 1.4/50 for USD 40 because the guy wanted to use it on his digital. There is, perhaps, new value to these old lenses since the 'official' digital lenses cost a fortune. - David Lyga

There is! Many M42 lenses are going for twice what they were only a year or two ago. Many of the Contax/Yashica mount manual focus SLR lenses are WAY up vs. 2-3 years ago for this exact reason especially the wides as Canon DSLR shooters like them better vs some of the Canon offerings. Glad I loaded myself up for my RTSII and RX a few years ago before the prices mostly rose. Seems to be a new resurgance lately I think a lot because of the Sony NEX cameras and the cheap adapters from China.

 

[zk-cessnaguy]

... I hear the Sony DSLR forum regards them as the spawn of hell, for example.

eh??? The Minolta Dynax/Maxxum mount (which is the Sony a-mount) easily takes M42 lenses with a glassless adapter - with no infinity focus problems. Dunno where you got that info from. There's a whole subforum on Dyxum.com dedicated to M42.

 

[zk-cessnaguy]

There is! Many M42 lenses are going for twice what they were only a year or two ago. Many of the Contax/Yashica mount manual focus SLR lenses are WAY up vs. 2-3 years ago for this exact reason especially the wides as Canon DSLR shooters like them better vs some of the Canon offerings. Glad I loaded myself up for my RTSII and RX a few years ago before the prices mostly rose. Seems to be a new resurgance lately I think a lot because of the Sony NEX cameras and the cheap adapters from China.

It's because of videographers as well - they love manual lenses for the 'filmic' look they give, and manual focus lenses are better, as in no focussing noise etc.

 

[Andrew K]

In Micro 4/3 (or Pentax Q/Nikon V and Sony NEX) you can use pretty much get adaptors in any lens mount...I've seen adaptors for Retina reflex/Voigtlander Bessamatic, Alpa, Zenit (m39), Kowa, Canon 0.95 rangefinder (it's a unique bayonet mount), Exakta bayonet, Rollei TM, ...not to mention adaptors for movie & video lenses (Arriflex PL, B4, Ikegami, C mount).

And there's the adaptors for medium format lenses - I know of ones for Hasselblad, Pentax, Mamiya 645, Pentacon 6/Kiev 60..........or adaptors for 35mm rangefinder lenses - M39, leica M and Contax G..there's even ones for the old Contax/Kiev mount Rangefinder lenses, and one for Nikon bayonet mount rangefinder lenses.

With Digital SLR's there are limitations - you can't use Minolta MC/MD lenses on a Sony/Minolta DSLR unless you use a adaptor with a lens in it, or you won't get infinity focus. Nikon and Pentax lenses work on most DSLR's, and as people have said - screw mount lenses work on many cameras..

It all depends on the flange depth of the original mount, and the flange depth of the DSLR mount....

 

[PentaxBronica]

eh??? The Minolta Dynax/Maxxum mount (which is the Sony a-mount) easily takes M42 lenses with a glassless adapter - with no infinity focus problems. Dunno where you got that info from. There's a whole subforum on Dyxum.com dedicated to M42.

Well, I meant as in they consider them to have poor image quality. Seems to be the same mindset that says "if it wasn't made yesterday then you must replace it", which the Sony marketing machine is particularly skilled at. A friend of mine uses Sony gear, to the best of my knowledge they've never tried a Takumar but consider them garbage, presumably from what they've read on some forum or other.

Funnily enough they went rather quiet after I started posting images taken with one online! My old K-m wouldn't meter properly with M42 lenses but the K-5 will, so I've been playing around with various Taks a fair bit, although I try to buy the first series of K lenses (SMC Takumars with the new mount) instead as they don't need an adapter.

 

[zk-cessnaguy]

Well, I meant as in they consider them to have poor image quality. Seems to be the same mindset that says "if it wasn't made yesterday then you must replace it", which the Sony marketing machine is particularly skilled at. A friend of mine uses Sony gear, to the best of my knowledge they've never tried a Takumar but consider them garbage, presumably from what they've read on some forum or other.

Funnily enough they went rather quiet after I started posting images taken with one online! My old K-m wouldn't meter properly with M42 lenses but the K-5 will, so I've been playing around with various Taks a fair bit, although I try to buy the first series of K lenses (SMC Takumars with the new mount) instead as they don't need an adapter.

I'm sure there is a (very) large subset of Sony users who do partake in the "if it wasn't made yesterday then you must replace it" kool-aid.
The K-mount lenses branded as Takumar don't have as great a reputation as the M42 ones, which may be the root cause of your friend's Takumar-phobia...

 

[PentaxBronica]

Ahh, those "things"...

The 28mm f2.8 isn't bad, I bought one before I knew anything about decent gear and revisited it recently. Colours are a bit washed out but it's decently sharp, apparently it's identical to the later version of the Pentax-M lens but with simplified coatings. It lurks in one of the reserve flight cases as I have the K and M versions of the 28mm f3.5 which are much better. K is slightly sharper but M is smaller and easier to find.

I hear the Tak Bayonet 135mm f2.8 isn't too shabby either. That's about it. The rest are definitely a case of being able to do much, much better for the money if buying used!

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The design of lenses for analog and digital use are somewhat different. In digital cameras it is preferable for the rays exiting the lens be as close to perpendicular to the sensor plane as possible. Oblique rays can cause various distortions and color shifts. Of course this is not a problem with film. There was a lengthy article on this subject on the web but I don't have the reference. So lenses for analog cameras may not work as well as those lenses designed for digital cameras.

 

[benjiboy]

I don't think this is a subject for a none digital forum.

 

[mopar_guy]

I don't think this is a subject for a none digital forum.

+1

 

[mopar_guy]

Yashinoff: WHY? Because I have lots of lenses and I just sold a Takumar 1.4/50 for USD 40 because the guy wanted to use it on his digital. There is, perhaps, new value to these old lenses since the 'official' digital lenses cost a fortune. - David Lyga

Yes, and these idiots are causing the prices on some of these film camera lenses to go to stupid high levels. To me this is an example of the camera companies killing off lenses with a single focal length to concentrate on the production of zooms. Epic fail on the part of "modern" camera design.

 

[fotch]

I don't think this is a subject for a none digital forum.

+2

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Something going on, even in the digital world, that might be affecting the prices on our gear traditionally used for analog film use, sure is a subject I'd like to hear about here.

 

[PentaxBronica]

Something going on, even in the digital world, that might be affecting the prices on our gear traditionally used for analog film use, sure is a subject I'd like to hear about here.

Agreed. It explains why some lenses are getting stupidly expensive while others can barely be given away.

The subject heading is perfectly clear. If you don't want to read about it then just skip over it. No need to post negative one-liners.