Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Any Issues in using M42 adapter and M42 lenses on Nikon D300
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:57 pm    Post subject: Any Issues in using M42 adapter and M42 lenses on Nikon D300 Reply with quote

I have access to some older M42 lenses -Takumars and some others which the owner could not remember brand names for, and I would like to use them with an adapter on my Nikon D300 and D7000 cameras.
Do all M42 lenses actually work - with adapter - on these cameras?
Which adapter(s) is/are the one/s that you would recommend.
Are there any issues that I need to be aware of - eg are some M42 lenses best avoided?
Apologies if this has been raised before.
Thanks in advance
OH


PostPosted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mid North Coast? Like Taree, Old Bar, Port Macquarie and Forster?

Best go have a potato pie from the Old Bar Bakery for me now will ya. God I miss them..

Anyways.. Yes forum searching is your friend. Quickly tho (because you know where Old Bar is) The flange focal register difference is the key here. (wait... I'm assuming this is new to you.. stop reading here if you know what this all is..)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance

To use M42 glass (at infinity) you need an adapter with a glass element. Introducing another glass element to the optical system "generally" is held to reduce the quality.. If you don't care about infinity and want macro style stuff, you can get adapters without the glass and be be happy.

As for as DSLR's are concerned. Pentax (45.46) and Cannon (44.00mm) have a similar register distance to M42 (45.46mm) and work without the need of the glass element. With Cameras with shorter flange distances then 44.56mm the adapters you find will have the difference in mm made up to set the lens the correct distance away, Nikons flange is already to long (46.50mm) You generally have to remove the rear mount and take some material away from the back of the lens if you are going to mount it without the need of a glass element. Or just get an adapter with a glass element..

Having said all that.

Something with a short short register distance (im looking at you NEX cameras etc etc) can take a host of mounts to use practically every lens ever made!!

If you just have M42 stuff tho, that's not a big deal. Get a cheap Pentax, Cannon SLR and play away Razz


Make-a-the-sense? Embarassed


But back to types of adapters.. I haven't heard of any glass ones to avoid if that's what you want to do. From what I remember the results of the glass adapters aren't up to the pixel peepers that peep! So they give up and get a Cannon, Pentax, Sell the M42 stuff Razz


PostPosted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Sun Apr 17, 2016 7:27 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Many thanks for the replies.
Maybe it is more trouble than it is worth to try to integrate the M42 with the Nikon system, although for portrait work perhaps a Takumar 135 may be useful.
I live north of Port Macquarie and although I have no association with Old Bar and its potato pies, there is an award winning pie shop at Frederickton - Fred's Pies - that does an awesome range from Crocodile through Kangaroo to Venison.
I appreciate the feedback
Gratias
OH[/i]


PostPosted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I remember a thread somewhere where one had chopped the lens in a fashion to take the nikon adapter, It ruined the original housing tho and it could never be used as a M42 lens every again.

You wont have a problem selling those Takumers if you want to hunt down some old Nikkor glass none the less! Razz Which really, to be honest, are probably just as good as any old Tak.

Or Do what I did, Get a Pentax Razz


Fred's Pies! I'll add to the list when visiting my family over Christmas Razz


PostPosted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tromboads wrote:
I remember a thread somewhere where one had chopped the lens in a fashion to take the nikon adapter, It ruined the original housing tho and it could never be used as a M42 lens every again.

You wont have a problem selling those Takumers if you want to hunt down some old Nikkor glass none the less! Razz Which really, to be honest, are probably just as good as any old Tak.

Or Do what I did, Get a Pentax Razz


Fred's Pies! I'll add to the list when visiting my family over Christmas Razz


I love my Nikon and I'm not into butchering lenses, so I might pass them on - thanks for the help.
My thick fingers always let me down on these keyboards.
It should have read - FREDO'S Pies DOH!

In the meantime, maybe there will be a Pentax somewhere in my future - we'll see.
Cheers
OH


PostPosted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ah.. :p Kempsey. Yep that's a good enough excuse for a push bike ride.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sometimes glassed adapters are not that bad, especially when lens is stopped down.
I wouldn't suggest a Nikon to someone wanting to use m42's, nor m42's to Nikon shooters, but if you already have both, buying two adapters, one with glass and one without glass (and without infinity), will not be expensive, and you'll surely have fun with them.
My two cents.
Now I'm really curious about the pies.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Indeed, I tested those adapters with glass and they are not that bad if a good one is used with coated glass. It is basically a 1.2x extender that makes the focal length a bit longer so the difference in registers M42 vs Nikon is matched for allowing infinity focus. A $20 risk worth trying ot (for me it was)...

Always depends on expectations, OK for me, but I'm not a pixel peeper anyway...


PostPosted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 7:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

From what I read on forums, some people experience problems mounting Takumars 50/1.4 on their Nikons. The rear element of the lens gets too close to the mirror. Myself I haven't tried this lens, mainly for this reason, no such problems noticed with other M42 lenses on D90/D300s.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 7:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the feedback everyone.


Lena wrote:
From what I read on forums, some people experience problems mounting Takumars 50/1.4 on their Nikons. The rear element of the lens gets too close to the mirror. Myself I haven't tried this lens, mainly for this reason, no such problems noticed with other M42 lenses on D90/D300s.


Thanks Lena, which lenses do you use successfully on the D300s.
I am looking at 135, 200 and possibly 300.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You are experiencing part of the insoluble dilemma of which DSLR system to get into. Do you get Nikon, the lenses are the most easily adapted to other cameras (especially D lenses with aperture rings), but with a body that can't really use your non-Nikon lenses, or Canon, which has the body most suitable for fixing a range of lenses to, but lenses which don't easily work with anything else (especially those with electronic aperture).
My solution so far is to use a mirrorless Sony NEX which can use nearly any lens, but isn't really suited for anything you could describe as "action" photography.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Sun Apr 17, 2016 7:27 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe it's obvious, but it's better remembering that a good option for manual glass on nikon bodies is old nikon mount lenses, such as old nikkors and some russians that used to be available also in nikon mount.
Searching the forums you'll find deep coverage of all the possible mounting issues of old nikon lenses on modern bodies.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aanything wrote:
Maybe it's obvious, but it's better remembering that a good option for manual glass on nikon bodies is old nikon mount lenses, such as old nikkors and some russians that used to be available also in nikon mount.
Searching the forums you'll find deep coverage of all the possible mounting issues of old nikon lenses on modern bodies.


Yes, of course, and thank you for the timely reminder. I am not familiar with Russian lenses at all. Are there any particular brands that were made in Nikon mount?

Thank you Bernhardas for your suggestion. Yes I had in mind using tele lenses for close up studies that do not need infinity focus. Your suggestion of a small shim to extend the lens and improve bokeh is a good one.
Gratias to you both
OH


PostPosted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:
Aanything wrote:
Maybe it's obvious, but it's better remembering that a good option for manual glass on nikon bodies is old nikon mount lenses, such as old nikkors and some russians that used to be available also in nikon mount.
Searching the forums you'll find deep coverage of all the possible mounting issues of old nikon lenses on modern bodies.


Yes, of course, and thank you for the timely reminder. I am not familiar with Russian lenses at all. Are there any particular brands that were made in Nikon mount?


The ones I own that are available in nikon mount are the MC Mir 24 2/35, the MC Kaleinar 5 2.8/100 and the Zenitar fisheye 16/2.8.
The first two are very good lenses that can be had for interesting prices, the fisheye is extremely good considered its price (around 120 euros, if your patient, even less if you're lucky).
Usually the nikon mount russians have an "N" in the name (e.g. MC Mir 24 N (H in cyrillic)), but since these have a switchable mount, you should always double check, as you could find a mir 24 N that has m42 mount.
There are others for sure, but I stopped using nikon bodies before getting interested in manual glass, so I'm not really familiar with them.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aanything wrote:
Oldhand wrote:
Aanything wrote:
Maybe it's obvious, but it's better remembering that a good option for manual glass on nikon bodies is old nikon mount lenses, such as old nikkors and some russians that used to be available also in nikon mount.
Searching the forums you'll find deep coverage of all the possible mounting issues of old nikon lenses on modern bodies.


Yes, of course, and thank you for the timely reminder. I am not familiar with Russian lenses at all. Are there any particular brands that were made in Nikon mount?


The ones I own that are available in nikon mount are the MC Mir 24 2/35, the MC Kaleinar 5 2.8/100 and the Zenitar fisheye 16/2.8.
The first two are very good lenses that can be had for interesting prices, the fisheye is extremely good considered its price (around 120 euros, if your patient, even less if you're lucky).
Usually the nikon mount russians have an "N" in the name (e.g. MC Mir 24 N (H in cyrillic)), but since these have a switchable mount, you should always double check, as you could find a mir 24 N that has m42 mount.
There are others for sure, but I stopped using nikon bodies before getting interested in manual glass, so I'm not really familiar with them.


Many thanks.
OH Very Happy


PostPosted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:
Thanks for the feedback everyone.


Lena wrote:
From what I read on forums, some people experience problems mounting Takumars 50/1.4 on their Nikons. The rear element of the lens gets too close to the mirror. Myself I haven't tried this lens, mainly for this reason, no such problems noticed with other M42 lenses on D90/D300s.


Thanks Lena, which lenses do you use successfully on the D300s.
I am looking at 135, 200 and possibly 300.


I'm using mostly 50-55mm in M42, so I'm afraid I won't help with the tele lenses.

Some people in my county are very fond of Tair 11A and 300/4,5, they get an interchangeable mount for this lens to fit Nikon and thus no adapter is needed. The mount itself is not very expensive, something around 15-20 EUR, but not all available are original and some people have experienced fitting problems.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lena wrote:
Oldhand wrote:
Thanks for the feedback everyone.


Lena wrote:
From what I read on forums, some people experience problems mounting Takumars 50/1.4 on their Nikons. The rear element of the lens gets too close to the mirror. Myself I haven't tried this lens, mainly for this reason, no such problems noticed with other M42 lenses on D90/D300s.


Thanks Lena, which lenses do you use successfully on the D300s.
I am looking at 135, 200 and possibly 300.


I'm using mostly 50-55mm in M42, so I'm afraid I won't help with the tele lenses.

Some people in my county are very fond of Tair 11A and 300/4,5, they get an interchangeable mount for this lens to fit Nikon and thus no adapter is needed. The mount itself is not very expensive, something around 15-20 EUR, but not all available are original and some people have experienced fitting problems.


Sounds good Lena.
Many thanks
OH


PostPosted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have three lensed adapters from different sources. The better the camera lens the better the results. They go soft in the corners, not blurred properly.

But a couple of stops down you hardly notice it. Be honest, you can zoom in on the screen and see what you want but If you print them, as I have done for a customer, up to 12 x 16 inch you don't really notice. Get one, you may be surprised, They're not too bad.

look here where I have tested a Helios lens on my Nikon with a lensed adapter.

http://forum.mflenses.com/testing-m42-nikon-lensed-adapter-t54575.html


PostPosted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

philslizzy wrote:
I have three lensed adapters from different sources. The better the camera lens the better the results. They go soft in the corners, not blurred properly.

But a couple of stops down you hardly notice it. Be honest, you can zoom in on the screen and see what you want but If you print them, as I have done for a customer, up to 12 x 16 inch you don't really notice. Get one, you may be surprised, They're not too bad.

look here where I have tested a Helios lens on my Nikon with a lensed adapter.

http://forum.mflenses.com/testing-m42-nikon-lensed-adapter-t54575.html


Many thanks Philslizzy for the link.
It is appreciated.
OH


PostPosted: Tue Apr 23, 2013 3:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, just to be clear in my own mind, the setup for using M42 lenses with a Nikon lens-less adapter will be thus:
The lens will lose the ability to focus at infinity but most other distances will be OK, with a small shift in the closest focusing distance.
Exposure will be manual? Or will the Nikon D300 respond in A (aperture priority mode)?
Manual focusing of course - will the focus seen through the viewfinder be true, or will adjustments need to be made?
Have I got any of this wrong or have I missed anything?
Thanks for your help in advance
OH


PostPosted: Tue Apr 23, 2013 6:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

While using a no-glass adapter, you will lose quite a lot of your focusing distance. Your D300 will work in manual mode only. The A-mode works with manual focus Nikkor lenses and some other Nikon mount MF lenses.
While focusing you will get the "green dot" focus confirmation when the camera "thinks" you're right on. I find it fairly reliable in my D300s, much better that my previous D90 could offer. From what I've noticed, it is good to change your AF settings to single point AF and central point before mounting a MF lens. Then you're certain that the confirmation will "look" at the center of the frame. Once I left another AF point active and got the confirmation for that point, although I didn't know which, since the camera did not highlight it in the viewfinder, of course.

I found it difficult to focus manually with the regular focusing screen, so following some forum advise I got myself a replacement, which makes the whole job all the easier - something like this:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcUqXMp04QY179i6x5IobYu6WfAZslAaS2Cd1JVKbnilp7QawS

You can also use lifeview for focusing, which I personally rarely do, but if you're used to this feature you may find it very helpful.

Your Nikon will also fail to record most of the exif data while shooting with M42 lenses. This can be partly overcome by using pre-set values of focal lenght/max. aperture for defined MF lenses. I'm not sure if you have the same feature on your D300, but if you do, it's very useful. You get some quasi-metering with that as well, only you have to correct it as you stop down the lens, for the camera will not know if you changed the aperture value.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 23, 2013 7:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lena wrote:
While using a no-glass adapter, you will lose quite a lot of your focusing distance. Your D300 will work in manual mode only. The A-mode works with manual focus Nikkor lenses and some other Nikon mount MF lenses.
While focusing you will get the "green dot" focus confirmation when the camera "thinks" you're right on. I find it fairly reliable in my D300s, much better that my previous D90 could offer. From what I've noticed, it is good to change your AF settings to single point AF and central point before mounting a MF lens. Then you're certain that the confirmation will "look" at the center of the frame. Once I left another AF point active and got the confirmation for that point, although I didn't know which, since the camera did not highlight it in the viewfinder, of course.

I found it difficult to focus manually with the regular focusing screen, so following some forum advise I got myself a replacement, which makes the whole job all the easier - something like this:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcUqXMp04QY179i6x5IobYu6WfAZslAaS2Cd1JVKbnilp7QawS

You can also use lifeview for focusing, which I personally rarely do, but if you're used to this feature you may find it very helpful.

Your Nikon will also fail to record most of the exif data while shooting with M42 lenses. This can be partly overcome by using pre-set values of focal lenght/max. aperture for defined MF lenses. I'm not sure if you have the same feature on your D300, but if you do, it's very useful. You get some quasi-metering with that as well, only you have to correct it as you stop down the lens, for the camera will not know if you changed the aperture value.


Thanks Lena, that's pretty much what I thought, and thanks for clarifying the exposure options.
I am interested to know just how much focusing distance will be lost with a no-glass adapter. I am assuming it will be toward the longer end of the focusing scale towards infinity (ala Buzz Lightyear). I am hoping to use these longer lenses for subjects up to around 10 metres.
Thanks again
OH


PostPosted: Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:
Thanks Lena, that's pretty much what I thought, and thanks for clarifying the exposure options.
I am interested to know just how much focusing distance will be lost with a no-glass adapter. I am assuming it will be toward the longer end of the focusing scale towards infinity (ala Buzz Lightyear). I am hoping to use these longer lenses for subjects up to around 10 metres.
Thanks again
OH


Just did a rough and ready test with a couple of m42 lenses and an old Nikon DSLR. I held the lens against the camera which simulates an adapter of zero thickness and set the focus on the lens to infinity. Obviously results with a real (even very thin) adapter will be even worse.
Maximum focus distance for my Pentacon 135mm was around 6m, but my favourite M42 lens, the Flektogon 35mm f2.4 was only about 20cm.
Verdict - longer lenses may still work as portrait lenses, shorter lenses are closeup only - on the plus side at minimum focus the Flektogon becomes a 1:1.5 near macro