Best MF Lens "look"

Alternate Internet ID · Joined: 30 Mar 2011 Posts: 253 Location: UK

Which camera suits MF lenses best when using an adapter.
What I mean is which camera looks the most natural with MF lenses on.
The Canon has a thin adapter so lenses seem to sit right, but I'm a little disappointed with the NX adapter as, with it being 2-3cm in depth, it causes lenses to look longer than they are.
I'm okay with the NX as the 20-50 kit lens is great - I use it all the time, and I only ever go up to 90mm and the Tamron I use looks okay.
But is there another smaller camera APS-C that has a smaller adapter and lenses will look more "natural" and sit closer to the body.
Or maybe other mounts (I use mostly M42) have thinner adapters.

martinsmith99 · Expire: 2013-11-18

Erm, what does it matter what it looks like? Any sliver/alu or zebra lens is going to look odd on a DSLR.

Lightshow · Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3666 Location: Calgary

Rangefinder lenses will look more at home on the mirrorless cameras than SLR lenses because of the registration distance required to reach infinity.
On this page http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/mounts-by-register.html
find your camera, then all the lenses with a longer registration should work properly provided there are no other clearance issues.
Before you buy a lens & adapter do a search to see if there are issues with the combination. eg. Jupiter 12 will not clear Nex bodies because the rear element is too big.

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

I'm sure you have your own reason for concern about the way your camera (or you) look when out and about doing photography; perhaps you don't want to attract attention, explain why it looks strange, be perceived as weird for using MF, or maybe the long lens scares little girls. Whatever. Probably a pancake lens is best for not attracting attention and looking the most "normal". While you have your own reasons, don't forget the purpose of it all is the photography itself and that shouldn't be compromised.

This all remind me of something we used to say around the scholastic wrestling circles when the kids focused too much on their singlets and shoes: beware of kids from Pennsylvania wearing cut-off jeans and old ratty tennis shoes.

Alternate Internet ID · Joined: 30 Mar 2011 Posts: 253 Location: UK

I probably phrased it all wrong.
95% of the time I use wide to normal lenses and that extra few cm's of the adapter puts the focus and aperture in a position further away from the body that I'm used to. Only a tiny bit, but on the NX I find it annoying to use and it increases the bulk of the camera.
Looking cool certainly isn't the issue - it's a practical point just on the NX which I'd like to use more with MF lenses.

martinsmith99 · Expire: 2013-11-18

RF lenses will not need such a thick adapter.

Lightshow · Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3666 Location: Calgary

For ergonomics, I like my FD SSC 24/2.8 on my NEX-7, it doesn't stick out too far, My Minolta MC Rokkor HG 35/2.8 is great too, and both are very sharp.
RF lenses are nice and small, my silver Canon RF lenses from the mid 50's are beautifully engineered, but I find them a bit too small at times.

Canon & Minolta do have a few pancake lenses that make a fairly compact combination.