Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

ROLLEI 50mm f1.8 in Nikon mount?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:01 pm    Post subject: ROLLEI 50mm f1.8 in Nikon mount? Reply with quote
Is this lens uncommon?

Click here to see on Ebay


PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think converted one.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
obviously.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 10:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I can't imagine that it will work on a FF Nikon without the mirror hitting it. The rear element retaining ring wasn't even reduced by the looks of it.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
AhamB wrote:
I can't imagine that it will work on a FF Nikon without the mirror hitting it. The rear element retaining ring wasn't even reduced by the looks of it.


Would it have to be?

Some of my Nikon-mount lenses stick out pretty far beyond the rear of the mount... for example, my Soligor 135/3.5:


... as compared to the converted Rollei from the auction:
ebay auction wrote:



Either way, it looks to be a nicely done conversion...


PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Scheimpflug wrote:
AhamB wrote:
I can't imagine that it will work on a FF Nikon without the mirror hitting it. The rear element retaining ring wasn't even reduced by the looks of it.


Would it have to be?

Some of my Nikon-mount lenses stick out pretty far beyond the rear of the mount... for example, my Soligor 135/3.5:


In that picture, the Rollei perhaps isn't focused to infinity (where the rear element protrudes most), but I based my remark on the mirror problems with this lens has with the Canon 5D. FF Nikons have less mirror clearance because the registration distrance is shorter.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I like the gold ring - ok, brass only, and only visible when not on camera.

I wonder if probably Nikon 24x26 cameras could even be better for conversion jobs than Canon cameras. Think about that since some months.

But probably there are nearly no people with conversion to Nikon skills - because on Nikon alternative lenses without F-mount are far less used than on Canon.
Probabyl all these lenses that need EOS 5D mirror shaving would work converted on a Nikon D700 without problems?
Old Canon FD lenses converted to Nikon - that would be great!
Scheimpflug, how deep that Soligor lens prodrudes into the camera - measured from the flange?


PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
AhamB wrote:
...
In that picture, the Rollei perhaps isn't focused to infinity (where the rear element protrudes most), but I based my remark on the mirror problems with this lens has with the Canon 5D. FF Nikons have less mirror clearance because the registration distrance is shorter.


The flange back distance is only one thing - I would even say the flange back distance of a camera says nothing about the possibility to convert a lens for that camera. For that the mount diameter and the way the mirror takes is much more interessting.
I could imaging that Nikon cameras are better for lens conversion jobs.
After Scheimpflugs image I am nearly sure.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The F-Mount is 2.5 mm farther away than EF Mount. For me that Soligor lens looks (can´t measure) that the back ring is far deeper than 2.5 mm inside the camera than my now working FD 85/1.2 with EF mount.

I think the prodruding of that Soligor lens is nearly as much as with EF-S lens. And that ols Soligor lens worked for sure with 24x36 mm cameras like the Nikon F3.
One thing is not sure at the moment: Did Nikon change the mirror box and mirror dimensions on their DSLR cameras?

Some rough toughts:
On EF mount a lens may protrude ~ 7 mm from the flange into the camera. That is some ~ 1.5 mm above the mount ring itself.
On the Nikon F-Mount that would be ~ 9.5 mm.
If Scheimpflug measures more than this, from flange to the ring end, it seems nearly clear to me, that for older film cameras lenses may converted something equal or even better as for Canon EOS.

But one should not forget the last lens diameter for F-mount conversion plans.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I just took some measurements... On the Soligor, the baffle ring protrudes an additional 4mm beyond the backside of the bayonet tabs. Measuring to the flange is a bit more difficult, as the flange is recessed slightly into the lens barrel, but it appears to be about 8.5mm.


I checked some of my other lenses with protrusions, and came up with identical figures. My Kalimar 28-85/3.5 and Helios 50/2 both measure exactly the same, 4mm protrusion & 8.5mm to the flange. So I would suspect that this was a standard or recommended amount.

For the 7mm figure you have for EF, was that the amount recommended to manufacturers (and found in production lenses), or was that the measured length where a lens would hit the mirror? Obviously these lenses I have do not hit the mirrors, so there is some additional clearance inside the camera... I have no way of knowing how much, but either way, you could probably protrude a bit more than this 4mm/8.5mm and get away with it. Wink


PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ZoneV wrote:
I could imaging that Nikon cameras are better for lens conversion jobs. After Scheimpflugs image I am nearly sure.


From what I've seen of conversion of the Minolta Rokkor 58/1.2 to Nikon, Nikon (D700) is considerably worse for conversion. To reach infinity you have to adjust the infinity focus on the lens, through which the rear element protrudes even further. The smaller mount diameter also doesn't help either, in general.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
8.5 mm from flange (the ring where the camera mount flange gets into full contact) to the last part of the baffle - as I understand.
My Tokina 200mm f/3.5 has 7.5 mm there.

So these lenses has less protrusion than (adapted) EF mount lenses like the Rokkor 58/1.2 or FD 85/1.2 (modified for work without mirros shave).

AhamB, the Rokkor 58/1.2 reaches infinity without mirror shaving - that sounds at least equal to EOS DSLR. Probably better.
A adjustment of the infinity focus is not as bas as shaving the mirror some may think. And probably other lenses would work too - lenses that need mirror shaving on a EOS 5D.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ZoneV wrote:
So these lenses has less protrusion than (adapted) EF mount lenses like the Rokkor 58/1.2 or FD 85/1.2 (modified for work without mirros shave).

AhamB, the Rokkor 58/1.2 reaches infinity without mirror shaving - that sounds at least equal to EOS DSLR. Probably better.
A adjustment of the infinity focus is not as bas as shaving the mirror some may think. And probably other lenses would work too - lenses that need mirror shaving on a EOS 5D.


I don't really care about the measurements/calculations until I see or hear that this Soligor works when mounted on the likes of a D700/D3. I only see a D40 in Scheimpflug's signature.

Where did you find that the Rokkor can be converted with infinity focus to Nikon? Unfortunately the fredmiranda archives are offline at the moment, because there was a thread about it there and IIRC the conversion didn't achieve infinity.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
AhamB wrote:
...From what I've seen of conversion of the Minolta Rokkor 58/1.2 to Nikon, Nikon (D700) is considerably worse for conversion. To reach infinity you have to adjust the infinity focus on the lens, through which the rear element protrudes even further. ...


I think I have misinterpreted you message before - thought you know a Rokkor 58/1.2 conversion to Nikon which reaches infinity.

From the measurements of Scheimpflug - if I understand them right with the 8.5 mm from flange to back of baffle - it does not seem any more that conversions to Nikon are better for sure.
Probably they are - but from lenses original to F-Mount I can not judge that after that measurement.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1