"Mutilate" or not ?

[Rusty]

Hi all

I know this topic has been done a couple of times , and there are strong and oposing views for and against
i normally don't think twice if the lens is of no significant value or rare
In the case of a lens that is historically important or maybe very rare the story normally changes towards the "dont touch and preserve side of the debate

This might not really be the wiser move for the following reasons, in my view
let's say i keep it original
1 it is now sitting on a camera i would like to, but will probably never use
2 it is sitting in my display case for the benefit of my friends and family and me only

lets say i cut the mount and fit on my 20D
1 it's now sitting on a camera i use (much more enjoyable )
2 More exposure to that rare lens, awareness ect (what is that funny old thing on your canon?)
That may spark interest and maybe someone else could start using and collecting and apreciate the old stuff
4 i can now publish the product of that rare lense to create more appreciation and awareness (images) on the web
5 Many more people are then exposed to that certain lens and it's abbility, than sitting in my display cabinet gathering dust

I tend to lean towards "cut that lensmount! " if it is the ONLY option left
Rather than it sitting unused in a display cab!
Is this sound reasoning?
Please tell me your views

Attila you can shoot me now!

[rick44]

Really depends on the lens.

[gil]

Being a newbie on "rare" lenses, I would also like to know what lens and if the desire to use and caress is greater than the desire to watch and sigh; I'd say go for it but plan carefully. From time to time, I still subscribe to the idea of no guts, no glory .
cheers and may the force be with you,
gil

[GrahamNR17]

It's only a lens, nobody will die.

Get the saw and welding kit out

[Rusty]

[rick44]

Rusty, I've done a few that some people say" Why?" , I say because I wanted too. Good Luck.

[Mal1905]

Rusty,

I've cut up a few Pentax K lenses without any semblance of guilt; if it seems like the right thing to do, so be it

[mUg]

[scsambrook]

Rusty seems to have evolved a satisfactorily pragmatic approach to multilation but I think it's worth while emphasising that there is a proper case for leaving some things in their original condition, even it means not using them with a particular digital camera. I think a good analogy is that of classic and antique firearms - would we be happy to convert, say, an original Colt Peacemaker from an obsolete calibre to a modern one if the process were irreversible? Then we can indeed shoot the revolver (depending on where we live), but the piece would been so altered that its historical significance was lost.

My own view is that if an interesting and technically significant lens can be used on digital camera X but not camera Y, then the correct course is to buy or borrow camera Y. Indeed, now we have digital SLRs that can use even rangefinder lenses, is butchery really essential for those of us who want to experiment? Sometimes we may have to bow to the fact that we shouldn't do some things, no matter how much we want to - !

[Attila]

[Laurence]

I guess I have not much of a conscience...I say alter it and USE it. It is your lens to use in whatever way you can to obtain fine images from that particular lens. The glass was (most of the time) painstakingly made for taking images, the mount is...well...just a mount.

However, I do agree with not altering a lens mount on a lens that is rare. I have turned down buying two fairly rare lenses that I could have used on the Sigma if I cut them down, but decided not to do it. Simple as that.

[my_photography]

Though question. If this is your 'dream lens' and if this is the only way you can use it, then I guest you have no choice. But for me, I rather look for alternative lens if there is one.

[Krisgage]

In my opinion, it depends whether you have a collector mindset or curious eager explorer mindset. To a collector, of course, he will preserved the rare lens in the mint-est or original condition, to protect its value and history. For a curious eager explorer, he will rack his brain out for get the most out of the rare lens to use it, utilised it to its full usage.

For me, I am both actually.

As you can see from my lastest post in

http://forum.mflenses.com/carl-zeiss-jena-brass-lenses-t16622.html

I am trying to make the CZJ Tessar to work. The Pentacon 50mm was actually quite in a good shape, just because I wanted the front glass to come out with the Brand plastic ring stuck, I ripped it off. [/url]

[Rusty]

[Rusty]

[zewrak]

Depends on the lens really. I dont care if it is a massproduced lens that is expensive. If there is a historical value to the lens. Lets say from an original Daguerre camera, I would really, really feel sorry that it was ruined and not donated to a museum or whatever that could use it in restoration work.

If it is a 400$ Zeiss lense that was manufactured in 40000 copies and is expensive and rarity is only adjusted because how many sell their lenses, then I don't care.

I think there is a difference in rare and rare. Drill a hole in an original, engineer Leica (one of them that didnt even get a serial number) and I will call you a scoundrel. Drill a hole in a random Leica M4 and I will call you an craftsman.

I also agree with, cant you sell it and get something similar that you will use? Whats so special about this lens that there is nothing similar that you will use. Why is the only option to have it waste space?

[Orio]

I belong to this party:

- if there is an adapter, use it
- if there isn't, build one
- if there isnt, and you can't build one, then buy a camera that you can use your lens with
- if there isnt, and you can't build one, and you can't or don't want to buy a camera that you can use your lens with, then don't ruin the lens: sell it, and buy another lens that you can use with your camera.

This, regardless of the value of the lens.

[lulalake]