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

C/Y convert to M42 - MM / AE difference?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 12:01 am    Post subject: C/Y convert to M42 - MM / AE difference? Reply with quote
converting C/Y lenses to M42 should be quite streight forward, I remember some members ( I believe Arkku ) having done the conversion.
there is a quite easy guide here too: http://www.pbase.com/wesleywong/diy__convert_yc_to_m42_mount

my question:
should a conversion be the same, regardless if MM or AE lens?
or is one type easier / more difficult / impossible to convert?

actually there are two lenses in particular I'd be interested to know if I should be able to convert:
Distagon f2.8/28mm and Planar 1.7/50mm, both AE versions
( and what would you consider real good prices for each? )

thank you,
Andreas


PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi Andreas,

I am not exactly sure whether I am helping to answer your question or not, but in the past I emailed the person who runs the Leitax website, to inquire about converting the 35 2.8 AE and the 50 1.7 AE, they stated that there were differences between the AE and MM mounts that prevented their kits being used. Whether that translates into a difference for your purposes I am not sure.

They do however have a step by step guide for converting both the 85 1.4 MM and the 35 1.4 MM to M42. I don't know if the process would be the same for other lenses, those that you have in particular. It can be found here: http://www.leitax.com/conversion/contax/Planar_8514/index.html

Cheers, Dave.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 12:03 pm    Post subject: Re: C/Y convert to M42 - MM / AE difference? Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:
converting C/Y lenses to M42 should be quite streight forward, I remember some members ( I believe Arkku ) having done the conversion.
there is a quite easy guide here too: http://www.pbase.com/wesleywong/diy__convert_yc_to_m42_mount


Yes, I've converted the T* Sonnar 135mm f/2.8 MM, first to Minolta AF mount, then to M42 mount. The procedure I used was essentially the same as in that guide (that, too, looks like an MM lens).

My brief pictorial guide is on flickr.

kuuan wrote:
should a conversion be the same, regardless if MM or AE lens?
or is one type easier / more difficult / impossible to convert?


I'm under the impression that AE is more difficult to convert, but this is not based on personal experience. However, looking at the rear of AE lenses, many of them do not seem to have similarly-placed screws for the new mount (I don't know where the mount on these is attached).

kuuan wrote:

Distagon f2.8/28mm and Planar 1.7/50mm, both AE versions
( and what would you consider real good prices for each? )


I would not pay much for the Planar for conversion; you can get the equivalent in M42 mount already, or even the ZS 50mm f/1.4 if you like.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Also, why convert to M42?

If for film use, is cheaper and better to buy a used Yashica or Contax camera. Yashica FX3 go for about 50 Euros and are excellent manual cameras.

If for digital use, I don't think that a M42 DSLR exists, and if you want to use for Pentax or Sony, better to convert directly into Pentax or Sony mount (or even better, buy an already compatible lens and leave the poor Contax lens alone)


PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:40 pm    Post subject: Re: C/Y convert to M42 - MM / AE difference? Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
.................
I'm under the impression that AE is more difficult to convert, but this is not based on personal experience. However, looking at the rear of AE lenses, many of them do not seem to have similarly-placed screws for the new mount (I don't know where the mount on these is attached).
.........
I would not pay much for the Planar for conversion; you can get the equivalent in M42 mount already, or even the ZS 50mm f/1.4 if you like.


thank you Arkku
If AE is more difficult I may chicken out for the moment, specially because I am to leave my country in 6 days, maybe not enough time for the lens to arrive.

Orio wrote:
Also, why convert to M42?

If for film use, is cheaper and better to buy a used Yashica or Contax camera. Yashica FX3 go for about 50 Euros and are excellent manual cameras.

If for digital use, I don't think that a M42 DSLR exists, and if you want to use for Pentax or Sony, better to convert directly into Pentax or Sony mount (or even better, buy an already compatible lens and leave the poor Contax lens alone)


it would be for using on Pentax dSLR
I am 90% using M42 lenses and usually leave the adapter mounted on the camera.
in case one day I shall have another dSLR sure I would have a M42 converter for it again.
I don't think that the lens would be poor, but happy making me happy using it


PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Boy, I'm going to have to start buying up tonnes of lenses I don't even need just to prevent people from butchering them into franken-lenses.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Still, unless you go for the Contax expensive "giants" (Distagon 21, Distagon 1.4/35), the Contax lenses will not be significantly better than the available native Takumar lenses like the SMC 1./4/50 or the SMC 135, which I tried.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
thank you Orio.

it was specially the Distagon 28mm f2.8 which I'd be tempted to get.
there is one available for a very good price and it would be my first entry into Zeiss land, which after all, is just a matter of time anyway


PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Also, why convert to M42?

…

If for digital use, I don't think that a M42 DSLR exists, and if you want to use for Pentax or Sony, better to convert directly into Pentax or Sony mount (or even better, buy an already compatible lens and leave the poor Contax lens alone)


I converted mine directly to Sony/Minolta AF mount first as simple first step to test the quality of the lens. However, conversion to M42 is certainly better, which is why I proceeded to re-convert it to that. As for why it is better, there are a number of reasons:

1) Register of the C/Y mount is closer to that of M42 than Minolta AF, making it easier to achieve perfect infinity focus without adjusting the lens or adding makeshift shims. (This does not apply when converting to Pentax K-mount.)

2) Existing electric M42 adapters can be used (which are, sadly, required for AF confirm and effective image stabilisation with adapted lenses on Sony).

3) In M42 mount it can be used both on a great number of systems, film or digital. Does not make sense to buy expensive C/Y lenses just for use on film, in my opinion, and so it also doesn't make sense for a Sony or Pentax DSLR user to buy a C/Y film body.

4) Affordable M42 accessories like bellows and extension tubes can be used.


Downsides to converting to M42? The only one I can think of is that it's potentially more expensive to obtain the new mount, but for Sony users part of that money is saved by not having to get the microchip for the lens itself.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dave_t wrote:
Boy, I'm going to have to start buying up tonnes of lenses I don't even need just to prevent people from butchering them into franken-lenses.


I'm tempted to start converting more lenses so that they will see actual use and not sit unused in someone's protective custody. =)

Seriously, though, the conversion is fully reversible; as long as the person who did the conversion will continue to use it, what do you care if they changed the mount instead of sticking it on an adapter? If they don't use it, then they could just as well reverse the conversion and sell it, although it will probably bring in more money to sell a converted one since many people would like to make use of these lenses but aren't up to the task of converting them.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:30 pm    Post subject: Re: C/Y convert to M42 - MM / AE difference? Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:
I don't think that the lens would be poor, but happy making me happy using it


My thoughts exactly.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
Does not make sense to buy expensive C/Y lenses just for use on film, in my opinion


Oh, I could not disagree more.
Those lenses were made for film, and if you think they do well on digital, you should wait until you see a slide made with a Distagon 2/28 or 1.4/35 projected on a wall.
When you do, you will feel like crying and taking your DSLR and throwing it off the window. Wink

Quote:
and so it also doesn't make sense for a Sony or Pentax DSLR user to buy a C/Y film body.


Sigh, I hope that all young photographers don't think like you. Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Arkku wrote:
Does not make sense to buy expensive C/Y lenses just for use on film, in my opinion


Oh, I could not disagree more.
Those lenses were made for film, and if you think they do well on digital, you should wait until you see a slide made with a Distagon 2/28 or 1.4/35 projected on a wall.
When you do, you will feel like crying and taking your DSLR and throwing it off the window. :wink:


Doubtful; I shoot film and digital with the same lenses, and in my opinion 135 film has nothing on a modern full frame DSLR (one of the best of which I'm lucky enough to have now). Medium and large format film is still quite spectacular, though, which is why I'd much rather put the money in e.g. a medium format system than C/Y lenses if they would be used only on film. Actually, I just bought a nice 6×4.5 body to add versatility to my medium format options…

(If one has the capability to use C/Y lenses on digital as well as on film, then they are worthwhile.)

Orio wrote:
Arkku wrote:
and so it also doesn't make sense for a Sony or Pentax DSLR user to buy a C/Y film body.


Sigh, I hope that all young photographers don't think like you. :roll:


I think you are misunderstanding my point; the emphasis is on Sony or Pentax DSLR user: if one has invested into a Sony or Pentax DSLR system, it makes no sense to invest in an incompatible film system. On exactly similar grounds, I would say that it makes no sense for Nikon DSLR user to buy a Canon film body (it would make much more sense to buy a Nikon film body).

For Sony and Pentax users it makes much more sense to convert the C/Y lenses to M42 mount (or to their camera's native mount, although that is less versatile), or simply spend the money on other lenses. This allows using them on both film and digital.


Meanwhile, buying a film body that is compatible with one's digital system (in the sense that it can use at least some of the same lenses) is, in my opinion, something that every DSLR user should do. But multiple incompatible systems are expensive and most likely just lead to either system being ignored or sold, and even in the era of affordable DSLRs I seriously doubt it would be the digital system, so it's better for such users not to buy a film-only system they won't be using as much as a system as beautiful (and expensive) as C/Y should be…


PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:

Meanwhile, buying a film body that is compatible with one's digital system (in the sense that it can use at least some of the same lenses) is, in my opinion, something that every DSLR user should do. But multiple incompatible systems are expensive and most likely just lead to either system being ignored or sold, and even in the era of affordable DSLRs I seriously doubt it would be the digital system, so it's better for such users not to buy a film-only system they won't be using as much as a system as beautiful (and expensive) as C/Y should be…


I still don't get the point. If someone has the money to buy expensive Contax lenses, what difference can it make to spend 50 Euros to get a Yashica FX3 ?


PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think right way if anybody curious about different lenses take a compatible camera first like Canon or 4/3 or m4/3 take right adapters and enjoy. Lens conversion is the last thing what I can accept. We have so many other choice and these old legacy system elements are piece of art. To convert them same act in my eye then put baroque chairs to Garden, just because their price cheap at this moment and I can do. I sold my Nikon D50 about this reason I was curious and it was very incompatible with other systems.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I still don't get the point. If someone has the money to buy expensive Contax lenses, what difference can it make to spend 50 Euros to get a Yashica FX3 ?


I said that a Sony or Pentax DSLR user should not, in my opinion, buy the C/Y film body for use with expensive C/Y lenses, because these lenses are incompatible with their DSLR. So, as the premise is that the person is a DSLR user, they would be spending a lot on expensive lenses that can only be used on film (and small format at that). In my opinion not a sensible investment for such a DSLR user.

So, for a DSLR user whose primary system is not compatible with C/Y, in my opinion it makes much more sense to spend the same money on lenses that can be used on their primary digital system as well as on film.


Again, I have nothing against C/Y film bodies (great for someone who either shoots film primarily or has a compatible digital system), C/Y lenses (great, indeed so great that it's worth the effort to convert them), film (really great, but small format has lost the war to digital, medium and large format is where it's at), buying a film body (everyone should have one), or shooting both film and digital (best of both worlds, but for sake of lens investments it's better, in my opinion, to have the best and most expensive lenses compatible with both).


PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Lens conversion is the last thing what I can accept. We have so many other choice and these old legacy system elements are piece of art. To convert them same act in my eye then put baroque chairs to Garden, just because their price cheap at this moment and I can do.


First of all, lens conversions are not done because the price is cheap (e.g. this thread is about converting relatively expensive C/Y lenses). Actually, most conversions are done on expensive lenses, because these lenses are desirable enough to be worth the effort.

Second, most of the conversions being done are reversible, while leaving antique chairs in the garden does irreversible damage. Since the conversion is reversible, I argue that it's no different than using an adapter that it takes a while to remove, and the required opening of the lens doesn't differ from typical maintenance (e.g. removal of fungus, cleaning aperture, etc).

It is true that many of the converted lenses are not reverted to the original mount even when that would be very easy to do, but this is just a question of supply and demand; there is more demand among users of the new system than the old. Sad, perhaps, but overall a good thing that these lenses see use instead of being only fancy showpieces for collectors. (There are, of course, exceptions like Orio here, who admirably uses these old lenses on the original system. However, the amount of interest in conversions shows that there are many more lenses than there are those willing to use them on the original system. Again, sad that the original system is fading, but conversion helps keep the lenses alive.)


(It is also true that not all conversions are reversible. I personally try to avoid them unless the lens is otherwise broken so that it could not be used without changes, but even irreversible conversions to an active system probably give the lens a higher chance of continuing use in the future, as evidenced by the prices of certain pre-converted lenses.)


As for getting a Canon or µ4/3 digital for these lenses, well, µ4/3 will never see a full frame sensor so it's not possible to use these lenses for their original purpose (e.g. a wide-angle becomes a normal lens, and probably not a very good one). Canon is a good choice for many lenses, but due to mirror clearance issues on full frame, somewhat problematic for many others (yes, the camera can be modified, but similarly one might argue that such a modification is destructive and the Canon DSLR should be preserved). Also, the Canon system itself is not for everyone (as evidenced by frequent brand wars on online fora), so it's better to have the choice. Modifications are just one way among others.


For optimal preservation of lenses, one might likewise argue that old lenses should not be used at all because doing so puts them at risk of being damaged either accidentally or from wear. Actually this is the basically same argument as why baroque chairs should not be placed in the garden: preserve old lenses in perfect condition, do not expose them to the elements, keep them only in the display cabinet!
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1