What non-F lenses to mount on an F-mount Nikon?

[jonasv]

Just wondering. There are a lot of lenses and a lot of adapters out there. This might be Pandora's box, but can I open up another universe of lenses for my Nikon SLRs?

I'm currently well-equipped for serious work with my Nikon. Pro zoom, fast primes, etc. But I wouldn't mind some manual focus - manual exposure fun with funny lenses.

I was wondering if there were any other lenses that I could mount through an adapter: Canon, Oly, Leica (R), LTM, FSU lenses, ...that I might not know of. Good lenses, bad lenses, anything, just curious.

I don't mean the Sigmas and Tamrons in F-mount, I mean any non-F-mount lenses.

Thanks!

 

[jarski]

F-mount is not adapter friendly. Leica-R lenses with Leitax adapter require some dremeling. M42-F adapter has additional optical element and results pretty bad (had one some years ago). its probably same story with other SLR-lenses. RF lenses on Nikon SLR works even less so.

 

[Bobbo]

Yeah, it's not like a Canon EF, which can be adapted to use virtually anything. However, if you get a bellows and plan on doing macro, it kicks butt!.

Oh, most medium format lenses can be adapted (Hasselblads, Pentacon 6 and anything else mechanical with built-in helicals are common choices) without a problem.

 

[jarski]

yes forgot larger-than-35mm formats. those usually can be adapted.

 

[jonasv]

I know the F-mount isn't very adapter-friendly, and I also trust the RFF users in being knowledgeable enough to circumvent that 😉

Medium format eh?
I shouldn't have sold that Pentacon lens last week (when I thought I could not use it)!

 

[johannielscom]

Pentacon-mount Zeiss and Schneider lenses are sweeeet to shoot on Nikon. I used to have a Schneider-Kreuznach Xenotar 80/2.8 and it was spec-ta-cu-lar on the Nikon FM2n.

I've seen the Zeiss Sonnar 180/2.8 (that drum of a lens) on Nikon D1 and as a portrait lens it was unbelievable.

My first dSLR was a Fujifilm S1 and I used said Sonnar on that to shoot motorbike races. It blew the pro-competition out the water, and I could simply grip the inside of the lens hood without my knuckles showing up in the frame 😎

Someday soon I'm gonna get me another P6->Nikon adapter and pick up an old Biometar 80/2.8 to use as a portrait lens.

 

[pschauss]

Can you get infinity focus with a P6->Nikon adapter?

Will it work for pre-AI F mount cameras like a Nikkormat FTn?

Who sells these adapters?

 

[Shac]

F-mount is not adapter friendly. Leica-R lenses with Leitax adapter require some dremeling. M42-F adapter has additional optical element and results pretty bad (had one some years ago). its probably same story with other SLR-lenses. RF lenses on Nikon SLR works even less so.

I have to disagree with the reference to Leitax and Dremelling - I've converted 4 R lenses and no dremelling was required including the tricky 60/2.8
Check the Leitax site

 

[jarski]

I have to disagree with the reference to Leitax and Dremelling - I've converted 4 R lenses and no dremelling was required including the tricky 60/2.8
Check the Leitax site

guess my English skills let me down. tried to make point that Leitax requires more work than normal adapters do. I did convert Cron-R 35 and its definitely doable, but using exotic lenses on Canon is much easier than Nikon.

 

[splitimageview]

Adapting to Canon may be easier, just by attaching an adapter, but in my experience there is a lot of variation in focus accuracy and fitment.

The Leitax bayonet is a conversion, not an adaptation, and as such it is as solid as the original factory F bayonet. It's pretty simple to do for the majority of lenses. Of course, the process can be reversed so it's not permanent.

 

[Dwig]

I know the F-mount isn't very adapter-friendly, and I also trust the RFF users in being knowledgeable enough to circumvent that 😉

Medium format eh?
I shouldn't have sold that Pentacon lens last week (when I thought I could not use it)!

There is no circumventing the problem. The F-mount Flange Focal Distance (FFD) is one of the larger of the various 35mm cameras. While you can adapt any lens to any body, maintaining the ability to focus to infinity, or any normal distance, requires that the adapter's thickness be equal to the difference between the FFDs of the two mounts. When the lens is made for a mount with a smaller FFD than the body the adapter would need to have a negative thickness, something not possible.

Here are two links to lists of mounts and their specs. Practical adaptation to F-mount is limited to those mounts with a FFD at least 2mm longer than the F-mount's 46.5mm.

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

http://www.markerink.org/WJM/HTML/mounts.htm

 

[pagpow]

Well, there are always the old interchangeable mount lenses; some of which might hold some interest, particularly at the extremes. Like the T-mount series (T, T4), YS, etc.
Those count?

 

[jonasv]

Pagpow, sure they count! Hadn't heard of them before.
Found this one on the bay: http://www.benl.ebay.be/itm/500mm-F...=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item3f188927db
This particular one doesn't do it for me, but it'll be fun to keep an eye open.

Dwig, thanks for the links. I knew none of the usual suspects could be adapted because of the large FFD, by circumventing I meant suggestions like the medium format-lenses - which I didn't think of before!

I'm not really eyeing up any Leica R-lenses right now, but knowing of the conversion, I'll keep an eye open.

 

[rxmd]

With medium format lenses I'd be careful. They will fit, but firstly they give you focal lengths mostly in the tele ranges, and secondly they largely aren't really that impressive resolution-wise. No wonder really, because medium format is probably more about the tonality than the resolution to begin with.

I have tried two of my own - a Flektogon 50/f4 and a Sonnar 180/f2.8 - on a full frame 35mm digital body, and they are nice, but lacking in the resolution department if you compare them to a good modern dedicated lens. The 50/f4 is pointless to begin with because 50mm normal lenses are cheap, better and faster. It makes sense only as a tilt lens. Regarding the Sonnar, I compared it to a 70-200/f4 image-stabilized lens, and the zoom is smaller, has far better image quality, and is image-stabilized which more than makes up for the lack of a stop.

Pretty much the only use I see for medium format lenses is if you put it lens on a tilt adapter, such as the ones sold by Arax Photo (http://araxfoto.com/accessories/tilt/). That way at least you get something unique that a dedicated system lens won't get you. You don't need tilt that often, but when you do (such as in landscape and product photography) it's nice to have and hard to replicate.

 

[kanzlr]

my two favourite adapted lenses on the D700 were the Mamiya 80/1.9 and 200/2.8 APO

WONDERFUL lenses.

 

[wjlapier]

Canon 35mm f/2.8 T/S can be converted--not adapted. Most Leica R. I had 50/2 and VII 28 elmarit converted. I don't use lenses like that anymore on Nikon bodies.

 

[pagpow]

Pagpow, sure they count! Hadn't heard of them before.
Found this one on the bay: http://www.benl.ebay.be/itm/500mm-F...=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item3f188927db
This particular one doesn't do it for me, but it'll be fun to keep an eye open.

Well, then, you might want to look for Tamron SP series, the high end Tamron series, they have interchangeable mounts, which some report as hard to find. And the original Vivitar Series 1 lenses (not the new ones) had some very nice pieces (135mm 2.3, 200 3.0, and 90-180 macro come to mind)

 

[rxmd]

Well, then, you might want to look for Tamron SP series, the high end Tamron series, they have interchangeable mounts, which some report as hard to find.

I second that suggestion. There are some nice Tamron SP lenses; the most interesting ones are probably the 17/f3.5 ultrawideangle and the 90/f2.5 macro (all the rest are rather conventional lenses where there are better Nikkors to be had for similar money). The mount adapter is relatively easy to find and you can keep the lenses if you switch cameras. I have the 17/f3.5 and while it's not stellar optically, it's quite decent.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

You could get a short mount helicoid for visoflex and adapt it to Nikon SLR easily. That way you could use the older 90 Elmarit and Elmar, 135 Elmar and Hektor, and the longer superb visoflex lens heads.

Another thing to try would be the 80mm Mamiya lens for the 645. It's a great performer.

If you don't mind getting dirty, you could find something like a Helios-44 in M42 mount then have the base of the flange turned down by a machinist about 3mm then add a Nikon flange from an old broken Nikon lens. You'll have a fantastic 85mm f/1.5.

It's going to be easier for you to adapt long focus lenses or longer than 135mm telephotos.

If you have a mirror lockup F mount body with full time mirror lockup (that won't return the mirror after the shutter fires) then you can start to get creative in your mounts and use some very deep element glass made for rangefinders. Some will say it's easier to just buy the rangefinder. True but we don't climb mountains because it's easy or because it has any inherent utility.

Good luck and have fun.

Phil Forrest

 

[mfogiel]

You might be going against a lot of expense... I started thinking along these lines, but then, since I wanted to try some Mandler lnses in the Leica R line, I ended up buying a Leicaflex SL2. Other than non having an AE function, and being a bit heavy, this camera is superior to Nikon as far as the viewfinder, ang general quality goes... I thought, that a new body will be cheaper than several adapters... I bought the 250/4 1st version, 180/2.8 first version, 135/2.8 first version, a 90/2 first version, an 80/1.4 and 50/2 first version. The first version has better bokeh, generally speaking, than subsequent ones, and I like the Mandler bokeh a lot. The only other lens, which I have bought for my Nikon mount, is the Contax Sonnar 85/2.8, for which I have just ordered a leitax adapter. I want to compare several lenses between 75 and 90mm, all shot wide open, for portraiture. I hope this will be fun...