Cool new M to NEX adapter

I just got this Hawks adapter in the mail a few minutes ago, and, I must say, I am THRILLED so far. The fit and finish is very good, and the Helicoid is pretty smooth, although not as smooth as my M lenses. The adapter seems pretty lightweight, so I don't know what combo of lightweight metals and/or plastic is used in this thing, but it feels sturdy, and I don't mind the lighter weight.

In my initial test with a ZM C-Biogon 35/2.8, this adapter seems to nail infinity, and the mfd has been decreased from .7m to an incredible .27m (about .2m working distance.) If you are being driven nuts by the long mfd's of M lenses, and you don't mind spending the money, I think this thing is a no brainer. I've owned generic brand, Metabones, and Voigtlander M adapters, and I have a feeling they'll all be for sale, soon. Brilliant!

ZM C-Biogon 35/2.8 test shot at its new mfd:
5951995355_bd1f96f8d6_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
You could do the same with a good close-up lens, but having the adapter expand makes great sense. Only wish it were cheaper... then I'd definitely grab one!
 
Bruin said:
You could do the same with a good close-up lens, but having the adapter expand makes great sense. Only wish it were cheaper... then I'd definitely grab one!
Click to expand...

The difference between this and a close-up lens (or focusing tube) is that this gives you a full range of focus from .27m-infinity (on my C-Biogon) without any gaps in between, so it feels dynamic and natural.

Heck, my Voigtlander M adapters were $180 a piece, so this new adapter seems like a steal, to me.
 
I agree, the adapter is a lot more slick than using a close-up lens. But at $186 each on ebay... I'll stick to my $15 close-up lens for now.

I do hope other adapter makers start doing this (unless the design is patented).
 
douglasf13 said:
The difference between this and a close-up lens (or focusing tube) is that this gives you a full range of focus from .27m-infinity (on my C-Biogon) without any gaps in between, so it feels dynamic and natural.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, a close up lens tends to give comparatively better image quality. Most rangefinder lens designs aren't corrected for closeup at all, for obvious reasons. And there are lens designs that don't work well on extension rings in general, such as most fast lenses.
 
rxmd said:
On the other hand, a close up lens tends to give comparatively better image quality. Most rangefinder lens designs aren't corrected for closeup at all, for obvious reasons. And there are lens designs that don't work well on extension rings in general, such as most fast lenses.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that we're not talking about macro tube size or anything, here. This adapter only adds a few millimeters to bring the mfd closer to SLR specs, and, so far, I've noticed no significant decrease in IQ with my lenses at this new mfd. It's really just like unscrewing an LTM lens part way.


p.s. there already are NEX tilt adapters for various mounts.
 
rxmd said:
On the other hand, a close up lens tends to give comparatively better image quality. Most rangefinder lens designs aren't corrected for closeup at all, for obvious reasons. And there are lens designs that don't work well on extension rings in general, such as most fast lenses.
Click to expand...

I started the thread on dpreview.

That's an interesting statement although i would say that when you're that close there is so little DOF that it probably covers a multitude of sins.

However i don't see how a close up lens would give better results. It is yet more glass and again the lens isn't specifically designed for that either.

I would have thought for some lenses the adapter would work better. I'd always understood the MFD for rangefinder lenses to be more about the rangefinder coupling than the lens design (within reason). Also it's a short extension - not as much as most macro tubes.

I always used to unscrew LTM lenses a little to get the same effect and to my eye the stuff looks fine.

I do have an adaptor on the way for LTM>M which means i can try my 12mm voigtlander (not that i need it to focus closer) but that could be a good test of whether the performance suffers as the little 12mm is a nice performer.

cheers
paul
 
paulcurtis said:
I started the thread on dpreview.

That's an interesting statement although i would say that when you're that close there is so little DOF that it probably covers a multitude of sins.

However i don't see how a close up lens would give better results. It is yet more glass and again the lens isn't specifically designed for that either.

The nice thing about closeup lenses is that you don't have to design lenses to work with them.YOu don't have to design lenses for use with closeup lenses; closeup lenses

I would have thought for some lenses the adapter would work better. I'd always understood the MFD for rangefinder lenses to be more about the rangefinder coupling than the lens design (within reason). Also it's a short extension - not as much as most macro tubes.

I always used to unscrew LTM lenses a little to get the same effect and to my eye the stuff looks fine.

I do have an adaptor on the way for LTM>M which means i can try my 12mm voigtlander (not that i need it to focus closer) but that could be a good test of whether the performance suffers as the little 12mm is a nice performer.
Click to expand...

I agree that the extension is so short that the limits of their lens designs won't matter for most people.

In addition, most people using this will use it just to get a little closer. If there will be any "macro" work going on, it will be thin-DOF, one-object-in-the-center-type amateur shots. In this context, some of the quality criteria for closeup perfomance (such as flatness of field, corner sharpness, lack of chromatic aberrations) simply won't matter. That's why it's a nifty idea.

However, I wouldn't put a 50/1.4 on this and then use it for reproduction work, for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom