Lenses with Short Flange Distance?

[Kumachrome]

Hi there,

I'm been exploring with adapting lenses to my Fuji X-Pro1 and it's really fun to see what these old lenses can do on such a great sensor. However, my one complaint is that the lens adapters obviously add quite a bit of length to the lens. This is needed of course to compensate for the lens flange distance, so that it actually appears correctly on the sensor.

Aside from LTM/M mount lenses, or buying a speedbooster, are there any lens mounts that have a shorter flange distance, therefore requiring a shorter adapter? I understand I can't get it completely flush to the mount, but maybe take off a couple millimeters from the overall length.
Any suggestions are appreciated. Thanks

 

[retinax]

Beside rangefinder lenses, those for half frame SLRs (and even smaller formats, if they cover) have shorter flange distances than 35mm SLR lenses.

 

[splitimageview]

Check the flange focal distances that are longer than that of Fuji XF:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance

 

[peterm1]

As you say Leica M and LTm lenses are good in this respect being built for rangefinder cameras, the lenses of which do not need to cope with an SLR mirror box. Another lens type I have discovered quite recently are lenses for the Olympus Pen F half frame film cameras. I am presently using a lovely little 100mm f3.5 on an M43 and its adapter (for that camera body) is approximately the same in size as the Leica M adapter - give or take. This makes for a nice light and small package. I have not checked but I suspect that lenses for old Robot Royal half frame cameras are likewise small and require a corresponding small adapter. Though these cameras and lenses are more rare and higher priced, as well as delivering older style rendering.

I am kind of put off sometimes by the bulk of some (actually many) adapters but it often cannot be helped as you are suggesting. Another way around it is to deliberately look for lenses that are relatively "squat" in design. For example I also use a Canon FD SSD chrome nose 100mm f2.8 which has a 55mm filter diameter and is only a 63mm length from flange to front filter ring. This makes for a very balanced design even on a relatively large Canon FD adapter. In other words, I prefer larger diameter shorter lenses when I can get them in preference to long skinny ones. I feel it improves both the look and handling of adapted lenses.

Personally I also like to use adapters that are not too big in diameter for the lens I happen to be mounting. For example most M42 mount adapters have quite a big diameter (not sure why - they just do). If I am mounting a small diameter lens (say a Takumar 35mm f3.5 which is also very short in length) when mounted on a standard M42 adapter it both looks and feels odd. So I hunted around and found another smaller diameter M42 adapter which better suits the smaller diameter of small frame M42 lenses. Though still not perfect it is an improvement. In addition, for even smaller lenses, as it happens, I somehow ended up with an M42 to Leica L39 adapter which has an even smaller diameter. I simply mount this on an LTM to M43 adapter and then mount them both on the M43 camera. Of course the length of all of them amounts to the same as the largest M42 adapter, but the smaller diameter helps somewhat. Call me shallow but I am not altogether keen on using lenses that simply look awkward and weird when adapted and find it somehow off-putting especially if handling is also compromised.

PS....an afterthought. I do not know how I forgot this. I recently bought two Nikon Rangefinder S type lenses. Again, being for a rangefinder the flange distance is short. The camera and lens designs were based on Contax rangefinders but with a minor alteration to the flange distance (this does not affect focusing materially when mounted on a mirrorless camera though it is significant when adapted to a Leica M camera). The trick with Nikon / Canon is that the longer lenses (85mm/105mm/135mm etc) have a conventional focusing helical and work by bayoneting to an external mounting bayonet flange on the camera body or lens adapter. Shorter lenses (e.g. 50mm though some 35mm also seem to use the external mount) have no focusing helical and instead rely on a separate helical in the camera mount / adapter for that purpose. These lenses have a separate internal bayonet mount inside the body of the adapter. If you stick to longer lenses the adapters are similar in design to any other adapter used for mirrorless and cost about the same (i.e. under $20 ). They are also small in depth due to the short flange distance of the Nikon (or Contax) lenses. My adapter only arrived a day ago having apparently been held up due to the coronavirus problems in China so I have not had time to do much with it. But I can say it is pretty small.

The two lenses I bought were 105mm and 135mm and on the very brief tests I have conducted are superb (as befits their stirling reputation). If on the other hand you want a 50mm lens you need an adapter with the built in helical and internal mount. These designs are a bit bigger as you might expect and can be bought online from Ukraine for about 50% more than the standard adapter (i.e.about $30 US plus P and H). But if you happened to want an adapter that mounts and is calibrated for rangefinder focusing on a Leica M camera then you are talking quite big money (typically $200-$300 US). From my observations these latter adapters are calibrated for Contax / Kiev not Nikon S lenses). However as I implied above the adapter I now have not being of this type, should work every bit as well with either Contax or Russian Kiev lenses for mounting on mirrorless given there is no rangefinder complication. Given what I have seen to date I anticipate picking an 85mm f2 Jupiter (Kiev) lens which would be very satisfactory as I love that focal length. Final thought - My adapter is for M43. I have no idea what is available adapter wise for your Fuji system.

 

[zuiko85]

Have an EM10 and for many years have shot Pen F half frame so have acquired lenses between 20mm to 150mm. They are indeed little gems on M4:3 cameras. The only problem I have, a problem I no doubt deserve for being cheap, is that the adapters are all too short, allowing the lens to backup closer than infinity and throwing the focusing scale off quite a bit. Near as I can determine, the Pen F adapter I have is about .006 inch too short. Used some paper shims to bring it out some but wanted to be careful not to add too much thickness. Annoying because I cannot surreptitiously focus by scale and then shoot ‘from the hip’ as they say.

Thing is, not sure even if I paid more the adapter would be more accurate.

 

[Kumachrome]

Thanks for your responses! I'll definitely try Pen F lenses. Also, Peterm, I agree with you. I too, dislike lenses that look awkward when mounted on the camera. I get that it ultimately doesn't matter when it comes to picture-making, but still! Part of the love of photography for me has to do with my experience in taking the pictures, and by extension, the feel of my camera in my hands.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

C mount lenses have a registration of just over 17mm. Most C mounts under 50mm will mechanically vignette but you can always crop in post. Some of these old optics have amazing signatures and shouldn't be overlooked.
Phil Forrest

 

[peterm1]

Thanks for your responses! I'll definitely try Pen F lenses. Also, Peterm, I agree with you. I too, dislike lenses that look awkward when mounted on the camera. I get that it ultimately doesn't matter when it comes to picture-making, but still! Part of the love of photography for me has to do with my experience in taking the pictures, and by extension, the feel of my camera in my hands.

Absolutely.
I have tried to work out why I don't really like using camera lens / adapter combos that look (and feel) weird and I think its basically because my motivation in making images is to produce something artistic and, if possible, beautiful. That fact that I take photos not write poetry tells me I am motivated and energize by what I see. I am a visual person.

So I think it is natural for people like me to feel good about using equipment that is not just functional but nice to use. And part of that means it looks good and is nice to handle. Industrial designers know this. Camera companies pay big bucks to these people to come up with designs that appeal to people (and are functional) - hence the big attraction in the market to the retro camera niche (including the X Pro series like yours) for many people. it's partly about looks. I don't feel this way (and I am sure you are the same) because I want other people to look and me and go wow that guy's equipment looks cool. It is wholly an internal pleasure thing. As you say - the experience.