Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,564   Posts: 1,545,312   Online: 888
      
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 51
  1. #11
    brucemuir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Metro DC area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,264
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by declark View Post
    Bruce I intend to use a Nikon F3. Any adapter would require a lens to deal with the longer flange to film distance of the Nikon body which I would like to avoid since it will degrade image somewhat.
    Yea , I realize the Nikon film to flange distance can cause issues.
    If you want to use it on your Nikon body I say go for it especially considering you access to a machine shop.

  2. #12
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,656
    Quote Originally Posted by declark View Post
    Keith I can do better than ghetto adapter but I like your thinking. BTW I only shoot b&w in the F3 so maybe character of older radioactive glass Takumar might be what I'm looking for. For adapting I plan to get a beater Nikkor and remove the flange and mill down if need be. I don't care about it being reversible.
    What's the point?. You're still stuck with a body just for the Takumar. Might as well get a Spotmatic or Fujica or Yashica or Ricoh, etc.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  3. #13
    X. Phot.
    I currently use two Asahi SMC Takumars, the 50mm 1.4 and the 135mm 3.5. When it came time to upgrade from manual bodies, I purchased the 630 as it would accept the adapter shown. I simply set the camera to shutter-priority and leave the camera aperture set to 1.0.The camera meters as I set the aperture and it adjusts the shutter speed accordingly. I found the adapter on eBay for about $7-$9. It's chrome-plated brass. The adapter allows for infinity focusing on the canon. The adapter also has a lip that pushes the aperture pin on the lens. I had to offset the locking pin hole (green finger pointer) otherwise it prevented the mirror from returning. Also put a layer of electrical tape on the back of the adapter, just in case it decided to touch the camera-lens contact pins.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 1.jpg   2.jpg   3.jpg  
    Last edited by X. Phot.; 01-01-2012 at 06:20 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #14
    declark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    So. Cal
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    243
    Images
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    What's the point?. You're still stuck with a body just for the Takumar. Might as well get a Spotmatic or Fujica or Yashica or Ricoh, etc.
    The F3 would remain unchanged and still would be used with my 24 and 105 lenses. Only the lens would be modded to fit the F mount.

  5. #15
    zk-cessnaguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    135
    I'll chime in with my 2c worth. Modding lenses and adapting to off-brand mounts is something that particularly interests me. As I see it, you will run into some issues adapting a Takumar 50/1.4 to F mount.

    The design of the Takumar is such that it does not have a separate, removable lens-mount flange like a Nikkor does.
    The rear part of the Takumar lens incorporates the aperture stop down mechanism and the aperture auto/manual switch. To fit an F mount flange would require modifications to the aperture mechanism of the Takumar and the removal of n+1.03mm (where n=the thickness of the new mount and 1.03mm is the difference between the Nikon and M42 register difference) material from the rear of the lens body. An engineering challenge, but if you have access to a machine shop, I can't see it being impossible. On the plus side, the Takumar is a reasonably simple lens to tear down.

    The second, and potentially insurmountable problem its the distance the rear element of the lens protrudes into the mirror box at infinity focus. A standard Takumar protrudes 8.3mm from the flange at infinity. This compares with the distance the rear of an AI lens at the same focus setting; however, once the mount has been changed, and the lens's infinity focus has been restored, this moves the rear element further into the mirror box, with the potential to foul the mirror when it flips up. (As an aside, this is the problem that's so far prevented me from converting the Minolta MC Rokkor 58mm f/1.4 to F-mount, something I'm very keen to do.)

    So that's how I see it. A challenge for sure, but you may just be able to pull it off. Good luck
    Mamiya 645 Super | Nikon F4/F100/FM2n | Minolta Maxxum 9/Dynax 7/X-700/X-500/XD7/SRT-101 | Pentax Spotmatic | Canonet QL 19 (GII) | and a whole bunch of glass

  6. #16
    lesm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    104
    Does it have to be a Takumar? You might have more luck adapting something like a Pentax M50 1.4, which has wonderful bokeh and there are plenty around for next to nothing. Being a bayonet rather than M42 fitting it might be easier to modify. On the Pentax forum I've read that some Nikon lenses can be fitted directly to a Pentax K mount body by turning it upside down. Apparently it's a bit of a loose fit but it works OK. I've never had a Nikon but perhaps this might work in reverse?

  7. #17
    EASmithV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,874
    Blog Entries
    4
    Images
    123
    You can always get a screw mount tak, and buy an M42 to Nikkor Adapter for like $5. Screw it on, and you can take the adapter and lens off as one unit.
    www.EASmithV.com

    "The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera."— Dorothea Lange
    http://www.flickr.com/easmithv/
    RIP Kodachrome

  8. #18
    declark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    So. Cal
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    243
    Images
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by zk-cessnaguy View Post
    I'll chime in with my 2c worth. Modding lenses and adapting to off-brand mounts is something that particularly interests me. As I see it, you will run into some issues adapting a Takumar 50/1.4 to F mount.

    The design of the Takumar is such that it does not have a separate, removable lens-mount flange like a Nikkor does.
    The rear part of the Takumar lens incorporates the aperture stop down mechanism and the aperture auto/manual switch. To fit an F mount flange would require modifications to the aperture mechanism of the Takumar and the removal of n+1.03mm (where n=the thickness of the new mount and 1.03mm is the difference between the Nikon and M42 register difference) material from the rear of the lens body. An engineering challenge, but if you have access to a machine shop, I can't see it being impossible. On the plus side, the Takumar is a reasonably simple lens to tear down.

    The second, and potentially insurmountable problem its the distance the rear element of the lens protrudes into the mirror box at infinity focus. A standard Takumar protrudes 8.3mm from the flange at infinity. This compares with the distance the rear of an AI lens at the same focus setting; however, once the mount has been changed, and the lens's infinity focus has been restored, this moves the rear element further into the mirror box, with the potential to foul the mirror when it flips up. (As an aside, this is the problem that's so far prevented me from converting the Minolta MC Rokkor 58mm f/1.4 to F-mount, something I'm very keen to do.)

    So that's how I see it. A challenge for sure, but you may just be able to pull it off. Good luck
    That is exactly the info I am looking for. I thought the M42 would be simpler to mod and cheaper but maybe the bayonet version is the one to try provided it has a removable flange. Hadn't thought about the rear lens protrusion issue, thanks for the heads up.

  9. #19
    lesm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by declark View Post
    That is exactly the info I am looking for. I thought the M42 would be simpler to mod and cheaper but maybe the bayonet version is the one to try provided it has a removable flange. Hadn't thought about the rear lens protrusion issue, thanks for the heads up.
    Just be aware that the bayonet series Takumars don't have the same reputation as the screw mounts. May I suggest you visit the Pentax forum and check out their comprehensive lens reviews. Especially look at the K and M series lenses, which I think would suit your purpose as well as a Tak.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Montgomery, Il/USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,100
    Just for giggles, Are you gonna have auto aperture? The screw mounts use a push pin actuator but the bayonet uses a linkage similar to Nikon's.
    Probably wrong side of the camera or upside down and backwards. Ah, nothing like a challenge.
    Heavily sedated for your protection.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin