Forest_rain
Well-known
I just got my M39 to FE-mount adapter and tried my Canon LTM lenses on my A7 II. Results were pretty poor even with my clear glass - glowy in sunlight and soft on the edges.
Not only that but the lens fits upside down on the camera with the adapter on.
I read something before about rangefinder lenses not adapting well to digital sensors due to the way light is reflected through them. At least this was true with the Jupiter 12 lens AFAIK.
I have some praktica PB mount SLR lenses, should I give them a shot with an adapter, or just stick to native glass for best results?
Not only that but the lens fits upside down on the camera with the adapter on.
I read something before about rangefinder lenses not adapting well to digital sensors due to the way light is reflected through them. At least this was true with the Jupiter 12 lens AFAIK.
I have some praktica PB mount SLR lenses, should I give them a shot with an adapter, or just stick to native glass for best results?
I don't know about the way the lens fits your adapter... But, as to RF vs SLR lenses, wide RF lenses tend not to work well around the outer areas on digital sensors due to the angle of light light rays hitting the peripheral sensor sites, and this tends to cause odd color shading in those outer areas. This is sometimes called "Italian flag syndrome" due to the way the colors appear. This can be counteracted to some degree later by using CornerFix software or a similar feature in Lightroom. SLR lenses are centered further from the film/sensor due to the need to clear the moving mirror, thus the light comes to the sensor more nearly perpendicular and avoiding the color issues.
tbhv55
Well-known
Some adapters have a centre section that can be slackened off by undoing three tiny grub-screws (although there are some adapters which have different mechanisms to achieve the same thing).
If your adapter has something like this, you should be able to rotate the mount centre so that your lens is the right way up.
BTW, I have a Canon 50mm f/1.8 RF, an Industar 61, and a Jupiter 8, and they all work nicely on the A7ii, IMO. Having said that, I must confess that I'm not someone who chases sharpness, being more interested in the rendering of a lens. I prefer a lens with some 'character' rather than a modern, clinical look.
Forest_rain
Well-known
Thanks for the help. I managed to get the lens the correct way up and also adjusted the length of the adapter just a hair so that infinity focus seems slightly better aligned (the lens focuses just a bit past infinity).
I'm wondering if the adapter was meant for those Russian lenses which seem to be a bit cheaper. Might check it out or go for another adapter.
I'm using my 50mm 1.8 Canon LTM and 135mm 3.5 Canon LTM. I guess I shouldn't be having issues with these two lenses, perhaps I'm just chasing the corner to corner sharpness that I'm used to with modern lenses. Gonna experiment with it a bit to see what pictures I can come up with.
That being said I couldn't find a way to "shim" the adapter so the flange distance is slightly longer, because of the way the adapter is constructed, it was too difficult to fit a shim between the two adapter pieces.
Using the Fotasy L39-FE adapter, usually fotasy is good but maybe I'll go for a K&F concept next time.
I'm wondering if the adapter was meant for those Russian lenses which seem to be a bit cheaper. Might check it out or go for another adapter.
I'm using my 50mm 1.8 Canon LTM and 135mm 3.5 Canon LTM. I guess I shouldn't be having issues with these two lenses, perhaps I'm just chasing the corner to corner sharpness that I'm used to with modern lenses. Gonna experiment with it a bit to see what pictures I can come up with.
That being said I couldn't find a way to "shim" the adapter so the flange distance is slightly longer, because of the way the adapter is constructed, it was too difficult to fit a shim between the two adapter pieces.
Using the Fotasy L39-FE adapter, usually fotasy is good but maybe I'll go for a K&F concept next time.
Some adapters have a centre section that can be slackened off by undoing three tiny grub-screws (although there are some adapters which have different mechanisms to achieve the same thing).
If your adapter has something like this, you should be able to rotate the mount centre so that your lens is the right way up.
BTW, I have a Canon 50mm f/1.8 RF, an Industar 61, and a Jupiter 8, and they all work nicely on the A7ii, IMO. Having said that, I must confess that I'm not someone who chases sharpness, being more interested in the rendering of a lens. I prefer a lens with some 'character' rather than a modern, clinical look.
tbhv55
Well-known
<< Post deleted (duplicate post) >>
tbhv55
Well-known
Glad you got the lens the right way up!
I don't want to be guilty of trying to 'teach Granny to suck eggs'
, but have you tried setting focus on an object at an accurately measured distance of, say, 1.0metre from the sensor plane, setting the lens focus to 1.0metre, and then tweaking the adapter until the object is in focus? If you have, and infinity focus is still off, then I guess you just have to decide which end of the focus range is of greater importance to you, and set the adapter accordingly.For my purposes, I'd prefer the ability to get accurate focus with the focus ring for near-range photography, since I rarely (never?) take photographs of anything at infinity - or even on the horizon. YMMV, of course.
peterm1
Mentor
I have never had poor results with a Canon LTM lens on a Sony or any other mirrorless camera unless the lenses themselves have been problematic. This is probably your explanation.
So my first thought is that though you say the glass on your lenses is clear, shine a torch through the lens from the front and check it from the other end to see if any hazing on the internal elements is evident based on this visual inspection. i.e. without mounting it on the camera. Sometimes slight haze is not immediately evident until the lens is checked in this somewhat extreme manner but is enough to show up at least in some situations in photos.
There is a possible second culprit that comes to mind. Is your adapter bright chrome? If so it may pay to paint the interior of the adapter matt black. Though I think this might be more likely to cause a different type of flaring than what you describe it is never the less possible that this is where the problem lays if light passing from the rear element of the lens is hitting the interior of the chrome adapter and reflecting in a way that produces hazy images when the light ultimately reaches the sensor.
There is no inherent problem in using vintage lenses on mirrorless cameras. In general they excel at this and many many photographers who love the unique look produced by older glass love to do so. 99% of my shooting is with non native glass - i.e. classic vintage lenses including Canon LTM lenses. Only one of these produces the kind of issues you describe and it is an old 50mm f1.2 with a front element that looks as if it has been placed in a cement mixer with gravel. To make matters worse this lens has a reputation for hazing up from time to time and needing disassembly and cleaning (due to the lubricants used). All of my other Canons are excellent.
So my first thought is that though you say the glass on your lenses is clear, shine a torch through the lens from the front and check it from the other end to see if any hazing on the internal elements is evident based on this visual inspection. i.e. without mounting it on the camera. Sometimes slight haze is not immediately evident until the lens is checked in this somewhat extreme manner but is enough to show up at least in some situations in photos.
There is a possible second culprit that comes to mind. Is your adapter bright chrome? If so it may pay to paint the interior of the adapter matt black. Though I think this might be more likely to cause a different type of flaring than what you describe it is never the less possible that this is where the problem lays if light passing from the rear element of the lens is hitting the interior of the chrome adapter and reflecting in a way that produces hazy images when the light ultimately reaches the sensor.
There is no inherent problem in using vintage lenses on mirrorless cameras. In general they excel at this and many many photographers who love the unique look produced by older glass love to do so. 99% of my shooting is with non native glass - i.e. classic vintage lenses including Canon LTM lenses. Only one of these produces the kind of issues you describe and it is an old 50mm f1.2 with a front element that looks as if it has been placed in a cement mixer with gravel. To make matters worse this lens has a reputation for hazing up from time to time and needing disassembly and cleaning (due to the lubricants used). All of my other Canons are excellent.
shawn
Mentor
I think they make them slightly short so people don't run into problems hitting infinity. If your adapter is the one with the black body and silver ring LTM threaded section loosen the grub screws and that silver ring will come out. It should have an angle on the side that the grub screws push against which hold it tight in the body. Just use tape on the base of the silver section and the grub screw design will hold the ring tight against the tape. Adjust as needed.
Shawn
Range-rover
Mentor
I had a Canon LTM 35mm f2, which I heard glowing reviews about here* on
this site. when I got it I was disappointed lot's of flare, weak color.
If you want to stick to old screw mount lenses stay with Leica.
*The Japanese Summicron!*
this site. when I got it I was disappointed lot's of flare, weak color.
If you want to stick to old screw mount lenses stay with Leica.
*The Japanese Summicron!*
Retro-Grouch
Well-known
In large part, I think that your results are largely determined by the distance of the rear element from the sensor. The further away, the better results, as digital sensors don't like the light rays hitting at extreme angles. This is one of the reasons that SLR lenses give generally better results when adapted.
When I had the A7II, I tried the same lens, identical formula but different mounts, with adapters. It was a Voigtlander 28/3.5, one in LTM mount and the other in S (Nikon rangefinder) mount. The S mount lens gave significantly better results, consistently; I attribute this to the greater distance from the sensor of the rear element. A slight difference, but enough to affect the image. Both were pretty poor on the Sony, BTW.
Of course, I'm not a tech-head, so there may have been other factors at work. My $0.02, for what its worth!
When I had the A7II, I tried the same lens, identical formula but different mounts, with adapters. It was a Voigtlander 28/3.5, one in LTM mount and the other in S (Nikon rangefinder) mount. The S mount lens gave significantly better results, consistently; I attribute this to the greater distance from the sensor of the rear element. A slight difference, but enough to affect the image. Both were pretty poor on the Sony, BTW.
Of course, I'm not a tech-head, so there may have been other factors at work. My $0.02, for what its worth!
sevres_babylone
Mentor
That’s interesting and may be why I’ve been happy with the results with with my Canon F50mm F1.4 ltm and Serenar 85mm F2 ltm — the lenses were attached to my A7SII via 2 adapters. An ltm to m-mount and then an m-mount to Sony. So that would slightly increase the distance. On the other hand, it is conceded there are fewer problems with normals and telephotos than with wide-angle lenses, so this may prove nothing😊
Doug A
Established
I had good results with a 50/2 collapsible Summicron on a Fuji X-E2 when I was still shooting digital. A very nice portrait combination. Fortunately I didn't forget and try to collapse the lens
Doug A
Established
There is nothing you can do, with adaptors or otherwise, to increase the distance from the rear element of a lens to the sensor and still be able to focus the lens at infinity.
Forest_rain
Well-known
I've been experimenting and after reseating the adapter ring, the infinity focus is spot on. Seems the adapter was designed properly but it just wasn't seated properly.
The biggest problem is a slight "glow" to the images. My 135mm glass is completely perfect and clear, but shading with my hand significantly increases contrast, so it looks like I just need a hood. I guess the lens coatings on these older lenses are just not as good as the newer ones.
Barring that though, I've got some good images so far, so the results have been good.
The advantage of these rangefinder lenses on a mirrorrless is that the size and bulk are much lower than SLR lenses, but I haven't tried the 50mm 1.8 much yet, will try it next time I go out.
The biggest problem is a slight "glow" to the images. My 135mm glass is completely perfect and clear, but shading with my hand significantly increases contrast, so it looks like I just need a hood. I guess the lens coatings on these older lenses are just not as good as the newer ones.
Barring that though, I've got some good images so far, so the results have been good.
The advantage of these rangefinder lenses on a mirrorrless is that the size and bulk are much lower than SLR lenses, but I haven't tried the 50mm 1.8 much yet, will try it next time I go out.
Retro-Grouch
Well-known
You can pay $10,000.00, give or take, for a Noctilux with "glow". Your Canon lens just became an incredible bargain! Seriously, for many of us using old glass on mirrorless, these qualities (I won't call them faults) of the old lenses are a big plus, and creative tools. Try to see if you can turn them to your advantage. If not, and razor sharpness is necessary for you, I've found that there are a lot of inexpensive lenses in E-mount that will deliver. The Samyang/Rokunar 35 is a good example.
tbhv55
Well-known
Good to hear that you have resolved the adapter problems.
Re- the "glow"... I quite like that characteristic, but such things are down to personal preference, of course.
LukasB
Established
Yes, the 'glow' flare with lenses of this era is certainly a "take it or leave it" situation. Personally, I love it in certain situations. I find that a lot of the time it can detract from an image - seems nicer on film anyway than digital.