• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / Adapter flange distance errors

Adapter flange distance errors

May 23, 2018 JimK 10 Comments

I’ve had several posts about the errors in adapter length (measured from the lens flange to the camera flange). These errors are potentially problematic.  They can cause your distance and depth of field to be off. There can be sharpness losses when used with lenses with floating elements. Parfocality in zoom lenses suffers.

I recently got a tool for directly measuring adapter length with micrometer resolution.

I picked a random group of Nikon F lens to Sony E mount adapters and measured the average flange distances.

When working with focus distance errors, we photographers usually like to work in micrometers (um).

Graphing the results:

You can see why I prefer Kipon adapters, although first prize goes to the Vello smart adapter. The flange distance is about the only thing I like about the Vello piece, though.

The Last Word

← How fast is the a7III silent shutter? Privacy policy →

Comments

  1. CarVac says

    May 23, 2018 at 10:15 am

    Check the flatness as well; they’re not necessarily uniform thickness around the circumference.

    I reshimmed all my Contax->EOS adapters to perfect infinity focus using cheap plastic shim stock from McMaster.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      May 23, 2018 at 12:10 pm

      I did run around the perimeter checking thickness, and all of mine are close (within a few um) of being the same all the way around. I am not able to get the same result when a single measurement is repeated, though; there is a +/- 3-4 um tolerance I have to through in.

      Reply
  2. ctm says

    May 23, 2018 at 10:43 pm

    Have you measured any Canon EF to Sony FE adapters? I am quite surprised by the high error from Metabones and Novoflex, given the high price they charge.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      May 24, 2018 at 6:28 am

      I have not measured any Canon to Sony adapters. Novoflex adapters are short by design:

      https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/lens-adapter-tolerance-part-2/

      Reply
  3. Arthur says

    May 24, 2018 at 12:49 pm

    It’s surprising that Novoflex doesn’t maintain the same ‘as designed error’ across their adapters.

    I recall that 2013 post

    Reply
  4. jtra says

    May 25, 2018 at 11:45 pm

    In table the Vello is best, but in graph it is not. Wrong data graphed?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      May 26, 2018 at 7:03 am

      Look again. The Vello bar is so short it’s virtually invisible.

      Reply
  5. Erik Kaffehr says

    May 26, 2018 at 9:11 pm

    Hi,

    Nice to see that they are all on the minus side. Kipon seems to have tight tolerances, allowing them to have a small negative bias. With Novoflex tolerances seem to be wide, not so great example of german craftmanship. I am using the Metabones and I am quite happy, but it seems like they tolerances are not any good.

    Best regards
    Erik

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Lens adapters — FUD to enlightenment says:
    September 15, 2018 at 3:31 pm

    […] are some measurements I made of Nikon F to Sony E […]

    Reply
  2. Lens adapters: flange-to-flange distance – Photo rumblings and whispers says:
    July 1, 2020 at 4:34 am

    […] more of a problem than an increase in the nearest possible focusing distance. From the post “Adapter flange focal distance errors” by Jim Kasson it turns out that even expensive adapters can be significantly shorter than […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.