the last word

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

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / The Last Word / On adapters

On adapters

December 24, 2013 JimK 1 Comment

I have a ragtag collection of Nikon F-mount to Leica M-mount, Nikon F-mount to Sony E-mount, and M-mount to E-mount adapters from Novoflex, Metabones, and MTF. None of these are inexpensive; all cost over $200, and one cost more than twice that. As has been discussed before, none are the correct length, almost certainly on purpose.

There’s something else that’s wonky about them all; when bayoneting the lens into position, none of them require the same torque as bayoneting that same lens into the camera body. I never appreciated it before that virtually all Nikon lenses mount on virtually all Nikon bodies with pretty much the same twisting force. It’s one of those things, like breathing, that I usually take completely for granted.

Not so with adapters. It seems the usual practice is to make it much harder to twist the lens home onto the adapter than it is to mount the same lens on a camera body – the MTF F-to-E adapter I have makes me worry about damaging the lens when I use it. However, that’s not a given; some adapters are looser than the standard.

Nikon has figured out how to make this consistent. Zeiss and Sigma, the third-party lens suppliers with which I have the most experience, have as well. Granted, they are larger companies, but why is this so hard? It can’t be a manufacturing cost issue: Nikon makes lenses that cost less than these adapters!

Like finding the seat belt improperly installed on an airplane makes you wonder about the maintenance practices on the engines, this seemingly random variation makes me wonder if the front and back flanges are really parallel.

The Last Word

← M240 & a7R corner sharpness The dog that didn’t bark →

Comments

  1. Andrew says

    December 26, 2013 at 12:30 am

    Probably because the factories that make those adapters are the same ones that sell them for $20 on ebay. I have one that looks just like a novoflex one . I suspect novoflex is ripping us off. I had my dad ask someone to make an adapater from scratch for me (he’s retired but still well connected in the CNC industry). They would have made it for $200 and thats a once off item so the adpater makers are definitely making them cheaper in bulk.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

February 2023
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728  
« Jan    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • 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 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

  • Brian Olson on Fuji GFX 100S exposure strategy, M and A modes
  • JimK on Picking a macro lens
  • JimK on Picking a macro lens
  • Glenn Whorrall on Picking a macro lens
  • JimK on What pitch do you need to scan 6×6 TMax 100?
  • Hatzipavlis Peter on What pitch do you need to scan 6×6 TMax 100?
  • JeyB on Internal focusing 100ish macro lenses
  • JimK on How focus-bracketing systems work
  • Garry George on How focus-bracketing systems work
  • Rhonald on Format size and image quality

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.