Legacy lenses reach a WEIRD infinity on NX10

Started Jun 18, 2011 | Discussions
starwolfy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,133Gear list
Like?
Legacy lenses reach a WEIRD infinity on NX10
Jun 18, 2011

Hello,

I use a lot of legacy lenses on NX10.

I have found out that many of my lenses (maybe all of them?) have problem regarding infinity.

Here is the problem:

I have taken several shots to show the problem.

I have used a lens which can focus from 0,30m to 4m and then reach infinity after 4m.

I have shot two pics and did a 100% crop.
First pic is shoot at Infinity
Second pic is shoot with the focusing set a 4m (which right before infinity).

As you can see, infinity shoots are blured...but the 4m shots are fine...

Why? Why are my lenses not able to provide a good picture at infinity? It seems that when I reach infinity...I have to turn the focusing back from few milimiters to get a sharp picture.

Any Idea?

EDGE:

CENTER:

EDGE:

CENTER:

 starwolfy's gear list:starwolfy's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH +3 more
Kulverstukas
Regular MemberPosts: 292Gear list
Like?
Re: Legacy lenses reach a WEIRD infinity on NX10
In reply to starwolfy, Jun 18, 2011

Almost all my legacy lenses "outrun" infinity too. So you can't rely on "turn them clockwise till stop". More so on tele lenses like Tair-11 and Culminar. May be it can be cured by thin ajusting ring on adapter.

PS My son explained me something about this and why it's so on rangefinder cameras, but me forgot

 Kulverstukas's gear list:Kulverstukas's gear list
Sigma DP2 Sigma DP1s Canon EOS 5D Mark II Sigma SD14 Samsung NX10 +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
starwolfy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,133Gear list
Like?
Re: Legacy lenses reach a WEIRD infinity on NX10
In reply to Kulverstukas, Jun 18, 2011

Thank you for your reply.

I only used dumb chinese adapters.

Do you think this problem could be solved with more serious adapters like NOVOFLEX one?

 starwolfy's gear list:starwolfy's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tkpenalty
Regular MemberPosts: 440
Like?
Re: Legacy lenses reach a WEIRD infinity on NX10
In reply to starwolfy, Jun 18, 2011

definitely. My adaptor wasn't able to focus to infinity until I shaved it back .5mm. Its better that you are able to focus beyond infinity; it affects depth of field.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TJL LTFF
Senior MemberPosts: 1,137Gear list
Like?
Re: Legacy lenses reach a WEIRD infinity on NX10
In reply to starwolfy, Jun 18, 2011

Thanks for the post and the photos. I've encountered the same and like you have to dial it back to 10m when at full aperture on the one lens I have tried.

 TJL LTFF's gear list:TJL LTFF's gear list
Samsung NX20 Samsung NX300 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OIS Samsung NX 20mm F2.8 Pancake +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Coldamus
Senior MemberPosts: 1,582
Like?
Re: Legacy lenses reach a WEIRD infinity on NX10
In reply to starwolfy, Jun 18, 2011

It is more than likely the adapter is the problem and its thickness is not quite right. I have a cheap M42 adapter and a genuine Samsung NX/Pentax K adapter and haven't noticed any problem but then I wasn't specifically looking for that problem either.

It is nearly midnight here now so I can't do a test but I will check them both tomorrow and report back.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
phototransformations
Senior MemberPosts: 2,775Gear list
Like?
Re: Legacy lenses reach a WEIRD infinity on NX10
In reply to TJL LTFF, Jun 18, 2011

All the Chinese adapters I have used allow focus beyond infinity. I believe this is because they are imprecisely manufactured and want to ensure that infinity can be reached. Also to accommodate what might be a wide array of lenses by different manufacturers, whose lenses may have different tolerances. With the screw-type adapters you can use very thin shims (I've used a couple of layers of aluminum foil) to achieve accurate infinity focus, but I haven't figured out an easy way to do this with the bayonet-type adapters.

 phototransformations's gear list:phototransformations's gear list
Samsung TL500 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
starwolfy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,133Gear list
Like?
Re: Legacy lenses reach a WEIRD infinity on NX10
In reply to starwolfy, Jun 18, 2011

Thank you guys for your comments!

It seems that adapters from company like NOVOFLEX would possibly (but not sure?) be better manufactured items...and maybe have a better infinity tolerance...But at what price?

I checked the website of NOVOFLEX...it is 130 euros for an adapter oO!

 starwolfy's gear list:starwolfy's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tom Caldwell
Forum ProPosts: 17,946
Like?
Re: Legacy lenses reach a WEIRD infinity on NX10
In reply to starwolfy, Jun 18, 2011

I know about the past infinity problem - I have a number of Russian lenses that will not focus at infinity. This is not a problem with any of my legacy Japanese lenses although it does apparently exist.

From what I have read there are a number of reasons for this.

Firstly on telephoto more particularly the infinity focus was sometimes set that way to allow for expansion and contraction of lens components due to changes in temperature.

Secondly there was some sort of muck up of the flange back length of just a few millimetres in the early post WWII lenses made in Russia. Apparently lenses were tuned to camera in factory and it did not matter if you only had one camera and lens or had the smarts to tune your next lens to your camera.

Infinity focus often needs fine tuning as can be seen on the rangefinder camera forums where instructions are given for tuning infinity of various lenses - usually German or Japanese there. Regrettably nothing for my Mir 24N - but that is another story - see below.

Because we are using adapters for these lenses we always hope that the adapters adapt to the correct flange back distance. On modern computer controlled lathes there should be no problem - otherwise we rely on the undoubted skill and attention of dedicated lathe machinists. But legacy lenses were always made on lathes directed by human precision alone.

Lastly, many, if not most lenses, have several take up positions on their internal helix. As 50-70+ year old lenses, especially, but far from exclusively Russian ones, suffer from internal grease like treacle, you can almost bet that the ones that focus smoothly have been re-lubricated. So smooth as silk they may be but if they have been re-assembled incorrectly then they just ain't going to focus properly until they are. Have a very nice Mir-24N. Makes a great macro lens - needs a bit more than just a little bit of infinity focus fine tuning. Seems that many who re-lubricate lenses for sale do not collimate the lenses for infinity focus afterwards.

If you buy legacy lenses and are not extremely lucky then if you are not a lens-mechanic then you soon will be. Interesting hobby, my skills are improving.

Now if anyone out there knows how to open up a Mir-24N or a Mir-10A? Great lenses of a rarer variety but no instructions available for a would be lens mechanic. I am getting my skills up on the simple stuff like Industars and Jupiters, might write my own instructions when I get brave enough to head out into the unknown territory on my own.

Meanwhile lens mechanics are not out there taking images.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
starwolfy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,133Gear list
Like?
Re: Legacy lenses reach a WEIRD infinity on NX10
In reply to Tom Caldwell, Jun 18, 2011

Hi Tom,

Thx for explanation.

My lens is a wide one: 21mm

I think the problem may be the adapter. I found out that one of my other adapter really seem to be from same manufacturer...and the lenses I fit on it are showing a playing because the adapter is not tight enough. I guess these adapters are not really good.

Now I am considering of buying a Novoflex one...

My problem now is that I can't be sure if my lens is a dull or if it is the adapter the problem because I have only one lens with that mount T,T

I don't want to spend 130 euros in an adapter just to realize that my lens is a dull one. I think I have better make other tests shots tomorrow and decide what to do next.

 starwolfy's gear list:starwolfy's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tom Caldwell
Forum ProPosts: 17,946
Like?
Adapters compared
In reply to starwolfy, Jun 19, 2011

starwolfy wrote:

Hi Tom,

Thx for explanation.

My lens is a wide one: 21mm

I think the problem may be the adapter. I found out that one of my other adapter really seem to be from same manufacturer...and the lenses I fit on it are showing a playing because the adapter is not tight enough. I guess these adapters are not really good.

Now I am considering of buying a Novoflex one...

My problem now is that I can't be sure if my lens is a dull or if it is the adapter the problem because I have only one lens with that mount T,T

I don't want to spend 130 euros in an adapter just to realize that my lens is a dull one. I think I have better make other tests shots tomorrow and decide what to do next.

The main idea of getting a Novoflex or a Samsung oem adapter is that they have a slider that works aperture control. This makes them suitable to control a modern lens that does not have an aperture ring

I have mused in the past that one might wonder why one would want to dumb-down a nice modern automatic lens by adapting it to make it a manual lens. However if you had a really special lens you wanted to use on your NX it might make sense. My experience with Samsung pancakes is that using their focus ring is not always very easy - manual focus on these lenses is more an afterthought of their design rather than the essential requirement of a true manual focus lens.

However given this I have to admit to having not only two Chinese made dumb adapters (same make) and also a Novoflex PK-> NX and also the Samsung oem adapter which I was luckily able to secure at a reasonable price brand new. I guess that few are able to justify the RRP of the Samsung version (I wasn't).

The Samsung oem version is certainly the best made and comes with both caps and a protective leather bag. The Novoflex one is well machined and has a little lever to work the aperture in your non-aperture ring lens.

I am an accountant with wide interests and not an engineer or fitter and turner but I can work a vernier caliper and micrometer after a fashion. Therefore I have measured the adapter depths in millimetres. Key: Make V(Vernier) / M(Micrometer)

Chinese PK (1) V(20.0) / M (20.36)
Chinese PK (2) V(20.0) / M (20.36)
Novoflex PK V(20.0) / M (20.00 - 20.01 - 20.25)
Samsung PK oem V(20.0) / M (20.33)

Vernier calipers are obviously not precise enough for my eyes to register a difference - they all looked exactly 20.0 mm to me.

The Chinese adapters bought at different times were very precise at their 20.36 with micrometer measurements taken at several points on each - no problem there with their machining and quality control.

At first the Novoflex seemed closer to "20.00mm" as my first reading was "20.1mm" but I was getting different reading around the rim. In the end I settled on 20.0-20.1 on one side and a fair average of 20.25 on the other. In is very well made and looks the part but it is the most inconsistent of the four adapters.

The Samsung only gave one measurement on the micrometer - 20.33mm - this is closer to the Chinese adapter measurement than the Novoflex measurement.

Therefore if the true measurement is 20.0mm then they are all out to a a degree. Noting that even the Novoflex would probably take up to it's thickest point of 20.25mm and may have indeed been made deliberately fractionally skewed to give a tighter take up fit.

My conclusion is that the manufacturing tolerance of the adapters is pretty close to within a fraction of a millimetre and I imagine that this amount is well within the manufacturing/wear tolerance of the lenses that would be fitted via adapter.

I have generally speaking had more focus problems with the cheaper run of the mill Russian LTM lenses. Industar-22 and 50's. All my Jupiters, excepting possibly a LTM J-9 have focussed well. Likewise M42 mount lenses such as the I-50-2, Mir and Helios focus well and the Helios-44M series is a standout for it's sharpness as you know well. My only problem with M42 is as I suspect bad re-assembly after a lubrication effort. My Mir-10A worked fine until the guide collar came loose and the Mir-24N is so badly out of focus it must be a helical gear problem.

I have had little (if any) focus problems with Japanese PK and also FD mount lenses. This all leads to my conclusion that the problem is not in the adapters but for Japanese and German lenses in the infinity focus adjustment. For Russian lenses - less than perfect re-build jobs or in the case of early Russian LTM lenses the specification for LTM was simply wrong and as each lens was hand tuned to the camera it was fitted to then they are a lottery when adapted by a "normal" adapter to a digital camera. The (later) Industar 61L/D's seem to focus fine as do all the Jupiters but even there I am not so sure about the LTM J-9 - will have to re-check that one. The J-9 in M42 is a great lens if subject to flare as uncoated.

On the subject of hoods - I have "found" the Matin (Korean) lens hood - comes with a filter ring that allows it to be removed and the hood reversed and stored on the lens - you can fit regular filters on the Matin supplied filter/hood retaining ring. Well made of that slightly flexible plastic and not that expensive either.

Sizes available: 49/52/58/62/67/72/77mm

As we all know screw in hoods that go on filter threads can be very good but are fiddly with it.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Coldamus
Senior MemberPosts: 1,582
Like?
Re: Adapters compared
In reply to Tom Caldwell, Jun 19, 2011

Just measured my adapters and both the chinese M42 adapter and the Samsung NX/PK adapter were near enough to 20mm. The digital calipers I used were not capable of more precise measurement than that. The display reads to .001mm but my readings of the last 3 digits varied depending on pressure applied. A micrometer would have been more accurate. I think it is correct that M42 and PK should be the same.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Coldamus
Senior MemberPosts: 1,582
Like?
Re: Legacy lenses reach a WEIRD infinity on NX10
In reply to Coldamus, Jun 19, 2011

Well, I just did some tests but didn't prove much. My cheap M42 adapter used with a Super-Takumar 55mm/1.8 is just about spot on. The lens may focus just a smidgin past infinity but I think it always did, even on an m42 camera (Pentax Spotmatic).

The only manual focus Pentax K mount lens that I have left is an A series 70-210 zoom. Used on the genuine Samsung NX/PK adapter, it does focus past infinity. Not a lot but enough to be not quite sharp. However, once you are aware of it and focus with the evf, it is not a problem.

When I bought this lens, its focus at infinity was way off because the 3 adjusting screws around the barrel were loose. I adjusted it and tightened the screws and am fairly sure it was spot on when used with a Pentax K mount camera. It may have moved since or the adapter thickness may not be quite right. However, as I said above, it isn't a problem once you are aware of it.

The adapters are probably made a fraction short intentionally. If they were a fraction too long (or thick), it might not be possible to focus to infinity with some lenses and that would be a serious problem.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mistral75
New MemberPosts: 9
Like?
Re: Adapters compared
In reply to Tom Caldwell, Jun 19, 2011

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Therefore if the true measurement is 20.0mm then they are all out to a a degree. Noting that even the Novoflex would probably take up to it's thickest point of 20.25mm and may have indeed been made deliberately fractionally skewed to give a tighter take up fit.

My conclusion is that the manufacturing tolerance of the adapters is pretty close to within a fraction of a millimetre and I imagine that this amount is well within the manufacturing/wear tolerance of the lenses that would be fitted via adapter.

The theoretical flange distance of the M42 and Pentax K mounts is 45.46mm whilst the one of the Samsung NX mount is 25.5mm. Therefore the thickness of the Pentax K --> Samsung NX adapter should be 45.46 - 25.5 = 19.96mm when a lens is mounted on the adapter and the adapter on the camera.

Your measures show that all adapters are a bit thicker when "free" (not compressed by the lens and camera mounts). I presume the more "tender" the alloy used to make the adapter, the more extra thickness is needed.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tom Caldwell
Forum ProPosts: 17,946
Like?
Re: Adapters compared
In reply to Mistral75, Jun 19, 2011

Mistral75 wrote:

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Therefore if the true measurement is 20.0mm then they are all out to a a degree. Noting that even the Novoflex would probably take up to it's thickest point of 20.25mm and may have indeed been made deliberately fractionally skewed to give a tighter take up fit.

My conclusion is that the manufacturing tolerance of the adapters is pretty close to within a fraction of a millimetre and I imagine that this amount is well within the manufacturing/wear tolerance of the lenses that would be fitted via adapter.

The theoretical flange distance of the M42 and Pentax K mounts is 45.46mm whilst the one of the Samsung NX mount is 25.5mm. Therefore the thickness of the Pentax K --> Samsung NX adapter should be 45.46 - 25.5 = 19.96mm when a lens is mounted on the adapter and the adapter on the camera.

Your measures show that all adapters are a bit thicker when "free" (not compressed by the lens and camera mounts). I presume the more "tender" the alloy used to make the adapter, the more extra thickness is needed.

Thanks - I am not sure how much 0.3mm might make to a focus situation but I imagine that many lenses might vary as just as much at flange mount within manufacturing tolerances. Therefore lens + adapter being both oversize might lead to more variance than just directly coupling to the camera mount. Furthermore there are two gaps between lens mount and lens when an adapter is used - as you have noted this might necessitate a slightly oversize adapter to compensate.

I was careful with my measurements and re-tested to make as sure as possible. However it is not my trade and I am not expert or experienced in using a micrometer, but I do know how to read one.

On the other hand I have used vernier calipers for years and as has been noted they are no more accurate than reading to the millimetre as my eyes could not detect anything other than plain 20.0mm readings for all the adapters I tested.

Consequently I think that all these adapters are probably within specified manufacturer's tolerances.

Rangefinder forums are full of queries and advice on how to adjust infinity focus on manual lenses. Therefore I might reasonably conclude that the lens is more in need of adjustment than the adapters used to mount it.

Thereby hangs the problem. Some lenses are easily adjusted by removing the face plate by unscrewing it. Then finding and loosening three fixing screws that bind the lens barrel to the focus helix, then manually turning the disconnected focus ring until infinity focus is correct. (The infinity marker remains fixed). My problem lens has three screws but they fit through three fixed mounting holes preventing disconnect with the movement of the focus helix. Obviously I must find the correct way to make the adjustment for that lens.

Talk is that manufacturers who made lenses suitable for many mount had a quite wide range of adjustment to cover fixing correct infinity for multiple flange back distances (within reason of course).

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
starwolfy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,133Gear list
Like?
Infinity test shots comparison with 3 lenses
In reply to Tom Caldwell, Jun 19, 2011

Hi,

I just finished a test shot to check this infinity problem on three of my lenses.

I have use 3 lenses:

  • 21mm (infinity after 4m)

  • 35mm (infinity after 10m)

  • 50mm (infinity after 10m)

both 35mm and 50mm have same adapter. 21mm one has a different one.

Test shot:

To test the 21mm I have put my tripod at 6 meter away from the subject
To test the 35 and 50mm I have put my tripod at 12 meters away from the subject

Because of these distance...I should get the best IQ when I put the lenses on infinity.
My results are totally different than this theory.

I did several shots to test it out, all at F8 with all lenses.

I just used the scales written on the lens to focus. I DID NOT try to fine tune my focus.

21mm shots at:

  • 2m

  • 4m

  • Infinity

35mm shots at:

  • 2m

  • 3m

  • 5m

  • 10m

  • infinity

50mm shots at:

  • same than 35mm

Here are my results in full size.
I also added the 100% crops to have a clearer view of what is going on.

As a conclusion:

If I dont do any fine focusing tuning with my lenses and that I want to make an infinty shot...I just can't rely on the focusing scale written on my lenses. So I have to know it by heart now.

Best IQ at inifity is reached at:

21mm: 2m on the scale = infinity
35mm: 3m on the scale = infinity
50mm: 5m on the scale = infinity

 starwolfy's gear list:starwolfy's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
starwolfy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,133Gear list
Like?
Re: Infinity test shots comparison with 3 lenses
In reply to starwolfy, Jun 19, 2011

Also please note that I shoot that pictures in RAW, so there is no sharpness applied etc.

 starwolfy's gear list:starwolfy's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tom Caldwell
Forum ProPosts: 17,946
Like?
Re: Infinity test shots comparison with 3 lenses
In reply to starwolfy, Jun 19, 2011

starwolfy wrote:

Also please note that I shoot that pictures in RAW, so there is no sharpness applied etc.

Today I am pretty busy so I will not have time to look at your test shots closely.

It might be fair comment that if you can get to infinity with any lens even if it is focussing past infinity then the lens/adapter combination is fine. Certainly not an adapter problem. If the lenses have various infinity focus characteristics then it is is showing a discrepancy per lens. Probably an original manufacturing adjustment tolerance.

Not sure of the history so someone might correct me. Apparently there was initially a slight difference between Leica and Zeiss flange back lengths but when the Russians started making the gear this was ignored and when the lenses did not focus properly these were shimmed up in factory to suit individual cameras. Not only that but probably manufacturing tolerances were not precise. To counter this the bodies could be adjusted for camera infinity. Therefore a lens/camera combination could be adjusted on camera or on lens or on both. This was fine until you changed lenses. If the camera was set on a known-good lens then they all might be adjusted the same and each new lens could be set to common infinity. However if the lens was out and the camera adjusted to the lens then the lens would be a problem on any other camera it was used on.

Somewhere along the line this was fixed and lenses were built to a common standard.

However I have had a J-3 apart recently and the Jupiters come with a shim ring inside. Maybe there was a box of different size shim rings at the end of the assembly line? This would compensate for machining errors. Before we curse Russian quality standards we must acknowledge that the Zeiss company designed and made the lens with the same shim arrangement for very good purpose.

If infinity were perfect on all lenses then there would be no need to adjust it but there are several commentaries on adjusting infinity focus on the web. I will link one up here just as soon as I get the chance. At least adjusting infinity focus is much easier on a digital camera than on a rangefinder. That is, if you can find the correct method in each lens.

Older designs were shimmed inside, some later ones simply require disconnecting the helix drive from the focus indicator and adjusting then tightening it down again. How to do this is the trick. Some adjust via three screws behind the faceplate and some require the focus ring to be moved to get at the adjustment underneath. Others? I am all ears but there is obviously a way even if I presently have no answer.

Obviously if the lens can be adjusted for infinity focus by visual means whilst on camera without a serious disassembly then we will all be happy.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tom Caldwell
Forum ProPosts: 17,946
Like?
Re: Infinity test shots comparison with 3 lenses
In reply to Tom Caldwell, Jun 19, 2011

Focussing past infinity was probably a factory "kludge" to make sure that the lenses at least focussed to infinity somewhere (near enough). Would have saved quite a lot of effort hand tuning each and every lens to precise infinity.

Annoying, but not the end of the world as it can be fixed by perfectionists like myself. (grin)

Now my Mir-24N? No sign of infinity focus adjustment and it is so bad that it regards "infinity" as the other side of the room. However it does focus down to about 200mm so it is a great "macro" lens. So it is off to the land of the unknown with no documented instructions on the web. Has to be a mis-aligned helicoid in there somewhere as it is well beyond any simple infinity focus tweak-adjustment.

A good chance that the 24N got a bit sticky years ago so "Dad" relubricated it. After he was finished it never did work at infinity but as he just took images of the family it did not matter much. After he was gone the kids cleaned out the junk in his cupboards and an internet vendor put a good looking lens on ebay in good faith - bummer. Now I have to fix "Dad's" mistake. Hope he marked the helicoid position first - some of them have eight take up points plus an inner helicoid with a few more to make some great combinations. Wish me luck but I was never very good at cards ... at least I am patient.

Oh, and wide angles should have a very wide dof so perhaps the guys and girls on the assembly line did not worry too much about precise infinity focus.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AQT
AQT
New MemberPosts: 9
Like?
Re: samsun OEM lens adapter.
In reply to Tom Caldwell, Jun 23, 2011

Can anyone tell me if the Samsung ED-MA9NXK lens adapeter (NX mount to pentax K mount) included a manual apperture ring setting?

Ultimately i like to be able to use Pentax DA lenses on NX camera, but DA lenses will only shoot wide open if there is no mean to manually adjust aperture.

chinese adapter has no setting, it is just a spacer, from what i can tell.

Novoflex high end adapter has a ring.

i'm not sure if Samsung has a ring. the official photo from Samsung website seems to show a little internal level, but did not specifically state that this adapter will allow manual trim of aperture. I sent an inquiry but that seems to get lost in Samsung vast complexity of services. I chedk with B&H photos, and they are not sure either.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads