Quality of different mounts

A post by ProfHanks gave me the idea of this thread.

- He said that Canon New FD bayonet are flimsy, unlike the original Canon breech lock mount.

- I never ever had an issue with Leica R, Pentax K, Nikon AIs ('F'), Olympus OM mounts.

Nor Rollei QBM, but my experience is limited with this mount.

- I had 'stuck adapter' issues with Minolta MD, Contax and Yashica (C/Y) lenses. It doesn't prove necessarily that they are badly conceived, it could just be that they are more difficult to manufacture accurately.

- M42 and M39 should, of course, be very reliable

- No idea for Praktica, Konica AR, Fujica, Leica M, Contax G.

But would we be talking about mount or adapter quality ? In my limited use of adapters I've certainly seen quality variances but can't say as I've even seen a problem with a lens mount per se. We'll gloss over my one experience with an Adaptall mount which threatened leaving the lens on the ground.

Belgarchi said:

A post by ProfHanks gave me the idea of this thread.

- He said that Canon New FD bayonet are flimsy, unlike the original Canon breech lock mount.

Click to expand...

I have never had any trouble with the constructon quality of the FDn mount - its mounting procedure is slightly weird but not problem once you first figure out how to hook up the aperture lever with the two mounting dots routine. The Chinese invented moving rod in the adapter can make the mounting slightly easier - that is if you remember to set the rod in the right position beforehand. But once the drill is understood moving rods are hardly necessary. The breech lock is simpler and quite effective but it is an issue waiting to happen as it would be easy to drop a lens if for some reason the breech is accidentally opened when it should not have been opened.

One of the potential issues with all bayonet type lens mounts is the lock pin and its release mechanism. Some adapters have a very poor mechanically designed, flimsy release lever which can come apart and leave the lens “permanently” locked to the adapter.

Belgarchi said:

- I never ever had an issue with Leica R, Pentax K, Nikon AIs ('F'), Olympus OM mounts.

Click to expand...

Pentax K lenses have that big protrusion hanging out the back which makes it harder to adapt but not impossible - even focal reduction adapters have been made. I have no experience with the others.

Belgarchi said:

Nor Rollei QBM, but my experience is limited with this mount.

Click to expand...

Me neither.

Belgarchi said:

- I had 'stuck adapter' issues with Minolta MD, Contax and Yashica (C/Y) lenses. It doesn't prove necessarily that they are badly conceived, it could just be that they are more difficult to manufacture accurately.

- M42 and M39 should, of course, be very reliable

Click to expand...

They are reliable but often end up with lens alignment issues. If using the same adapter with multiple lenses - just accept that you are lucky when the lens is not too far off centre when fully mounted - not so hot when it mounts “upside down”. Again the Chinese adapter manufacturers “invented” rotating centres to that the lenses can be properly aligned and “pretty”. But if you do use the adapter on many lenses you don’t really want to be constantly re-aligning them. I did buy multiple LTM39 adapters so that each could be dedicated to a lens.

Apart from being a bit slower to mount/dismount I imagine that the alignment issues of screw threads that would need a very precise location of the start thread would be the reason why they fell out of favour. Furthermore use with electronic controlled lenses would be fraught.

Belgarchi said:

- No idea for Praktica, Konica AR, Fujica, Leica M, Contax G.

Click to expand...

Leica M must be one of the nicest lens mounts in the whole bunch. A bit of a Rolls-Royce it is probably harder to make - but I find that LM adapters all seem to be of a more superior quality.

Belgarchi said:

A post by ProfHanks gave me the idea of this thread.

- He said that Canon New FD bayonet are flimsy, unlike the original Canon breech lock mount.

Click to expand...

Actually, as far as I know, that's the only one in common use that's problematic.

There is a similarly flimsy flange in several others, such as the Kiev 10/15, but not so many of those are around. BTW, in Kiev 10/15, it's the body side flange that's weak, whereas its the lens side one in Canon FDn.

There are a wide range of slightly incompatible mounts too -- mostly because manufacturers tended to keep the mount details proprietary, but for modern adapters, it's sometimes that they did an incompatible thing despite the correct method being known (e.g., lots of adapters to Sony E have too-thick bayonet wings because people complained that the flexible plastic locking part felt less than solid, but those actually tend to break the plastic part in the mount, and they are completely incompatible with the newer all-metal E mounts). An older famous example was the K "Ricoh pin " -- which jams the lens on some bodies, and Ricoh should have known that.

It's also worth noting that some mounts aren't standardized like people think they are. For example, screw threads like M42 are supposed to have the correct rotational stop point. A lot of mounts don't actually have the flange outer surface as the reference position for positioning relative to the film plane -- it's often a bayonet wing surface or somesuch -- which is why you'll see contradictory flange-to-film measurements for some mounts. Canon also seems to have been very lax in specifying the stop-down pin shape, length, and motion in the FL/FD/FDn lines; you have rounds, sheet metal shapes, various lengths, and circular, linear, or tilt movements. M42 actually specifies a maximum outer diameter for the flange, which Mamiya/Sekor took advantage of to have an oversize aperture ring overlap it... which doesn't work on most modern adapters. I know of at least several dozen quirky incompatabilites across the mounts I've played with; I'm more sensitive to them than most because I design and 3D print many of my own adapters.

widgetbox said:

But would we be talking about mount or adapter quality ? In my limited use of adapters I've certainly seen quality variances but can't say as I've even seen a problem with a lens mount per se. We'll gloss over my one experience with an Adaptall mount which threatened leaving the lens on the ground.

Click to expand...

I agree, my experience has been that well made adapters of all persuasions are generally quite effective.

There are a multitude of other adapters/lens-types not mentioned - just a few - C&D mounts, EF mount, DKL mount, Mamiya has at least three mounts all by itself - Pentacon6/Kiev, etc, etc. Even Pentax Q and their medium format mount .... I have hardly begun to scratch - then there are the modern mounts - Sony E/FE, Canon EF-M (EF-S is a subject in its own right), now ER, Nikon Z, Fuji-X, 4/3 and M4/3 .... will it never end? Miranda, Praktina ....Altix? .... I have some Altix adapters - another breech lock adapter basically made to the M42/PK register distance. They can be non reversibly converted to M42 per lens but buying an adapter (if you can find one) is easier.

Why might you need an Altix adapter? - mainly because the Meyer Telefogar was 99% supplied in the Altix mount only.

Tom Caldwell said:

Belgarchi said:

A post by ProfHanks gave me the idea of this thread.

- He said that Canon New FD bayonet are flimsy, unlike the original Canon breech lock mount.

Click to expand...

I have never had any trouble with the constructon quality of the FDn mount - its mounting procedure is slightly weird but not problem once you first figure out how to hook up the aperture lever with the two mounting dots routine.

Click to expand...

Here's an old thread about it. It's easy to replace, but I've seen multiple ones bent. You might want to check your FDn lenses, because it isn't always obvious that the mount has been deformed -- it can still feel fairly firm.

Probably due to the reversed gender, the FDn mount also collects dirt in the lens rear like no other. At least you only have 3 tiny screws through the plastic to remove the flange and then easily can clean underneath....

I have been shooting with an extensive range of Canon FD lenses since the beginning of the 1980s, so maybe I am simply very used to using them, but I have never had any trouble of this kind.

widgetbox said:

But would we be talking about mount or adapter quality ? In my limited use of adapters I've certainly seen quality variances but can't say as I've even seen a problem with a lens mount per se. We'll gloss over my one experience with an Adaptall mount which threatened leaving the lens on the ground.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that there are more problems with some mounts than others. Not on the lens side, on the adapter side. I thought it was due to some mounts more difficult to reproduce, but other people here pointed out that some mounts were not totally consistent over the years, and tiny variations are now causing problems. I wonder though why these variations didn't create problems to mount these lenses on different millesime cameras.

I can't say that the "quality" of some lenses' mount was suspect (I did not like the design) but I can say that I have experienced trouble with two brands of lenses: Leica R and Hasselblad.

I still clearly remember the mild panic of the Hasselblad half jamming when I removed the lens in a hurry and must have pressed the shutter release (right next to the lens perimeter) at the same time, leaving the lens half stuck and not removable, nor the camera operable. I was in the middle of an important shoot :-(

GnarlydogOZ said:

I can't say that the "quality" of some lenses' mount was suspect (I did not like the design) but I can say that I have experienced trouble with two brands of lenses: Leica R and Hasselblad.

...

Click to expand...

What happened with the Leica R?

I used R4, RE, R8 and R9 professionally for many years with lots of different (3 cam and R cam) lenses and never had a problem with the mount on any of the bodies or lenses. Same goes for using these lenses on Canon EF or Sony E mount using Leica R adapters.

sensiblename99 said:

GnarlydogOZ said:

I can't say that the "quality" of some lenses' mount was suspect (I did not like the design) but I can say that I have experienced trouble with two brands of lenses: Leica R and Hasselblad.

...

Click to expand...

What happened with the Leica R?

I used R4, RE, R8 and R9 professionally for many years with lots of different (3 cam and R cam) lenses and never had a problem with the mount on any of the bodies or lenses. Same goes for using these lenses on Canon EF or Sony E mount using Leica R adapters.

Click to expand...

Same for me. For 40 years.

I've also found Canon nFD mount to be delicate and also on the fiddly side to mount.

Contax-Yashica has a reputation for not being the strongest, but haven't had any trouble myself. Usability average.

Exakta is also not the strongest, especially with some lenses using soft metal (aluminium?) for their mounts or springs.

From a usability point of view, I like Leica M and Leica R the best: just align the red bump with the lens release button. Can be done with the eyes shut and also works very well from a tectile point of view.

Rollei QBM can sometimes be a bit fiddly getting the lens aligned.

Olympus OM is fiddly, maybe also because I don't use it often enough for it to become second nature (lens release button on lens).

M39 & M42 are fiddly by their very nature.

Pentacon 6, Praktina (not Praktica) and Werra have breech lock mounts which are nice to align, but the closing ring has to be open (=sometimes fiddly).

Deckel mounts themselves work quite well (beautifully smooth), but the lenses are often hard to grip, so fiddly.

Others I've used (Pentax K, Minolta MD, Nikon, Canon EF, Sony A, Sony FE, M4/3, 4/3, Contax N, Pentax 6x7) seem pretty equivalent and without any notable pluses or minuses.

Belgarchi said:

widgetbox said:

But would we be talking about mount or adapter quality ? In my limited use of adapters I've certainly seen quality variances but can't say as I've even seen a problem with a lens mount per se. We'll gloss over my one experience with an Adaptall mount which threatened leaving the lens on the ground.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that there are more problems with some mounts than others. Not on the lens side, on the adapter side. I thought it was due to some mounts more difficult to reproduce, but other people here pointed out that some mounts were not totally consistent over the years, and tiny variations are now causing problems. I wonder though why these variations didn't create problems to mount these lenses on different millesime cameras.

Click to expand...

I have broken a Canon FD adapter by not using it correctly (or not carefully enough), though it isn't the variation over time problem you postulated.

With EF adapters there can be issues when the tabs on them are equal in size, so not strictly a Canon copy. In that case it is possible to mount them say 60 degrees turned and the total gets stuck. To prevent that the small screw near one of the tabs can be replaced by one with a wider head or its place slightly shifted to another hole that has to be drilled and threaded. As it did happened to me on the MC-11 adapter I could solve a stuck lens twice from the rear of the MC-11 but on a Canon DSLR this must be a disaster.


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
No photographer's gear list is complete without the printer mentioned !

Belgarchi said:

A post by ProfHanks gave me the idea of this thread.

- He said that Canon New FD bayonet are flimsy, unlike the original Canon breech lock mount.

Click to expand...

And I'd agree.

Belgarchi said:

- I never ever had an issue with Leica R, Pentax K, Nikon AIs ('F'), Olympus OM mounts.

Click to expand...

Belgarchi said:

Nor Rollei QBM, but my experience is limited with this mount.

- I had 'stuck adapter' issues with Minolta MD, Contax and Yashica (C/Y) lenses. It doesn't prove necessarily that they are badly conceived, it could just be that they are more difficult to manufacture accurately.

Click to expand...

I had that issue with Nikon F, It's more about an adapter's reverse engendering than it is about the original mount.

Belgarchi said:

- M42 and M39 should, of course, be very reliable

- No idea for Praktica, Konica AR, Fujica, Leica M, Contax G.

Click to expand...

In general I find FD and FL to be a bit fiddly, but solid. nFD is somewhat less fiddly(unless you manage to rotate the inner part of the lens mount, but it comes at the cost of a loss of rigidity. Dirt and sand can get caught in the lenses mount.

Most of the bayonet mounts are solid and easy to use: Leica R, Pentax K, Leica M, Konica AR, Minolta SR, Nikon F, C/Y, X Fujinon, and Olympus OM(I can't think of any others ATM). I do find Nikon's F mount mount to be annoying in that it's the sole mount that rotates the opposite way when you mount it from 99.9% of the other mounts. Exakta/Topcon are older and not as robust, but still more than enough to do the job.

Screw mounts are fine, but you have to be more aware at what you are doing, lose track of how close to the end of the threads you are and you risk dropping the lens, the lens can work it's self loose if it's not tight enough.

ProfHankD said:

Belgarchi said:

A post by ProfHanks gave me the idea of this thread.

- He said that Canon New FD bayonet are flimsy, unlike the original Canon breech lock mount.

Click to expand...

Actually, as far as I know, that's the only one in common use that's problematic.

There is a similarly flimsy flange in several others, such as the Kiev 10/15, but not so many of those are around. BTW, in Kiev 10/15, it's the body side flange that's weak, whereas its the lens side one in Canon FDn.

There are a wide range of slightly incompatible mounts too -- mostly because manufacturers tended to keep the mount details proprietary, but for modern adapters, it's sometimes that they did an incompatible thing despite the correct method being known (e.g., lots of adapters to Sony E have too-thick bayonet wings because people complained that the flexible plastic locking part felt less than solid, but those actually tend to break the plastic part in the mount, and they are completely incompatible with the newer all-metal E mounts). An older famous example was the K "Ricoh pin " -- which jams the lens on some bodies, and Ricoh should have known that.

Click to expand...

The Ricoh pin catches in the screw drive AF of later Pentax mounts. Since the AF system wasn't around when Ricoh designed their mount variation, I can't see it's fair to blame them! I wonder if Pentax knew about it when designing their AF system ;-)

ProfHankD said:

It's also worth noting that some mounts aren't standardized like people think they are. For example, screw threads like M42 are supposed to have the correct rotational stop point. A lot of mounts don't actually have the flange outer surface as the reference position for positioning relative to the film plane -- it's often a bayonet wing surface or somesuch -- which is why you'll see contradictory flange-to-film measurements for some mounts. Canon also seems to have been very lax in specifying the stop-down pin shape, length, and motion in the FL/FD/FDn lines; you have rounds, sheet metal shapes, various lengths, and circular, linear, or tilt movements. M42 actually specifies a maximum outer diameter for the flange, which Mamiya/Sekor took advantage of to have an oversize aperture ring overlap it... which doesn't work on most modern adapters. I know of at least several dozen quirky incompatabilites across the mounts I've played with; I'm more sensitive to them than most because I design and 3D print many of my own adapters.

Click to expand...

petrochemist said:

ProfHankD said:

An older famous example was the K "Ricoh pin " -- which jams the lens on some bodies, and Ricoh should have known that.

Click to expand...

The Ricoh pin catches in the screw drive AF of later Pentax mounts. Since the AF system wasn't around when Ricoh designed their mount variation, I can't see it's fair to blame them! I wonder if Pentax knew about it when designing their AF system ;-)

Click to expand...

Hmm. I stand corrected. I thought the Ricoh pin also catches on some earlier bodies, but I've never been a K-mount user, so I wasn't aware of the time sequence....

My understanding was that Pentax made K somewhat open, but I have no idea if they told Ricoh that mount area was "reserved" for future use, so it could be either Pentax or Ricoh at fault -- or neither if they did the incompatible things in the same space at the same time.

Personally, I've never seen it in real life and I've owned/own hundreds of nFD's. And even if it is dented like that it'd take about 5 minutes to pull it out and straighten.

ProfHankD said:

petrochemist said:

ProfHankD said:

An older famous example was the K "Ricoh pin " -- which jams the lens on some bodies, and Ricoh should have known that.

Click to expand...

The Ricoh pin catches in the screw drive AF of later Pentax mounts. Since the AF system wasn't around when Ricoh designed their mount variation, I can't see it's fair to blame them! I wonder if Pentax knew about it when designing their AF system ;-)

Click to expand...

Hmm. I stand corrected. I thought the Ricoh pin also catches on some earlier bodies, but I've never been a K-mount user, so I wasn't aware of the time sequence....

My understanding was that Pentax made K somewhat open, but I have no idea if they told Ricoh that mount area was "reserved" for future use, so it could be either Pentax or Ricoh at fault -- or neither if they did the incompatible things in the same space at the same time.

Click to expand...

Yes in those days pretty much everyone made PK lenses. things have changed a bit now!

I believe the RK varient came about the same time as the PKA version both being designed to solve the same problem. These were around 1975 IIRC.

The screw drive AF wasn't around for quite some time afterwards. The very first AF lens Pentax did (on the ME-F of 1981) had it's own built in AF motor/system only ever sold in one lens. It wasn't a success & Pentax pretty much ignored AF for as long as they could after this (1991)

Fortunately I've never got any of my Ricoh lenses caught on my Pentax cameras It wasn't an issue for my film models (all MF models) & I heard about the pin in time to avoid direct connection of those lenses that have it to my DSLRs.

Pentax got back into autofocus with the SFX (SF1) camera and SMC-Pentax F lenses in 1987, and all the company's AF film and digital SLR cameras since have had the screw-drive AF coupling in the same place, potentially causing problems with Ricoh lenses.

In fact, not all of these are problematic. Some lenses retract the pin when the aperture ring is turned away from the A (or P) setting, while others have large, domed contacts that don't jam on the camera. The difficult ones have small, pointed pins that don't retract, and drop into the AF drive hole as the lens is mounted.

Fortunately, it's often easy to dismantle the rear mount of the lens and remove the Ricoh pin (non-destructively) if required, as long as you do so before fitting it to a camera!


Here's a KR-fit lens where the Ricoh pin has been removed (at the bottom, between 6 and 7 o'clock)

--
Dave, HCL