Finally upgrading my D40 to...

[Allan Brown]

Hi

Nikon has a device similar to the auto focus adpter...the TC-16A (and TC-16), though that only works on a few higher end bodies unless modified.

Hi thanks for the info. It does seem that the adaptor is a bit restricted, but I wonder how much of that is really true. Nikon are very conservative in some areas.

The Pentax auto tele converter seems far more versatile.

Allan

 

[Allan Brown]

It is really pitiful that Pentax and Canon cameras are more compatible with older Nikon glass than Nikon is.

There is always a compromise between improvements and backward compatibility. I don't expect my new laptop to have all the old parallel and serial plugs of 10 years ago. Nikon has had to make these tradeoffs and they seem to have made the right choices relative to Pentax, as they have grown their SLR business much more than Pentax has.

True, but the fact is Pentax and Canon bodies can support the old pre-ai Nikon glass better than Nikon. Canon may not support their own lenses from that time period - I don't know, Pentax does.

When the D40 came out, I was one of the first to discover its ability to mount pre-ai lenses without modifying the lens. A lot of people also discovered this and it was discussed a lot in the forums. There is also a Flicker group for this. So, after this design "accident" did Nikon take advantage of this and provide metering on the next camera version after being asked to do so on the forums? No.

With the very large amount of these lenses available for a relatively low cost, it is Pentax who have the advantage and therefore the sales of the new cameras.

Allan

 

[lee lindquist]

True, but the fact is Pentax and Canon bodies can support the old pre-ai Nikon glass better than Nikon. Canon may not support their own lenses from that time period - I

Modify a pre-AI lens by simply removing a bit of metal, and mount it on a D3.
It will meter, and you will be able to use the entire focus range. Or, if you
prefer, simply mount it directly with a non-nikon teleconverter. (which is
no different than your canon adapter)

Use an adapter to mount a pre-AI lens on a Canon body, and you will never

be able to focus at infinity. Ever. (because the flange to film-plane distance
is wrong)

As I said, your "fact" canon better supports old nikon lens pegs my bs meter.
Apparently you think that if you keep repeating it here, it will somehow become
true. Again, you should consider a career in politics...

Obviously, your D40 purchase was a poor choice for old lenses. You should
have asked in these forums before purchasing, and you would not be so bitter.

Finally, who cares? Unless you have some wildly exotic pre-AI lens
(by which I mean > $3K in 1975), there is little point in using it. Current
lenses have better designed optics, better coatings, autofocus with
current bodies, etc. Additionally, many lenses which excelled in their
day with film are mediocre performers with digital.

 

[Bogie-Beppu]

Although I agree in part to both of the arguing guys here I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

For one thing Alan is right that ANY entry level Canon can mount (with adapter) old CHEAP Nikkor lenses!

While the entry level Nikon DSLRs can mount those lenses they are with limited functions. The next level mid-range Nikons need the lens modified and still do not offer Auto exposure (D80, D90).

So here lies the contradiction! One would use his old lenses (or go shopping for cheap old glass) to use it with its price contiguous entry level Nikon - but NO it is not modern option.

He has to opt for expensive body to enable metering, etc. and still might need to modify the lens.

In that meaning Allan is right! Nikon deliberately restricted smaller bodies from their extra functionality and I also don't like this.

Who would buy D3 or even D700/300 only to use those old cheap lenses? If I had the money I'll pare it with 24-70 & 70-200VR - no more worries!

 

[MightyMike]

Now now children, this is supposed to be a civil forum, no need to go getting all pissy about a mis-understood statement

"It is really pitiful that Pentax and Canon cameras are more compatible with older Nikon glass than Nikon is. "

So, my question remains -- name a single canon body that supports your assertion.

Isn't the answer to this all of them with an adapter?

So what is your hang up? You can buy an adaptor for Canon to enable the mounting of pre-ai lenses without having to modify the lens. So what if it not fully functional compared to a modern Nikkor on a Nikon body. The fact is it can be done!. This is not

I guess it is all of them with an adapter... so no contradiction unless i'm missing something?
--
Mike from Canada

'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote '



http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?sort_order=views%20DESC&first_this_page=0&page_limit=180&&emailsearch=mighty_mike88%40hotmail.com&thumbnails=

 

[MightyMike]

Use an adapter to mount a pre-AI lens on a Canon body, and you will never be able to focus at infinity. Ever. (because the flange to film-plane distance is wrong)

just a note, the teleconverter/adapter has optics designed in such a way to alter the flange distance to enable infinity focus otherwise it wouldn't be a good choice as all you could do would be to focus within perhaps 1m depending on the lens
--
Mike from Canada

'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote '



http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?sort_order=views%20DESC&first_this_page=0&page_limit=180&&emailsearch=mighty_mike88%40hotmail.com&thumbnails=

 

[larsbc]

lee lindquist wrote:
[snip]

Use an adapter to mount a pre-AI lens on a Canon body, and you will never

be able to focus at infinity. Ever. (because the flange to film-plane distance
is wrong)

Are you sure about this? I thought the Canons used a shorter film-to-flang distance such that it was possible to make an adapter that put the Nikon lens at the correct distance? I know some of the adapters are poorly made which might account for lack of infinity focus.

larsbc

 

[Allan Brown]

True, but the fact is Pentax and Canon bodies can support the old pre-ai Nikon glass better than Nikon. Canon may not support their own lenses from that time period - I

Modify a pre-AI lens by simply removing a bit of metal, and mount it on a D3.
It will meter, and you will be able to use the entire focus range. Or, if you
prefer, simply mount it directly with a non-nikon teleconverter. (which is
no different than your canon adapter)

But this is my point. You have to modify the lens!

The Canon with the adaptor takes the lens as is. The Pentax will take the lens as is without an adaptor.

The non-Nikon tele convertor may work. I will look into it. Anyway, it will not give me the features that the Pentax K-x can provide e.g. in-body IS, trap focusing etc.

The only Nikon bodies that will take the lens unmodified is the D40 series - but then no metering.

Canon, with the adaptor, will take the lens and provide metering. Same as your D3 scenario but at a much lower cost.

Use an adapter to mount a pre-AI lens on a Canon body, and you will never

be able to focus at infinity. Ever. (because the flange to film-plane distance
is wrong)

Incorrect. The links provided previously prove this.

As I said, your "fact" canon better supports old nikon lens pegs my bs meter.
Apparently you think that if you keep repeating it here, it will somehow become
true. Again, you should consider a career in politics...

sigh

Obviously, your D40 purchase was a poor choice for old lenses. You should
have asked in these forums before purchasing, and you would not be so bitter.

I did not purchase my D40 for the old lenses. It was a bonus feature. I am, however, purchasing the Pentax K-x for my old Nikon lenses.

Finally, who cares? Unless you have some wildly exotic pre-AI lens
(by which I mean > $3K in 1975), there is little point in using it. Current
lenses have better designed optics, better coatings, autofocus with
current bodies, etc. Additionally, many lenses which excelled in their
day with film are mediocre performers with digital.

True to some degree. However, most of the prime lenses I have from my film days have not really changed over the years as far as performance goes. They still produce excellent results. Also, this is a prime reason for NOT buying a D3.

Allan

 

[lee lindquist]

True to some degree. However, most of the prime lenses I have from my film days have not really changed over the years as far as performance goes. They still produce excellent results. Also, this is a prime reason for NOT buying a D3.

I reviewed some of your older posts, as you had been gracious enough to
review and comment on mine.

It looks to me like you have about $50 work of old lenses, including a 50mm f/2.0

That was the very first lens I owned in about 1973, with a Nikkormat FTN.
My recollection is that the camera cost about $125, and the lens cost about
$75, new.

Mine is sitting in a junk drawer, along with a 28mm f/3.5 that I bought for
$40 in 1978.

To me, it's silly to make a buying decision, based on a few dollars worth of old gear.

But, I see such logic here all the time. Someone will post something like:
"I have a 1GB SD card, so I only want a new camera which takes SD cards".
Maybe they paid a fortune for the card when they bought it, but it would
cost virtually nothing to replace 1GB of flash with a different memory type.
Rather silly to make a decision based on it...

 

[MightyMike]

You've got me wondering, do you think it is silly for me a young whippersnapper who never used film in an SLR format to have bought so many classic manual focus lenses for my Pentax K-series DSLRs along with the 10 auto focus lenses i own...

look at the "View Plan" in my profile, there are as many manual focus lenses as there are auto focus lenses, some of them are '40/50s vintage, some are a little newer and some are novelties (still useful mind you)... some are even new, all but the mirror were cheaper then $130, many were cheaper then $100, and i've sold 4 to a friend with a Panny G1 at the price i bought them (4 for $37) and 2 to a Sony owner for more then i paid for them. one could say that in the last few years my knowledge of and experience with older lenses has easily caught up to the old farts on these forums who have been shooting film for years.

The fact that you have old lenses sitting in a junk drawer suggests you don't take care of them much, and with that little respect for perfectly good equipment shows you really don't know the value of some of this older glass and why it can be preferred over the newer glass. That kind of value and respect isn't taught, its earned.

anyhow seeing as how older pre-ai glass fits on my cameras i think i'll start looking into some classic Nikon glass for my enjoyment
--
Mike from Canada

'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote '



http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?sort_order=views%20DESC&first_this_page=0&page_limit=180&&emailsearch=mighty_mike88%40hotmail.com&thumbnails=

 

[lee lindquist]

The fact that you have old lenses sitting in a junk drawer suggests you don't take care of them much, and with that little respect for perfectly good equipment shows you really don't know the value of some of this older glass and why it can be preferred over the newer glass. That kind of value and respect isn't taught, its earned.

Ok, what do you think the value of :

Nikkor-H Auto 1:35 f=28mm S/N 640632

and

Nikkor-H Auto 1:2 f=50mm S/N 2092876

are?

Other than normal wear of forty years old, they are in perfect condition.
Beautiful glass, no scratches, no fogging.

If they're valuable, and should be respected, make me an offer.

As I mentioned, I think I paid $40 for one and $50 for the other
in the 1970s.

If I put them on eBay, I think they'd be one of those funky sales
for $0.01, plus $9.95 for shipping.

What advantage do you see, that would make me want to use
the older lenses? (I have plenty of current lenses that cover
the same focal lenths, and are faster, auto-focus, etc.)

Finally, I am thinking of modifying the 28 with a dremel,
so it can be mounted.

Now, if I had an 8mm 180-degree fisheye from the 1960s...

 

[davidried]

What do you expect from a guy who posts a message that basically says, "I bought a Pentax because Nikon is poopy" on a Nikon forum?

Ok, what do you think the value of :

Nikkor-H Auto 1:35 f=28mm S/N 640632

and

Nikkor-H Auto 1:2 f=50mm S/N 2092876

are?

Other than normal wear of forty years old, they are in perfect condition.
Beautiful glass, no scratches, no fogging.

If they're valuable, and should be respected, make me an offer.

As I mentioned, I think I paid $40 for one and $50 for the other
in the 1970s.

If I put them on eBay, I think they'd be one of those funky sales
for $0.01, plus $9.95 for shipping.

What advantage do you see, that would make me want to use
the older lenses? (I have plenty of current lenses that cover
the same focal lenths, and are faster, auto-focus, etc.)

Finally, I am thinking of modifying the 28 with a dremel,
so it can be mounted.

Now, if I had an 8mm 180-degree fisheye from the 1960s...

 

[MightyMike]

Ok, what do you think the value of :

Nikkor-H Auto 1:35 f=28mm S/N 640632

I assume you meant F3.5 not F35 as that would be a little ridiculous

and

Nikkor-H Auto 1:2 f=50mm S/N 2092876

are?

Can't say how much they are, never researched them, they don't interest me, I sold an excellent condition M42 Yashica 28mm F2.8 for $60 (more then i bought it for) since i wasn't using it, I also sold a friend a superb condition M42 Vivitar 28mm F2.5 for $15 which is what i bought it for and my only other lens that is capable of 28mm is my Sigma 17-70, so it appears 28mm is not the focal length for me. And i'm sure i can find a good hundred 28mm lenses within a few hours drive of where i live that would be in better condition as they weren't tossed into a junk drawer.

as for the 50mm F2 well if you checked my profile you'd see i've already got many 50's and 50mm F2s good or bad are a dime a dozen, however i'm told this particular one has quite a decent reputation

Other than normal wear of forty years old, they are in perfect condition.
Beautiful glass, no scratches, no fogging.

No self respecting online purchaser of photographic equipment would trust a statement like that especially when you previously said they were in your junk drawer... sight unseen is not a particularly smart way to shop

If they're valuable, and should be respected, make me an offer.

The offer, considering my opinion of the condition of the lenses despite what you suggest and the fact you don't see any worth in them is to offer them for free to a good respectful home, as in to someone who could use them... assuming of course they are still in usable condition

What advantage do you see, that would make me want to use
the older lenses? (I have plenty of current lenses that cover
the same focal lenths, and are faster, auto-focus, etc.)

When did this become about making you want to use an older lens? you're the one arguing that other shouldn't use older lenses and make decisions because they like those older lenses

Finally, I am thinking of modifying the 28 with a dremel,
so it can be mounted.

good for you, some people don't want to do that

Now, if I had an 8mm 180-degree fisheye from the 1960s...

I hear Samyang has a nice new manual focus 8mm F3.5 fish-eye, of course there is also the Peleng 8mm F3.5 fish-eye, Sigma has one too... oh and Pentax has a 10mm-17mm F3.5-4.5 Fish-eye (180 degree -> 100 degree), Tokina has the same lens minus the SMC coating for the Nikon mount but it usually costs more.

you're anti-old lens opinions aren't shared by everyone so get over it!

--
Mike from Canada

'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote '



http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?sort_order=views%20DESC&first_this_page=0&page_limit=180&&emailsearch=mighty_mike88%40hotmail.com&thumbnails=

 

[atigun]

Another factor is the flange on the lens body. On the older lenses it quite deep and this allows for a snug fit if the lens won't lock into place. Mine do lock. The new lenses don't really have this flange.

Does not sound good. sounds like you use the aperture ring as a lens mount..

BTW, I made a typo on my first post. I have used Nikon SLR cameras since 1970, not 1979.

Have a look at this thread.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&message=19738793&changemode=1

Here is a photo of my 50mm f1.4 Nikkor on my friend's Pentax K-7 body. Yes, they do focus to infinity.

Allan

Looks like the lens is mounted upside down, so you will have turn the camera on its head to see what aperture is set.

Pentax have the lens release lever at the grip side. I am very surprised if it mounts at all without an adapter. In that respect I suspect there is some trolling going on here... At least I would be worried about damaging something in the camera or on the lens. Stop down levers would almost certainly mot match.

As I recall my brother's K10 will not meter with his old Pentax lenses, at least not without a lot of trouble, so I am surprised if it will do so with Nikon. Do you have to meter stopped down?

It would only take me 15 min and a screwdriver to dismount and file out the aperture ring of my old 50mm f/2 from 1974 so it would mount and work with metering as any AI/AIS lens would on my D200... Unfortunately it is packed down somewhere I cannot get to it. (My old non-AI 35mm 2.8 mounts and meters on my D200 after this modification that was performed many years ago). .

--



Atigun valley, a place north in Alaska

 

[lee lindquist]

Can't say how much they are, never researched them, they don't interest me, I sold an excellent condition M42 Yashica 28mm F2.8 for $60 (more then i bought it for) since i wasn't using it, I also sold a friend a superb condition M42 Vivitar 28mm F2.5 for $15

Previously, you claimed that I didn't repect or know the value of older glass.
You've provided nothing to convince me that they don't belong in the junk

drawer, along with the light box, anti-static negative brush, and a slide scanner.

If one of them might sell for $15 -- I'd leave them in the junk drawer, for sentimental
value, and it would be far too much effort to sell them on eBay to net $15.

The offer, considering my opinion of the condition of the lenses despite what you suggest and the fact you don't see any worth in them is to offer them for free to a good respectful home, as in to someone who could use them... assuming of course they are still in usable condition

If such an opportunity persented itself, I'd give them away, as I have done
with a number of compact cameras.

When did this become about making you want to use an older lens?

When you wrote:

"you really don't know the value of some of this older glass and why it can be preferred over the newer glass."

The "preferred over the newer glass" is what would make me want to use it, if
there were such a reason. But, for these particular lenses, there isn't.

you're anti-old lens opinions aren't shared by everyone so get over it!

Actually, you've completely misread my posts, so there isn't really anything
for me to "get over".

For instance, I have these two old lenses. Combined they cost less than
$100, in the early 1970s. They are nothing special. My point is that
it would be pretty silly to make a buying decision based on being able
to use these lenses today. For instance, if I wanted to buy a canon body
-- just do so; I'm sure I could buy two comparable old, uninteresting canon
lenses to go with it, for practically nothing.

I'm not anti old lenses, I'm anti silly decisions.

As I said, I'd like to own the Nikon 180 fisheye from the sixties.
Last I checked, this sells for in the tens of thousands of dollars.
(so, it's not likely I'm going to own it) I'd also like to own
the NOCT f/1.2

Those would be old lenses that would interest me. Not something
worth $15 in the junk drawer.

 

[lee lindquist]

Finally, I am thinking of modifying the 28 with a dremel,
so it can be mounted.

good for you, some people don't want to do that

I researched this a bit more.

The gent at aiconversions will convert most lenses to AI for $25.

For older "good" lenses, I noticed that you can find the parts
an eBay to do so starting at around $10.

Makes this entire thread pretty silly.

 

[iliask]

a Pentax K-x

The bright pink one looks great!

Ilias

 

[MightyMike]

Yes all very good, but you've made your point many of times and other people have a different opinion. So get over yourself this is the big old world and people see things differently. so make your point but don't shove it down a disagreeing parties throat just because they have a different opinion. the only reason people in this thread namely the OP and myself keep arguing is that you come across in your posts with the attitude that suggests all you can do is think very one sided, "my way is the only way and if you think differently i think your nuts" attitude! to put it politely.

I guess the statement goes one mans junk is another mans treasure.
--
Mike from Canada

'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote '



http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?sort_order=views%20DESC&first_this_page=0&page_limit=180&&emailsearch=mighty_mike88%40hotmail.com&thumbnails=

 

[lee lindquist]

Yes all very good, but you've made your point many of times and other people have a different opinion. So get over yourself this is the big old world and people see things differently. so make your point but don't shove it down a disagreeing parties throat just because they have a different opinion.

So, it's ok if you keep arguing, but not if I do. Thanks for explaining that.

I'm not shoving anything down anyone's throat. There is nothing which
compels anyone to read any posts here. Each user if free to ignore what
they wish.

Now, get over yourself, re-read what you wrote and apply it to others.

 

[Supr X]

Can't find a review of this yet. Same amount(and quality) of noise as the K-7?
--
David~
WSSA Member #90



. . . shoot like there's no film in the thing!