Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 42 of 42

Thread: M Adapter Thickness

  1. #1
    marknorton
    Guest

    M Adapter Thickness

    With questions being raised about the Novoflex M to mFT adapter, I thought I'd measure the thickness of mine - how much the M lens sits forward of the G1 lens flange. Answer, in my case, is 8.28mm.

    The standard for the Leica M is 27.8mm and the only information I've seen on mFT indicates their standard is 20mm.

    That's a little surprising because if Leica lenses have been focussing at infinity while the distance scale is less than infinity, the lens is sitting too close to the camera so if the 20mm figure is correct, I'd expect the thickness of the adapter to be less than 7.8mm.

    My lenses focus pretty much correctly at infinity.

    If any of you have the means to measure the adapter thickness accurately, it would be interesting to know what your figure is.

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    Mark, I'll measure mine, I'm mailing it back to Novo tomorrow. Mine is definitely off. On my Summarit-M 50/1.5, infinity is at 25 feet.

    The mFT standard is actually 19.25mm AFAIK. I've also seen Leica M listed at 27.95mm.

  3. #3
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    My measurements show the same -- 8.277mm -- for the Novo adapter thickness.

    If ĩ4/3 flange focal distance is actually 19.25mm, 8.28 + 19.25 = 27.53, which would be a tad short of 27.8, which would explain why the lens focuses past infinity.

    Note this post: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showpo...2&postcount=13

  4. #4
    Senior Member Per Ofverbeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    503
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    Quote Originally Posted by monza View Post
    Mark, I'll measure mine, I'm mailing it back to Novo tomorrow. Mine is definitely off. On my Summarit-M 50/1.5, infinity is at 25 feet.

    The mFT standard is actually 19.25mm AFAIK. I've also seen Leica M listed at 27.95mm.
    The problem is that any lens mount standard, as well as the mFT standard (which isnīt public, it seems) contains far more than just a register distance number. There has to be a tolerance interval as well, since no manufacturer could make a whole series of units exactly similar.

    Also, the lens mounts must have their tolerance intervals, for the same reason. And these intervals must be determined in such a way that every lens copy mounted on every body copy, when set at the infinity stop, must have "true infinity" well within the depth-of-field of that lens wide open, even if the body register is at the longest end of its tolerance interval, AND likewise the lens mount is at the "rear" end of its interval.

    In addition, when body and lens both happen to fall at the opposite ends of their intervals, the combination must still have "true infinity" within the depth-of-field.

    The total allowable variation must then be divided between lens mount tolerance (that depends on focal length and max aperture) and body mount tolerance in a way that gives reasonable economy in manufacture.

    So, even if one were to measure one body and a couple of different lenses very accurately, one would still not be sure where they fall within these tolerance intervals. Measuring a large number of specimens and then use statistical methods on the results is whatīs needed, and thatīs just not realistic.

    Thus, ANY third part manufacturer without access to the full standard document must make his product enough on the "safe side" to at least ensure that all his customerīs cameras and lenses can at least focus to infinity; some overshot is less of a problem. And, it seems Novoflex was a bit more on the safe side than strictly necessary.

    Itīs really no more dramatic than that....

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    That pretty much sums it up. Better to err on the thin side, but not *too* thin. That does end up sacrificing close focus, which isn't all that close with most M lenses.

    Bear in mind that turning the Summarit-M from 25 feet to the infinity setting only moves the lens a fraction of a millimeter.

  6. #6
    Member JimBuchanan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    110
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    I just received a Rayqual LM-m43 adapter, before the G1 has shipped, so I can't comment on infinity focus of my Elmarit M 28mm preAsph and Summicron M 50mm tabbed.

    The Rayqual unit is very nicely made and fits the lenses firmly. The adapter thickness is a reasonably consistent 8.60mm measured several times around the adapter. This is 1/3mm thicker than the measurement above. Given that the M lenses don't have infinity adjustment, it will be dependent on the adapter to be the right thickness.

  7. #7
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    The Rayqual (Cameraquest) is reported by back alley to be correct at infinity:

    http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/s...3&postcount=11

    8.6+19.25 = 27.85, +/- machining tolerances

  8. #8
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,601
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    Infinity focus of M and Leica thread mount lenses are spot on with the RayQual adapter. No problems whatsoever.

    The m4/3rds camera registry is no mystery. RayQual got it. Novoflex did not.
    This is what happens if anyone wants to rest on their laurels and do not want to do the work to earn their money.

  9. #9
    marknorton
    Guest

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Infinity focus of M and Leica thread mount lenses are spot on with the RayQual adapter. No problems whatsoever.

    The m4/3rds camera registry is no mystery. RayQual got it. Novoflex did not.
    This is what happens if anyone wants to rest on their laurels and do not want to do the work to earn their money.
    Thanks, looks lke I'll be returning my adapter though it's at most an inconvience, better that the lenses focus beyond infinity instead of not far enough. At least with the TTL focussing, you can tell what the problem is, unlike on an M8.

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    It's an inconvenience with regards to infinity, but as far as close-ups, it can be a real problem. When I first noticed this, it was with a 40 Nokton, and I was trying to take a shot at the close-focus distance. That turned out to be about 4 feet (normally it's about 2.3 feet.)

  11. #11
    marknorton
    Guest

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    Interesting. Must be down to how much the lens moves forwards as you go to close focus.

    I don't have a 40 Nokton but when I try a pre-ASPH 50mm Summilux with the lens scale preset to 1m, I can focus when the distance to the mode dial index (roughly where the sensor is) is 1.08m away. With the Macro Elmar, which has a longer travel at close focus, it's fine. With a 21mm Elmarit, which hardly moves as you focus, closest focus increases from 0.7m to just over 1m.

  12. #12
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    I'm returning mine and getting a Rayqual. It messes up focus with my Canon FL 55/1.2 as well, since it uses the M adapter too.

  13. #13
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    Can anyone provide the return address to send my Novoflex back for replacement?
    V/r John

  14. #14
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    NOVOFLEX Praezisionstechnik GmbH
    Brahmsstr. 7, D-87700 Memmingen / GERMANY
    Tel.: +49 8331 88888 Fax: +49 8331 47174

  15. #15
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    Thanks!
    V/r John

  16. #16
    kiloran
    Guest

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    Quote Originally Posted by monza View Post
    NOVOFLEX Praezisionstechnik GmbH
    Brahmsstr. 7, D-87700 Memmingen / GERMANY
    Tel.: +49 8331 88888 Fax: +49 8331 47174
    Highly unfortunate company name in the circumstances

    for them admitting their mistake and offering refunds though

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    413
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    I have a question. Today, I finally got my Novoflex adapter. Looks I too got one from the first batch because the pre asph 50 is on 10 meters when I focus on far away objects which would normally be at infinity. Took a quick testshot with the pre asph 50 Lux, and this is what I got.

    First the complete photo, focus is on the red poles in the middle of the frame. f1.4 1/2.500 ISO 125
    Second is top left corner 100% @ f1,4 1/2.500
    Third is top left corner 100% @ 4,5 1/320

    It's the shot full open that worries me... The pre asph 50 Lux is not that bad in the corners, and besides, the crop factor should help here. Never saw anything like this on the M8 or my film M's...

    Does anyone know what's going on here? Would this have anything to do with the adapter being off?

    Thanks, Peter
    Last edited by peterv; 5th February 2009 at 02:12.

  18. #18
    Senior Member Y.B.Hudson III's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    314
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    yehh...that's an inarticulate test shot(s)...red poles in the middle of the frame? it looks like it was shot through a car window.


    Whatever your seeing is not an adapter issue, my opinion.

    I am sure you can take a better shot to illustrate the problem.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    413
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    Quote Originally Posted by Y.B.Hudson III View Post
    it looks like it was shot through a car window.
    Exactly, that's why I posted these.

    Here's another one, I focused on the letters on the truck. f1,4 1/1000, same lens, 50 Lux.
    Last edited by peterv; 5th February 2009 at 02:12.

  20. #20
    Senior Member Y.B.Hudson III's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    314
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    yehh, Petery... that looks like veiled lense flair.

    1: I would check to see what film mode was selected...standard, soft, etc...

    2: use a huge lens hood.

    3: atmosperic moisture can mimic veiled lens flair... try a test on a sunny day.

    4: I think you will find that...the information is in the file, and that minor adjustments in PS curves and or minor sharpening will give you good results...

    regards hudson
    Last edited by Y.B.Hudson III; 2nd February 2009 at 16:36.

  21. #21
    psasse
    Guest

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    Hi everybody,

    I'm Matthias (or Matthew in englisch ) from Germany. Like many of you I'm using Leica M (and also Canon FD) lenses on my new G1.

    I just wanted to report that there seems to be a new series of Novoflex adapters. I just got mine today and it's thickness is about 8.5 to 8.6 millimeters (i don't have a very exact caliper).
    My 35mm Nokton focusses just a tiny bit past infinity with the Novoflex, and the distance scale is absolutely usable.

    Novoflex has also eliminated the issue with the locking pin, that prevented a lens from being detached with the adapter still on the cam.


    I also got the Novoflex LEM/CAN for using FD lenses with both adapters stacked together, and I don't have any focussing issues with this combination either.

    Best regards,
    Matthias

  22. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    46
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    Well I have just ordered an adapter from jinfinance for M lenses and a Panasonic 4/3 adapter but at present can't use anything but the kit lens and it is VERY FRUSTRATING!!!

    Yes, the kit lens is OK but I want to play and I can't.

    When the jinfinance adapter arrives I'll check the thickness. Do you recommend that I return it if it is too thick or is it fairly easy to turn it down a few thou?

  23. #23
    Ranger 9
    Guest

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    Jin is aware of the problem and says he's working with his manufacturer to get the correct dimensions, so yours may well be fine. If you do get an "off" one at this point, though, and are not in a hurry, I would suggest returning it so he will be aware that the problem hasn't been solved. He seems determined to get this right.

    If you do need to reduce one, though, it's quite easy-- although the results are a bit ugly as it involves removing some of the chrome plating from the face of the front flange.

    I didn't turn mine down, not having a lathe; I used #600 wet abrasive paper laid on a flat surface, and rubbed the front flange of the adapter against it. I rubbed in a circular motion and changed my grip frequently to avoid introducing "skew" into the face of the adapter. It took about a half-hour to thin the adapter sufficiently, including frequent stops to clean off the flange, reassemble the adapter, and check infinity focus with the camera. You could do it more quickly by using coarser abrasive paper, but then there would be more risk of removing too much.

    I would suggest removing the front flange, rather than leaving the adapter assembled; this should reduce the risk of getting abrasive dust and swarf trapped inside the adapter, eventually to be transferred to the camera. Clean the flange very thoroughly before putting everything back together.

    And of course I disclaim all responsibility if anything should go wrong!!

  24. #24
    wilsonlaidlaw
    Guest

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    Has anyone taken photos with a WATE yet on the G1 with any of the adapters? Having read Sean Reid's review of the G1 and adapters, I am wondering if the results will be poor, which would put me off getting any of the MFT cameras plus adapter. It would be nice to able to get good results with a WATE as that would mean I could have the WATE on a G1 or other MFT camera and keep either the MATE or 35 Summilux on my M8, without having to bother to mount the Frankenfinder. I am in Japan next week and I understand that I might just be able to find a G1HD, which were due out at the end of February.

    Wilson

  25. #25
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    3,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    Quote Originally Posted by wilsonlaidlaw View Post
    Has anyone taken photos with a WATE yet on the G1 with any of the adapters? Having read Sean Reid's review of the G1 and adapters, I am wondering if the results will be poor, which would put me off getting any of the MFT cameras plus adapter. It would be nice to able to get good results with a WATE as that would mean I could have the WATE on a G1 or other MFT camera and keep either the MATE or 35 Summilux on my M8, without having to bother to mount the Frankenfinder. I am in Japan next week and I understand that I might just be able to find a G1HD, which were due out at the end of February.

    Wilson
    Bill (fordfanjpn) reported in this forum that his G1, purchased in Tokyo, was only available with Japanese language menus. He also found that the language could not be changed in the firmware.

  26. #26
    wilsonlaidlaw
    Guest

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    Quote Originally Posted by scho View Post
    Bill (fordfanjpn) reported in this forum that his G1, purchased in Tokyo, was only available with Japanese language menus. He also found that the language could not be changed in the firmware.
    Thanks for that warning. I am told that if you go to BIC camera at 1-11-1 Yurakucho, Chiyoda-Ku, not only do they have one or two salesmen who speak English (this is good, as my Japanese is limited to the usual civilities and saying "Excuse me I am afraid I don't speak Japanese, do you speak English?), but they also stock international versions of some of the cameras they sell.

    Wilson

  27. #27
    vanhulsenbeek
    Guest

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    Quote Originally Posted by wilsonlaidlaw View Post
    Has anyone taken photos with a WATE yet on the G1 with any of the adapters? Having read Sean Reid's review of the G1 and adapters, I am wondering if the results will be poor, which would put me off getting any of the MFT cameras plus adapter. It would be nice to able to get good results with a WATE as that would mean I could have the WATE on a G1 or other MFT camera and keep either the MATE or 35 Summilux on my M8, without having to bother to mount the Frankenfinder. I am in Japan next week and I understand that I might just be able to find a G1HD, which were due out at the end of February.

    Wilson
    The results are not poor. In fact snappier and more Leica looking than with the KIT-lens. A matter of tast of course. Rayqual adapter. UV/IR filter left mounted. 900 pix wide does not do the picture much justice.

  28. #28
    wilsonlaidlaw
    Guest

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    Sander,

    May I ask you to post some corner crops of that photo. Sean's G1 test results showed that with a 28 Summicron, the corners were quite soft. Sean wondered if this was due to the standard telecentric lenses on the G1, not requiring such offset microlenses as we find on the Kodak M8 sensor. Obviously on the WATE, the exit pupil is even nearer the sensor than on the 28 Summicron, so if that is the cause of the soft corners, the WATE should be worse. On the other hand, the DOF of the WATE and therefore focus latitude is greater, also taking into account the f4 maximum aperture. I am going to have to buy a DSLRish camera for the classes I am going to be teaching this summer in Provence and if I can get one that takes my M lenses, that would suit nicely. It also would mean I could bring all my fancy Cokin filters out of their retirement in the drawer. Division 469 of the rumour mill has Leica bringing out an MFT PanaLeica with Leica lenses at PMA.

    Wilson

  29. #29
    vanhulsenbeek
    Guest

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    Quote Originally Posted by wilsonlaidlaw View Post
    Sander,

    May I ask you to post some corner crops of that photo. Sean's G1 test results showed that with a 28 Summicron, the corners were quite soft. Sean wondered if this was due to the standard telecentric lenses on the G1, not requiring such offset microlenses as we find on the Kodak M8 sensor. Obviously on the WATE, the exit pupil is even nearer the sensor than on the 28 Summicron, so if that is the cause of the soft corners, the WATE should be worse. On the other hand, the DOF of the WATE and therefore focus latitude is greater, also taking into account the f4 maximum aperture. .......

    Wilson
    OK. My conclusions after last picture. How boring: I will now read Sean's reviews with even more pleasure!

    WATE cropping at 100% not good here: see in 4th post: much better.
    Last edited by vanhulsenbeek; 17th February 2009 at 03:21.

  30. #30
    vanhulsenbeek
    Guest

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    Second Lot, conclusions after last.
    Sorry: Picture P1000148K: 100 ISO of course
    Last edited by vanhulsenbeek; 17th February 2009 at 02:55.

  31. #31
    vanhulsenbeek
    Guest

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    Third lot: All focused at the middle of the picture (windowsill). Rayqual adapter.
    All imported in LR, no preset.No processing done except up the the exposure of the WATE 1 stop.
    I am a little disappointed by the WATE, or the G1 does much more post processing than the M8.
    The WATE gives a snappier picture though.
    The WATE on the G1 does show some smearing in the corners, more at 16 mm than at 21mm. No surprise
    if that incidense/microlense theory proves to be true. The Lumix lense on the G1 does well,
    but it has a surplus of pixels compared to the M8.
    Last edited by vanhulsenbeek; 17th February 2009 at 02:57.

  32. #32
    vanhulsenbeek
    Guest

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    4th lot: gave the WATE a second chance on the M8: much better, do not know what happened at the first batch. Full size pictures included. WATE on M8 at 330 ISO.
    Last edited by vanhulsenbeek; 17th February 2009 at 03:35.

  33. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado
    Posts
    2,077
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    Perhaps the culprit in your first batch was camera shake. Doesn't take much to get some serious smearing.

    Woody

  34. #34
    vanhulsenbeek
    Guest

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    Quote Originally Posted by woodyspedden View Post
    Perhaps the culprit in your first batch was camera shake. Doesn't take much to get some serious smearing.

    Woody
    Hmm. tripod shake that was. Second batch: from hand, good old Leica habit

  35. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    46
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    I'm still waiting for my adapter from jmfinance after a month so I decided to make one. I couldn't manage an M mount but a LTM looked easy enough. Just by chance I bought an M42 to MFT from a dissatisfied G1 user so was able to slice it in two and machine a sleeve to fit into the barrel to take an LTM body mount from a scrapped Fed (or Zorki?)

    A few tests in fading light with a 50mm suggest 9.500mm is pretty close (remember this is LTM so 1mm thicker than an M mount) but I'll wait till daylight then I can either skim a little off or shim the LTM mount to get it exactly right.

    It has turned out well, worth an hour or two on the lathe. I took a couple of pics with my CV 15mm and results look great.

  36. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    39
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    what does WATE stand for? Wide Angle Tri Elmarit?

  37. #37
    Senior Member petermcwerner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Geneva, Switzerland
    Posts
    511
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    I am not too unhappy with the first series Novoflex. In some lenses, what has described happens, i.e. infinite setting reading as,e.g. 1.5m on the lens distance scale. It allows to focus past infinity and at times makes it easier to find exact focus when the lens + adapters combinations + camera are within tolerances. For such lenses/adapter combinations/camera I prefer the jinfinance adapter, which is right on the spot at infinity.

    Other lenses, such as the 16mm/2.8 Zenitar, that need 3 adapters
    - Leica R to LSM
    - LSM to M
    - M to G1
    can more easily be out of tolerance and I cannot focus to Infinity with a "correct" Jinfinance adapter, but can achieve correct infinity with the Novoflex.

    Conclusion: I keep both adapters as they are and use them where appropriate,
    Peter Werner
    Leica M8, R9+DMR & Digilux 2; Nikon D700; Panasonic FX01, FX150 & G1; Samsung TL350 (WB 2000)

  38. #38
    Senior Member Per Ofverbeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    503
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    Quote Originally Posted by petermcwerner View Post
    I am not too unhappy with the first series Novoflex. In some lenses, what has described happens, i.e. infinite setting reading as,e.g. 1.5m on the lens distance scale. It allows to focus past infinity and at times makes it easier to find exact focus when the lens + adapters combinations + camera are within tolerances.....
    Iīve arrived at a similar conclusion. I can live with the quite marginal loss of close focus, and I stay well on the "safe side" with all combinations Iīve tried.

    After a period of testing, Iīve more or less settled on using my old M glass instead of R; I do lose some corner sharpness, but for my kind of use, this is unimportant. And they are lighter and balance better on the G1.

    First, I planned to shim the adapter to get closer to correct spacing (I donīt want to send it in for replacement), but Iīve decided not to, for a rather curious reason: Iīve always hated the infinity locks on some of the lenses; now I never have to engage the lock, even for distant subjects...

  39. #39
    Member gDallasK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Argyll, Scotland
    Posts
    71
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    The flange to flange thickness of my J Milich adapter is 8.52mm compared to the 8.71mm of the Jinfinance adapter I also own. The Milich adapter focuses a little past infinity - but not enough to worry about. The Jinfinance adapter does not reach infinity (though it is good for close up work!).

    I'll keep them both.
    Geoff
    Too many cameras, too little time.
    www.pbase.com/gDallasK

  40. #40
    Member gDallasK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Argyll, Scotland
    Posts
    71
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    Quote Originally Posted by Kachadurian View Post
    what does WATE stand for? Wide Angle Tri Elmarit?
    Wide Angle Tele-Elmar
    Geoff
    Too many cameras, too little time.
    www.pbase.com/gDallasK

  41. #41
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    Quote Originally Posted by Per Ofverbeck View Post
    First, I planned to shim the adapter to get closer to correct spacing (I donīt want to send it in for replacement), but Iīve decided not to, for a rather curious reason: Iīve always hated the infinity locks on some of the lenses; now I never have to engage the lock, even for distant subjects...
    Heh, that's actually quite handy, as long as one is willing to give up a bit of close focus. But M lenses are not all that close focus anyway.

    As for me, I sent my Novoflex back, but apparently the replacement is lost in the mail.

  42. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    46
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M Adapter Thickness

    One thing I notice on the LTM lenses is that the index position varies by quite a few degrees so some lenses will have the mark at '12 o'clock' while others on the same mount will have it at about '11 o'clock'

    Generally it doesn't matter except when using lenses with fixed or bayonet lens hoods when the hood will be out of position. I noticesd it on the LTM mount I just made which I based on a Zorky 50 f2 because it was the lens I least minded having in my workshop. When I used it with the 15mm CV ithe hood was well out of position and I have the tedious job of redrilling and tapping the four 1mm screws of the M39 mounting ring.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •