Old lenses, new camera

[480sparky]

Mount the lens, go out and shoot, rate your performance, decide what you need to change, and go out and shoot again. Keep at it and you'll eventually make manual focus second nature.

Everything else besides the point: Unless he buys a cheap piece of plastic to allow those lenses to focus to infinity on a Nikon, he won't be even able to use them with a simple adapter.

I'm referring to purchasing F-mount lenses, such as some legacy AI or Series E glass. I think (at least hope) we've convinced the OP to forget adapting screw-mount lenses to a D7100.

And truthfully, it would be far better to just find some used G glass. Even the 18-55 and 55-200 would probably be a gazillion times better than the old Chinon lenses.

 

[Braineack]

Gotcha.

 

[Derrel]

Nikon SUCKS as far as adding other-mount lenses to modern Nikon d-slr cameras! The registration distance makes adding off-mount lenses a fool's errand. ANyhooooo..there's no need to use glass-bearing, quality-destroying adapters on a new,modern, high-MP Nikon d-slr...just makes no practical sense.

There are literally, well over 150 million legacy F-mount lenses out there. Nikon itself has made what is it? 100 million F-mount lenses? And other makers or brands, like Asanuma, Quantaray, Komura, Chinon, Kiron, Vivitar, Soligor, Sigma, Tamron,Tokina, etc. have made tens of millions of lenses in F-mount. The D7100 can accept almost all F-mount lenses made since 1977 in their as-sold state.

I saw a nice Series E lens set today on Craigslist...70-210 F-4, 50/1,8, 28, and 135/2.8, all E-Series, for $150. WITH A NIKON FM camera. Sooooo affordable!

 

[Frank F.]

As to the legacy of grandpa, why not take the easy way and shoot a few rolls of film with the Chinon? You might like the character of the old glass and even get a used Canon film format DSLR to adapt them to?

Or take to a metal workshop with a friend and some beer to replace the M42 mount with a Nikon F-Mount? Just for fun? It is only 1,04 Millimeters...

 

[Frank F.]

As an encouragement, a few shots taken with the (manual focus) Nikon Ai-S 1.4/35mm on a D500 last week (all at f/1.4):

 

[VidThreeNorth]

Actually, you can buy good working early Canon DSLRs for as low as $50 US. With M42 adapter and a card, probably still under $100 US. This much would be fun to play with the screw mount lenses and would barely dent the budget assigned to the Nikon system. A used Sony E-Mount should be able to use screw mount adapters too. But I doubt that they would be down quite as low as the early Canons. I have not kept track of them. Used Pentax DSLRs likewise, I have not kept track of.

 

[fmw]

It may be of interest, OP, to know that you can adapt SLR and DSLR lenses easily to mirrorless cameras, because they have a short lens-mount-to-sensor distance, leaving room for an adapter. You can find inexpensive adapters for virtually any SLR/DSLR lens to any brand of mirrorless.

 

[VidThreeNorth]

I ran across this article today and I remembered this old discussion. This photographer picked up a whole "old Canon DLSR" for around $80.00 US. For this discussion you might even do better if you skip the Canon lens. You buy a screw mount adapter instead (and a screw mount body cap) and use the old Chinon lenses. The setup is good for "fun" pictures. As a practice camera, it might help sharpen your technique a bit because it is a bit more demanding.

"Shooting with a used DSLR kit that cost me just $80"

To emphasis my point, the reason I am specifically recommending the Canon brand here is because the early models are available "silly cheap" now.

 

[Dave442]

I would just use the kit as the grandfather left it. That was the basic three lens kit for the time. A few rolls of film with manual focus (on the camera made for manual focus) while setting the aperture and shutter speed sound a lot more fun to me than just tossing one of those lenses on a DSLR. Another 20 years and that Chinon and those three lenses will still be working away while the D7100 will be the paperweight.

 

[MVPernula]

Whooo-wow, this thread escalated!

 

[davidharmier60]

$80 DSLR hits me where I live.
I plan someday to get a Canon 40D. I have two decent AF zooms and one not so great. But I also have some nice old FD glass! But I have a part time job.
So cheap rules!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[petrochemist]

$80 DSLR hits me where I live.
I plan someday to get a Canon 40D. I have two decent AF zooms and one not so great. But I also have some nice old FD glass! But I have a part time job.
So cheap rules!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Unfortunately FD glass won't work with Canon DSLRs (or any other brand IIRC, as the registration is unusually short - having the same issues M42 lenses on F mount have)
They can however be used with pretty much all mirrorless bodies (usually with registration under 20mm), the oldest of which are now also pretty affordable.
Yes their performance won't be anywhere near today's bodies, but even the Panasonic G1 - the first ever mirrorless camera - can still produce good shots (My daughter now uses my old one).

If you can manage to put a little more in slightly newer bodies should give significant improvements at little extra cost, especially if you are patient. Body only options around $100 should be relatively common.

 

[davidharmier60]

I simply must be patient. I haven't EVEN officially put $20 towards getting a lens changing digital camera.
If I knew where to get processing like I used to get at Eckerd I would probably just be better off shooting film.
Since at any given MP Nikon beats Canon my thinking runs to finding an auto focus Nikon with some lenses on EBay and then getting an older Nikon DSLR.
But of course there must be money first.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[petrochemist]

If I knew where to get processing like I used to get at Eckerd I would probably just be better off shooting film.
Since at any given MP Nikon beats Canon my thinking runs to finding an auto focus Nikon with some lenses on EBay and then getting an older Nikon DSLR.
But of course there must be money first.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

It won't take many films to cover the cost of an early digital camera. Around here I suspect it works out ~£10 for a film & processing - even if it's only half that 20 films worth is an old digital SLR.

I think there are millions of people who will refute the Nikon vs Canon claim - I don't shoot either, so don't much care. However Nikon pretty much ties you to Nikon lenses, while Canon or mirrorless are very flexible on what you can use manually. Even Pentax (my own SLR system) is much more flexible than Nikon & is also highly regarded as a value for money choice.

 

[davidharmier60]

The problem is that money is a finite thing.
One of my issues is that I have 80+ rolls shot from 1996to 1999 that have never been processed. It's going to be at least 85% aircraft. If I go Canon it will most likely be a 20D.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk