Vintage glass and adapter

[Phouser]

I just ordered an old Nikon Nikkor and now I have some questions about adapters for my fuji.

1. When I get an adapter with an aperture ring. Can I still change the aperture directly on the vintage lens?

2. I also have a Tamron tele-lens for my older Nikon. It does not have an aperture ring and is electronic. Can I change the aperture with the ring on the adapter?

 

[Soocom1]

1: Yes. If they are separate mechanical functions.
However:
The alteration of a large-small between the two mechanisms will affect the image overall. Not necessarily in a bad way.

You'll have to play with it.

2: Not so sure. if electronic, and the adapter does not have the electrical connections then the lens will shoot to full open and the adapter will control the aperture. The issue there is that the lens will then have enormous bokeh except where the aperture on the adapter will close it off.

 

[ac12]

#1 - Depends on the specific adapter.
The problem with some of those adapters for Nikon lenses is the so called aperture ring is NOT calibrated. It is a relative number from 1 to 9. Each increment may not be a whole stop.
And they will ONLY work with a lens with an aperture lever.

#2 - As @Soocom1 said, IF the adapter has the electrical connections, then the camera can control the lens aperture.
If not, the lens is for all practical purposes, a fixed aperture lens.
The fact that the adapter has an aperture ring, indicates to me, that the adapter is a dumb adapter. Which provides no communication between the camera and lens.

As for the aperture ring on the adapter being able to control the aperture on the Tamron lens.

• That depends on IF the lens has a mechanical aperture lever. If yes, then the aperture ring on the adapter will probably work. But with the same issue above, the stops on the adapter are NOT calibrated stops.
• If the lens has an electronic aperture, then it will not have a mechanical aperture lever. Then NO, the aperture ring on the adapter will not be able to control the aperture of the lens.

 

[Phouser]

Thank you everyone for helping me out, I learned much

 

[ac12]

The ability to use any legacy dSLR lens on any mirrorless camera is a falacy that some people spread.
Yes, it works for some combinations
But No, it does NOT work for other combinations (such as Nikon lens on m4/3 camera).
Buyer beware, do your research.

 

[Soocom1]

The ability to use any legacy dSLR lens on any mirrorless camera is a falacy that some people spread.
Yes, it works for some combinations
But No, it does NOT work for other combinations (such as Nikon lens on m4/3 camera).
Buyer beware, do your research.

It can be mounted if the mount adapter is available, but if the electronics are not there, then nada.

This is especially true with hasselblad and especially the Hasselblad H series.

 

[Derrel]

The ability to use any legacy dSLR lens on any mirrorless camera is a falacy that some people spread.
Yes, it works for some combinations
But No, it does NOT work for other combinations (such as Nikon lens on m4/3 camera).
Buyer beware, do your research.

We have one member here who has said that any DSLR lens will work on any mirrorless camera with ease. He has propagated that myth for several years now. I am surprised he is not in this thread yet.

 

[Derrel]

I am glad to know that my Nikon lenses will not work on an m4/3 camera, since over the last month or so I have been eyeing a couple of used Olympus m4/3 models at my local camera store. The prices are low and I think they would be decent cameras with in-body stabilization for longer telephoto lengths from 105 mm up to 300. I am primarily a telephoto shooter and I have quite a few legacy Nikon lenses that date back to the 1980s, and I would like an affordable and yet small body to leverage their capabilities. My only non-Nikon telephoto lenses are a 135 and a 200 Pentax Super-Takumar in m42 thread, and a much newer 200 /4 K-mount Pentax.

 

[ac12]

I am glad to know that my Nikon lenses will not work on an m4/3 camera, since over the last month or so I have been eyeing a couple of used Olympus m4/3 models at my local camera store. The prices are low and I think they would be decent cameras with in-body stabilization for longer telephoto lengths from 105 mm up to 300. I am primarily a telephoto shooter and I have quite a few legacy Nikon lenses that date back to the 1980s, and I would like an affordable and yet small body to leverage their capabilities. My only non-Nikon telephoto lenses are a 135 and a 200 Pentax Super-Takumar in m42 thread, and a much newer 200 /4 K-mount Pentax.

Yup
It was a bummer to find out that NONE of the newer autofocus Nikon lenses would properly function on the Olympus.
So, I have only used my old MANUAL Nikon lenses on the Olympus m4/3; the 55 micro Nikkor and 500/8 mirror.

 

[Derrel]

I have a 55 micro and a 500/8 mirror from the 1970's...as well as a 35/2, a couple of 50s, an 85/2, a 105/2.5, a couple of 135s, a 180/2.8 and a pair of 200 mm F4 lenses. These are all some of the best lenses that I have bought over the past 40 years, and I have sold off or given away the not so great performers. I would not expect autofocus to work when using an adapted lens.

 

[Derrel]

But you have Infinity Focus with a glassless adapter, correct?

 

[ac12]

But you have Infinity Focus with a glassless adapter, correct?

I think so.
The 55 micro was for, well close up. So I never checked it at infinity.
The 500 did focus on a house a mile away, so I guess that counts as infinity.

 

[ac12]

I have a 55 micro and a 500/8 mirror from the 1970's...as well as a 35/2, a couple of 50s, an 85/2, a 105/2.5, a couple of 135s, a 180/2.8 and a pair of 200 mm F4 lenses. These are all some of the best lenses that I have bought over the past 40 years, and I have sold off or given away the not so great performers. I would not expect autofocus to work when using an adapted lens.

Got the 105/2.5 also. Just never used it on the Olympus.
oooo 180/2.8 . . .
I've been thinking about getting one of them for a long time.

 

[Rastech]

I’ve just joined the forum, so not sure about posting a new thread, guessed I was in the right section for posting about Vintage lenses. I used to have an Olympus 35mm film SLR , with which I mostly took Monochrome photos with Ilford film. Since its internals died, I’ve stuck with Compacts the last of which was a nice waterproof Nikon, the waterproofing allowing it to be salvaged after the boat was sunk by wreckers. After seeing some reviews and comments on the Monochrome capabilities of the newer Lumix cameras, I’ve jumped into micro fourthirds. I wanted a G9 but as I’m a bit disabled with a working right hand and severely restricted vision, it was too unwieldy, and almost bought a GX9 but no dust proofing or splash proofing, so went G95 body.Been shopping for lenses as a result. Sniped a couple of cheap new Lumix on Ebay, a kit G Vario 14 to 42mm, and a G 25mm f1.7, a 7artisans 7.5mm fisheye, and an as new 55mm f 1.8 Pentax SMC- the wonderful Thorium one (shh, keep it secret, Thorium is really safe- it’s even wonderful for molten salt reactors). Anyway, to the problem lens. I was going to add a 135mm probably Pentax in the next couple of years (I love the character of the older Pentax lenses), but I can resist everything except temptation. I spotted a gorgeous condition M42 thread Hoya 135mm f 2.8 ex pharmaceutical lab lens - so unlikely to buy rubbish, in a case and unused for years for a silly cheap buy it now price. It arrived today, condition as beautiful as described, and it’s got a funny thing on the screw mount, with three watchmaker sized crosshead screws fixing it solidly on. It’s too gorgeous to risk wrecking it by just unscrewing it. It “might be some sort of adapter, or not an M42 mount at all? Any ideas what it is? Keep well all, back soon. Bob.

 

[Derrel]

The three screws in the mount...sounds a lot like the Hoya lens is a T-mount lens, currently wearing an m42 T-mount....the lens was designed so that the end purchaser just screws on the needed T-mount for whatever camera system.