An appeal for other mount systems

[Tom Caldwell]

No, I am not advocating any more mount systems for the GXR - I am as happy as a monkey with a bunch of bananas with my Mount A12.

In fact you can already adapt most common slr manual lens mounts to the LM mount.

Myself I use FD, PK and M42 quite frequently - one of the reasons why another GXR body with Mount A12 should prove useful. I also have LTM and LM mount lenses as well.

Why I am posting here is that those that use non-LM/LTM lenses seem few and far between. Perhaps they simply do not talk about them.

I am the first to admit that LM/LTM lenses do work pretty well on the Mount A12 but I do think that the use of other lenses is quite valid and more attention should be given to the use of other lenses via adapters.

Firstly, I think it does the GXR-M some great disrespect to limit it entirely to the "native" mount. Although there are size problems using slr lenses this is not "awful" and there are some pretty good slr lenses about. No one is saying that slr lenses must be used, but no one should say that using slr lenses is a bad idea either. If Ricoh were to make a GXR back with built in evf then all of a sudden people would realise that the GXR is much more than just a pocket Leica.

Secondly, the M4/3 mob and the NEX mob and some small number of NX users have embraced the lens-adapter to slr use with some abandon. They also use RF lenses but the use of manual lenses on these makes seems much more egalitarian. Surely we don't really want the GXR to start looking like a branch of the Leica owner's club? With great respect to all the competent and worthy people that use and love Leica and all that Leica gear stands for. (I didn't mention a word about Russian lenses either). If outsiders see GXR-M owners simply as Leica wannabees then they might simply choose another brand on which to mount their old f1.2 slr wonders. This is where it might hurt Ricoh.

So I think the forum needs a little thread devoted to the wider world of fitting lenses to the Mount A12 that are not LM/LTM. This might be a catalyst.

But by all means keep using the LM/LTM lenses - they are small efficient and wide and very well made, excepting the odd Russian one. But the Jupiter-12 has to be an all time favourite and still "oh so much a bargain" there are others - surely everyone should have a Jupiter-8 50mm f2.0? I put the Jupiter-11 to the back of the cupboard as it didn't look crazily up market but have just tried it again - a surprisingly good cheap as chips 135mm lightweight LTM telephoto on the GXR-M. Hang-on I am just advocating "other than" LM/LTM lenses! But I guess my point simply is - use LM/LTM as they are good, but there is a further world of lenses out there that usefully deserve some attention.

Tom

 

[Ksnow]

Good points, Tom. It's interesting that, when the Mount A12 was being introduced, there was a lot of chatter in the forum about using other-than-LM/LTM lenses, but it seemed to fade out. I, for one, still use my Olympus OM Zuiko lenses on my M mount and find it's a great way to resurrect some wonderful, old glass. I have run into a flare problem with these, from time to time, but will address that along with some sample images in another thread (maybe the new one, if it's started) one of these days.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Thanks for the support Ken

My use of lenses seems to go round in circles. Try this try that and generally they all work pretty well. It helps of course if the lens is worthy.

I have even bought a few cheap zoom lenses in FD and PK mounts and these work fine.

So it sort of gets - mmmm will I try a Russian M42? Or a nice PK? Or maybe that light FD 85mm f1.8? I had always heard of those who swore by M42 Takumars, now I can see why.

Must get my Helios-44M-7 58mm f2.0 Biotar out again one very sharp lens well built and a delight to use. Might be an M42 slr size but even if one was riveted to LM lenses $20-50 plus freight says it is worth a rumble around the gadget bag just for the heck of it and maybe give it a try one day for a laugh. It is really quite well balanced on the GXR even if porky compared to an RF LTM or LM equivalent.

Tom

 

[odklizec]

I have some nice PK lenses prepared for the test and report. Unfortunately, one of the adapters I bought on ebay appeared to be useless with the M mount so I'm waiting for another one I just bought. But I agree with your point Tom. I personally am not so interested in the LM/LTM lenses. Of course, the LM/LTM lenses are great but also very expensive. But there are so many cheap yet quality lenses that could be mounted via the appropriate adapters. And most of these lenses are unknown for general public. So I personally will focus on these lenses rather than LM/LTM lenses

 

[AlbertTRAL]

Not always big and heavy! I am just waiting for my "aussie" Rikenon XR 135 2.8 K mount sub 450grms! Any comments on this lens? I can't wait to test the sharpness together with color fringe and flare....

 

[Ksnow]

OK, it seems that there is an interest in Tom's idea.
>Pavel. What needs to be done to create this new thread?

 

[Tom Caldwell]

It is called "kick a tin along". The sort of think you do when you are young and bored and you don't have a proper ball.

I see three main uses for teh GXR

1) use with standard GXR lens modules. This is probably the best way long term - each lens module is custom made for the GXR and tuned to work at it's best.

2) use LM or LTM lenses - the use of German or Japanese golden-oldies is sure to make the A12 m mount sing - a sub-branch for those that cannot afford the cost or simply want to have few reasonable lenses at more affordable prices is the Russian lens collection.

3) break out of the mold and use any manual ex-slr lens you can make fit on an A12 m mount module.

The reason why I think the third catergory and also the Russian lens second sub-category need a bit of boosting is not to sing their virtues as "superior" but more to illustrate that there are alternatives. And that the alternatives can actually work quite well.

My worry is simply that if the Leica/Ziess lobby gets to be thought of as the ONLY way to use an A12 m mount module then it might unduly restrict Ricoh sales. It is like to become clubby and elistist and thought of as a "poor man's Leica" (to be steered clear of - afford the camera, yes - afford the lenses, forget it) when in fact in many ways it is a far more versatile beast than a Leica ever was and very good value at it's price.

Nothing here says that LTM and LM lenses work any less well or that they may in fact be the most desirable way to use your GXR. I am just trying to give out to those not yet in the know that the GXR is a very versaltile camera in all of it's modes of use and you don't have to be in a position to be able to afford expensive Leica and Ziess glass to be able to fully enjoy the GXR A12 m mount experience.

Tom

 

[adanac]

Lens adapters seem to vary in quality and ability. Some I've had for other mounts would not permit my lenses to focus to infinity; some allowed well past infinity focus (less of a problem than the former). Some adapter / lens combos allow a lot of play, which I find distracting myself.

How about those who have M -> ???? mount adapters comment on which seem to work best in all respects. Perhaps if there's an easier way other than the adapter lottery to dive in and play in this pool, more will.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Lens adapters seem to vary in quality and ability. Some I've had for other mounts would not permit my lenses to focus to infinity; some allowed well past infinity focus (less of a problem than the former). Some adapter / lens combos allow a lot of play, which I find distracting myself.

How about those who have M -> ???? mount adapters comment on which seem to work best in all respects. Perhaps if there's an easier way other than the adapter lottery to dive in and play in this pool, more will.

Good idea, I have adapters for the NX mount and also the LM mount, I have bought them from Poland, Germany (via a Korean vendor), Russia, China Several sources), and Italy. I have bought a Japanese adapter via a USA outlet and a second hand Canon made one ex-Spain.

A sort of world wide kaleidoscope of adapters sourcing LTM, FD, PK and M42 to these mounts. Even EOS to NX.

Will give a run down later when I have a bit more time.

One really tricky little device was a TK-2D LTM 2x multiplier adapter ex-Russia. Pretty rare I believe - mine is serial number 002717. Don't know how well it works (horror) must try it out - it does seem very well made and I believe only the Ruskies ever made them. One way of making a slow ltm telephoto even slower? (grin).

Will be back as quick as I can.

Tom

 

[ZDP-189]

I agree with Tom that I don't see the need for Ricoh to make a different mount module. M-pretty much covers it all.

Lenses you can adapt onto M mount (besides M, obviously):

• Leica Screw Mount LTM
• Leica R
• Canon EF
• Canon EF-S
• Minolta MD
• Nikon F/AI(?)
• Contax G/ RF
• Nikon RF
• Pentax M42
• Tamron T2
• Olympus OM
• Olympus Pen F (no vignette)

i.e. Basically all the best lenses made for rangefinders and SLRs. I have ignored medium format (which is no certainly possible).

• C
• CS
• M4/3
• E
• NX
• Nikon 1
• PQ

i.e. Less than stellar CCTV lenses and the proprietary CSC lenses (which is why I refuse to buy a full arsenal of M4/3 or NEX lenses), particularly lenses that require electronic extension and focusing. Some other lenses are borderline. e.g. Contax G is not normally compatible, but MSO do a conversion service.

I think the GXR A12 module is the possibly best mount available for legacy lenses.

• It can mount almost any M or LTM lens, including lenses not mountable in M4/3, NX, etc.
• It has a large sensor area, reducing crop factor. Better than M4/3, especially PQ, N1.
• The focus assist mode 2 blows away the NEX 7.

I would upgrade for things like a larger sensor, more resolution, better high ISO, better DR, and/or slightly better resolution, but not for FD, PK or M42. I wouldn't buy a mount in these formats, at all. If they could improve the mount itself, they could use a short register mount to be more universal and use an M-adapter to mount M lenses. However, the NEX-7 that I'm borrowing has a very sloppy adapter, whereas the GXR-M is rock solid.

Right now I have only bought 2 of the many adapters already available for the GXR, an EF adapter so I can shoot tilt-shift and an MD adapter so I can use some of my fast and long MD lenses. The Pen F lenses work great, even if I just hold them on with my hand, so I'll probably buy a Pen F adapter, too.

 

[adanac]

How about Contax/Yashica -> M mount? Any good or bad adapters to look for or avoid?

I tried using some of my old Zeiss lenses on the NEX and the experience was good; maybe I'd like them even better on the GXR.

 

[olch]

Lenses you can adapt onto M mount (besides M, obviously):

• Leica Screw Mount LTM
• Leica R
• Canon EF
• Canon EF-S
• Minolta MD
• Nikon F/AI(?)
• Contax G/ RF
• Nikon RF
• Pentax M42
• Tamron T2
• Olympus OM
• Olympus Pen F (no vignette)

What about Contax C/Y- M? I used this adapter and it was OK, as well as Pentax PK-M

 

[Ksnow]

Does anyone have a Pen F to M adapter or know where to find one? I haven't seen one anywhere. Also, it's been my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the flange to film distance of the M mount is too long to allow infinity focus with Pen F lenses.

 

[Artur6]

Contax G lenses aren't directly usable on a M mount camera. You must convert them to M, It is feasible, but very costly.
Almost any SLR lens for 35mm. film is adaptable because of the longer registry distance of a reflex vs. a rangefinder
Apart from those mentioned, there are rings for Pentax K, Canon FD, Contax/Yashica, Alpa, Konica AR, Rollei QBM and probably others.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

I think there is more to it than just whether the adapter focuses to infinity (an undoubted necessity) but when other things are much the same the following can apply:

(This dialogue assumes that if they fit camera to lens then they work. I have not seriously tested for infinity focus but on the other hand I have not noticed any particular problem in this regard either).

Level of finish A = average or agricultural, a bit tractor-like, or G = well machined and workmanlike, or E = excellent and really graces the camera
Weight - some can be made like bricks - H = heavy, or R = reasonably compact
Fit - smooth and tight - some can be clunky or loose - S = smooth, or C = clunky
Does it work as it is supposed to do? W = works, or N = not suitable
Does it have additional features? - surprisingly some adapters do. AS = aperture lever setting, or AL = can be re-aligned to match the lens barrel markings.
How reliable is the vendor? No comment unless this is notable.
Is it particularly expensive or particularly cheap? No comment unless notable.

I have included both NX and LM mounts in this survery of suppliers as if they can make one adapter they can make many.

Those made of composite camera lens-barrel like material external finish will always look better on camera than machined and anodised aluminium construction.

RJ (Rongjin) - manufacturer Shanghai - many mounts serviced - composite construction allows AL and (AS in FD only) Good looking, can hardly tell that they are mounted due to such similar material being used. R,S - price reasonable considering quality. Some effort made to keep adapter external width within lens end diameter.

Cierco - ex-Poland - custom made and expensive but well made - exquisite machining of FD mount internals, good fit, anodised black, single piece. Good service - has a range of adapters for almost every concievable rare mount combination although I have not made a study of this.

Pixco, Kiwi-foto - similar (same manufacturer?) ex Chinese retailer - common. The ones I have are single piece anodised black aluminim completely dumb and with no adjustments. Well made and work well. Good fit on lens and on camera. There are some other composite-made Chinese made adapters that are fairly wide in diameter that work well enough but are larger than lens end and therefore not so sleek fitting - they have zebra-stripe markings - not branded on the adapter and I don't remember the brand (might be Pixco).

The Japanese Zykkor EF/FD is exquisitely made with inbuilt conversion lens and so is the oem Samsung PK-NX, the best one I have ever seen complete with aperture control slider ring and priced accordingly. If made for Samsung by a Japanese or Korean company it is a tribute to them - otherwise a tribute to Samsung.

A Russian made LTM-NX from Gofoto Store and a Latvian sourced M42-LM are single piece (non-adjustable in M42) hard black anodised aluminium and work well, good fit and machining and acceptable. The LTM-NX is small and hardly can be seen on camera and probably the work of a very ingenious (for the NX fit) small shop. There is a Chinese version again made by a small shop in two piece chromed metal. More complex construction but in the case of that adapter I prefer the more straight-forward Russian design. This is not so much help with LM adapters as a general survey of suppliers. Small shops can cover the more rare situations at a closer to jobbing price structure.

I have a second hand "rare bird" Canon "B" oem FD/LTM adapter second hand with excellent shipping from Spain. It needs a LTM/LM converter to work, but is high-quality thinwall bright aluminium construction. The FD mounting lugs are external. It seems optimally made to be compact and light. If I had to keep the size of my adapter collection in the gadget back minimal this adapter and the normal LTM/LM is surely the best way to go. There is no reason why the LTM/LM could not be left attached permanently.

The Novoflex adapter I have is a disappointment. Works really well, nicely machined, has an aperture adjusting lever (is PK/NX) but is anodised "Novoflex Blue" to make a statement and as far as looks it is more tractor than sports car.

In finish the Japanese (#1) and in China "RJ" have the running.

The RJ LTM/LM adapter works fine but mounting is more problematical than the Voigtlander version. The RJ has to be "just so" square before it will slot home. A clumsy touch might damage the camera mount side. It is the only adapter whose mounting ability I would clasisfy as "clunky". I know about it and am careful. But the Voigtlander version slots in just that much easier. Have not tried any others but there are many to be had.

The only real failure has been "Antonio Lolli" COMA brand from Italy. Their PK/LM works fine and is adjustable, but the adjustment screws are not flush fitting. It is of heavier construction and must be described as "heavy build". But it is not overly expensive and works (as noted). On the other hand, just as much as the Canon "B" is the essence of sweet lightweight elegant simplicity the COMA FD/LM is a tank but only by direct comparison. It has no built in actuating lug to allow the aperture to be changed when the lens is mounted. This is a shared defect with the Canon "B". The "solution" is to jam a little piece of rubber in the lever mechanism (similar to how the PK lever works) to hold it open - this usually falls out inside the camera body - not good enough for those who respect what goes inside their cameras. After some exchanged debate with COMA I simly gave up and retired the FD adapter to the scrap heap. I had meanwhile acquired an RJ PK and FD adapter to LM and the COMA adapter quickly became surplus to requirements.

Both the RJ and Cierco FD adapters have an internal lug that works this lever - much better.

Probably missed some.

However the message is that by and large all these adapter work well enough. The COMA FD alone falls below what I might consider usable standards. The Canon "B" is a very old design and rare and worth having as such - it is at about COMA FD servicability but at a fraction of size and weight. An enterprising person with some technical skills might be able to self-fit an operating lug inside. No way that a similar operation could be performed on the COMA - it's design is not suitable for this. The RJ LTM/LM reuires a little concentration in fitting being perhaps a fracion over-precice in its lugs but otherwise it works fine.

So if they all work, then it gets down to looks, price, finish, etc. The Japanese brands seem to have the best finish, but RJ are not far behind. The RJ M42 adapters have a neat composite design that allows the lens barrel markings to be adjusted. Their FD adapter has an aperture adjusting rotatable outer ring which is hardly necessary but it makes hooking up the FD's awkward internal aperture lever to the lug a little easier and also performs an aperture preset function just like some of the older lenses pre "jumping diaphragm".

Most other Chinese, FSU and Polish sourced adapters are well made and look practical but are not made to look like an extension of the lens fitted. The Novoflex is really very well made but somehow seems to think that their blue anodised is some sort of status symbol. Maybe it is but perhaps not on a lens adpater. I do believe that they make some adapters in regular black finish though.

My short experience with Voiglander adapters is just their LTM/LM which is impeccable.

Seems like in general terms if you need "royalty" to attach lens to your camera then crown jewels prices from a select manufacturer are required. But if you need one that simply works then there are a wide range of suppliers who make a servicable product.

My favourite has become RJ but only COMA (in its FD only) has really disappointed. I forgive the Canon "B" simply because it is a rare beast such and an elegently engineered tiny little beauty.

Tom

 

[olch]

there are rings for ... Konica AR, ...

How this is possible? As I know there are adapters Konica AR -NEX, m43, maybe NX, however I never seen Konica AR - LM adapter. Could you please post a link to Konica AR- Leica M adapter.

Thanks

 

[ZDP-189]

there are rings for ... Konica AR, ...

How this is possible? As I know there are adapters Konica AR -NEX, m43, maybe NX, however I never seen Konica AR - LM adapter. Could you please post a link to Konica AR- Leica M adapter.

Thanks

How is it not possible? Konica AR has a register of 40.70 mm and has a full frame image circle. The only question is whether it'd be commercially viable to make them.

 

[ZDP-189]

Lenses you can adapt onto M mount (besides M, obviously):

• Leica Screw Mount LTM
• Leica R
• Canon EF
• Canon EF-S
• Minolta MD
• Nikon F/AI(?)
• Contax G/ RF
• Nikon RF
• Pentax M42
• Tamron T2
• Olympus OM
• Olympus Pen F (no vignette)

What about Contax C/Y- M? I used this adapter and it was OK, as well as Pentax PK-M

My list is not exhaustive. It was off the top of my head. I don't own any PK or CY, AFAIK.

Please note some further clarifications:

Although I have demonstrated that it's possible, I know of no adapters currently on sale to adapt Pen F onto L/M.

http://ricohforum.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=8301

Also, while Contax G can be adapted onto L/M, it's not a matter of buying a ring. I believe you have to do a little butchery. MS Optical of Japan do a conversion service.

http://www.japanexposures.com/lens/

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Try messaging RJ (Jinfinance) on ebay - I have always found them interested in expanding their range of adapters. They are a manufacturer and make their own.

Otherwise Cierco in Poland custom make some very odd conversions - check their list out - I have found them reliable and quick to ship. The low volume custom made adapters are more expensive of course.

Tom

 

[Cristian78]

Tom and all,

Very informative thread, I am waiting to receive the RJ's M42-M adapter, this seems to open up access to many great lenses in the M42 mount, I am wondering which one should I buy first to try it on CZ Flektogon 35 2.4, CZ Sonnar 180 2.8, a whole lot of Takumars 50, 135, 200, the Rikenon 55 1.4....so many good lenses