Can I use an old Olympus-mount lens on a Canon DSLR?

Question

What is the mount adapter I need to mount a Vivitar 28mm 1:2 No.22 (made by Kino, aka Kiron) lens on my Canon 600D? Is it the T/T2 lens mount?

I used to mount this lens on my dad's Olympus OM-10.

Asked by Akram Mellice

Answer

No. (I should clarify that. I mean, "no, that's not the right adapter." The answer to the underlying question, "can I use an Olympus OM-mount lens on my Canon EF-mount camera," is clearly, "yes.")

The T-mount lens is a screw-mount type introduced by Tamron as a universal mount (to be used with adapters to fit the various camera brands), and is a sort of precursor to their later Adaptall/Adaptall2 mount system. These days, the T-mount system is used mostly as an interface between cameras and other optical systems, like telescopes, microscopes and binoculars (using only one of the two optics, of course).

You would need an OM to EF adapter, like the Photodiox model listed here. Luckily, the OM mount had one of the longest flange-to-film distances ever, so the adapter is just a simple bit of metal with no additional optics, and will still allow infinity focus. Whether the adapted lens will work on your camera depends on whether your camera allows lenses with no electronic linkage to speak of to work (it varies by model—check your manual).

Answered by Stan Rogers

Check more discussion of this question.

How do I to clean prime lenses' internals? Or should I even try?

Question

I have some very old primes (grandfather's 1950s Exakta Varex lenses, ranging from 28mm to 85mm) that I've been really enjoying on my Sony NEX with an adapter. It's partially sentimental, but I've also gotten some great shots from them.

One of my favorites of the series is the 85mm, but it has quite a bit of dust on the inside, and the focus ring puts up a heck of a fight when it's moved. There are a couple specks of dust that are occasionally noticeable in my pictures, sometimes glaring.

It feels silly to pay for professional cleaning of lenses that are likely worth far less than the cleaning cost. I'm mechanically inclined; what are my chances of success disassembling and cleaning them myself? Is there a generic guide about lens cleaning that you have used with success (what to oil the aperture blades with, what cleaning products to use, etc.)?

Asked by Evan

Answer

I would suggest trying it yourself, especially if you are mechanically minded and have had success at other small part disassemble/reassemble jobs. If you do decide to give it a go, I am an electronic engineer by trade and here are some suggestions that I use when I have to repair small electronic devices ...

• Have a LARGE clean, clear, flat and preferably white area available. Spend time cleaning it and if you have to, cover with a white cotton sheet.

• Break the disassemble down in to stages so you work towards one small goal at a time. Each time you reach the end of a stage spend the time to ensure everything is ready and set for the next stage.

• Have a collection of small pots available to put screws or small parts in from different stages of the disassemble. I use a collection of old 35mm film canisters as if I then have to pause during the repair I can put the lids on knowing I will not loose parts.

• Make notes on what you have done at each stage, what parts were removed, how and how many screws were involved as well as what container they are now in. You could even take photographs of each stage. This is invaluable when you come to reassemble it back and will ensure that you don't have the dreaded left over screws at the end.

• Take your time, the more you invest in to the task the greater the euphoria at the end when you have a lens that is like brand new :)

I do hope you manage to clean them up successfully as every time you take a great shot with the old lenses you will be happy knowing you have done your grandfather proud! Besides the optics in those old ones are probably pretty good glass compared to a lot of modern mass produced stuff. Good luck Evan!

Answered by Barry Semple

Check more discussion of this question.

Has anyone successfully mounted other lenses on Ricoh GR II?

Question

I've been given a Ricoh GR II to play with — sort of a long term loan really. Lovely little camera. In the past I've messed about with Olympus film and digital, and Nikon compacts and SLRs with other manufacturer's lenses using converter rings and reverse mounts (for super macro effects).

I'd like to try something similar, but I can't see any evidence that others have tried this online, and can't find any converter rings or etc.

Any thoughts? The GR II is so good in terms of features and the 10MB ccd etc, I'd love to hack it a bit in terms of optics.

Asked by Mere Development

Answer

The Ricoh GR-II is not an interchangable-lens camera. So the only alternative/additional lenses you can use with it are the conversion lenses GW-1 (wide, 21mm) / GT-1 (tele, 40mm) and the GH-1 hood adapter.

I'm not sure which other lens adapters will fit the GH-1. Perhaps your camera manual specifies the thread size for the GH-1, which will allow you to figure that out.

Answered by James Youngman

Check more discussion of this question.

How do non-MFT lenses work on a Panasonic GF3?

Question

I'm thinking of buying a GF3. But the lenses are pricy, so I have to pick my kit wisely. I saw that there are adapters for it, but I'm new to lenses.

• Are there any problems with attaching non-MFT lenses?
• How can I see the image from the lens without a viewfinder? (Is it going to show correctly on the display?)
• Can external lenses be used with Raynox DCR 250?

Answer

You can mount pretty much anything on a m43 system using the right mechanical adapters, but that doesn't mean ergonomics are going to make it a practical option, specially on a camera with limited controls like the GF3.

You view through the viewfinder as with any m43 lens, but will be working in aperture priority mode. You can trigger manual focus assist, which will show you a magnified view of the focus area, but you will have to trigger it manually (unlike manual-focus m43 lenses like some Voigtlander models, where turning the focus ring automatically triggers MF assist).

In practice, using non-m43 lenses on a m43 body is not ideal. It's perfectly OK for landscapes, still lifes and street photography using estimated scale focus, but not anything involving action.

Check more discussion of this question.

What lenses can I use to build a DIY tilt/shift lens for a Nikon DX body?

Question

I've found an awesome description for how to build your own tilt/shift lens (http://www.creativepro.com/article/build-a-tilt-shift-camera-lens-peanuts) that mentions using, for example, a lens for the now obsolete Pentacon 6 format. What other lenses could be used for this purpose? Are there any other concerns than it having to be a lens for a larger format than the target one (DX, in my case)?

Ideally, it would be a lens of great optical quality that you can get hold of cheaply (though I realize that posting this question doesn't really help with that).

Answer

The best lenses to use are those originally created for medium format cameras. This is for two reasons:

-when you tilt or shift a lens, you can end up with part of the resulting photo being black because the lens is not no longer pointed directly at the sensor. With a medium-format lens, you have a lot more play in tilt and shift, because the "image circle" is larger. It allows you to tilt and shift more.

-the lenses in medium format cameras are usually designed to be farther away from the sensor/film than your regular dslr lenses. This means that to get a correctly focused picture with a medium format lens, it needs to be spaced away from the camera. This gives you a bunch of space where you can construct a tilt/shift mechanism.

I would suggest… Mamiya or Pentax 645/67 lenses. They'r readily available (check keh.com) and some aren't too expensive.

Check more discussion of this question.

Can I fit a Minolta 35mm lens to a Micro 4third mount?

Question

I have old 35mm lenses for my old Minolta camera. I'm going back to photography and getting an Olympus PEN E-PL1 (micro four thirds mount).

Can I use my old lenses on such a box or do they become completely useless? They were pretty expensive lenses, so why throw them away?

Answer

There are a number of adapters for Minolta MC/MD to Micro Four Thirds, like this one at Amazon. (If you are talking about Maxxum/Dynax lenses, then look for Sony Alpha to Micro Four Thirds adapters.) The lenses will be all-manual focus and aperture (no automatic stop-down), but you can use them. It's just going to be an old-timey sort of experience in the digital age.

Check more discussion of this question.

What's the small white plastic dome on old Pentax lenses?

Question

My old Pentax lenses have a small white dome between the aperture ring and the focus ring. See the photo below:

The clear white dome calls to mind the larger white plastic domes used in light meters, but there's no such thing in this lens (and that'd be a very strange place for one). You can't press it or anything; it's not a button or control. It's just a white plastic bead half-embedded in the metal. It's common to many or most Pentax manual focus lenses (take a look at any of the K or M primes shown here); I haven't seen it elsewhere.

This dome is on a part of the lens body which does not move. It lines up with f/1.7 when the aperture is set to f/16, or f/2 (unmarked) when the aperture is set to f/22. It's not in a place where it seems likely to provide any meaningful tactile feedback — in fact, when holding the camera in use, I'd characterize it as "out of the way". And it's offset from the orange dot used for mount alignment, so it's not that either.

So, what is it there for? It can't be just to look pretty, can it? It's not very pretty.

Answer

As stated here ( and guessed by Dreamager) it is aligned with the lens release button of older Pentax cameras. It's much easier to change the lens in the dark. ( I don't really understand the advantage of the newer orange dots. )

From K-1000 user's manual:

In the dark, when red dots are difficult to see, align the white plastic bump on the lens barrel with the lens release lever by touch.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is there an adapter for Canon AE-1 lenses on Canon 550D?

Question

Is there a way to use my old Canon AE-1 lenses on my new EOS-550D?

Answer

Short answer: yes, but you won't like the results.

Longer answer: those old lenses sure are fun :) ... but you still won't like the results. Here are some details:

There are adapters, and you can by cheap glassless ones (that won't allow infinity focus -- they basically act like extension tubes) or adapters with glass to allow infinity focus but that have varying quality (depending on how much you are willing to pay -- Canon even made an extremely expensive official adapter, I've heard, decades ago to help pro photographers with the switch from FD to EOS).

Unfortunately, your quality will really suffer. When I got my 30D I bought a couple FD lenses (my crown jewel was a 135/2.8, beautifully small and responsive and light-weight) but in order to use them with my adapter I had to stop them down 2-3 stops in order to get good pictures without CA. I still loved using that 135, and in the right light I could still get a decent picture every once in a while at f/2.8, but for all practical purposes it was a 135/8 and it's hard to get excited about a 135/8 and want to take it out for pictures.

With the 135 and the glassless adapter, the maximum focus distance was about 6 feet. With a 100-300 at 300mm, the maximum focus distance was, oh let's say I was 15 feet from a house and I could just barely focus on something at the top of a two-story house so what's that, 25 feet? Somewhere around here there's also a question where I both calculated and experimentally determined the maximum focus distance of a 50mm lens with a glassless adapter (it wasn't pretty).

If I were you, I certainly wouldn't throw out your lenses: I'd spend a few dollars on a glassless adapter and consider spending a few more on an adapter with glass to allow infinity focus. You can use the glassless adapter to turn your wider-aperture lenses into macro lenses (I use one with a 35-70 f/3.5-4.5, but the smallish aperture makes focusing difficult and I'd like to get an f/2 or wider lens for that purpose), and the adapter-with-glass to run some experiments. But I'm sure that you'll get better pictures with a cheap all-plastic slow consumer modern lens (especially one with modern coatings, which also play a big part in image quality) that doesn't require an adapter than with your expensive-at-the-time fast lenses with an adapter.

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news... and if you can prove me wrong, I'd love to hear it!

Check more discussion of this question.

Can I use old Pentax lenses on newer Pentax DSLRs?

Question

Can I use old Pentax lenses from the film days on the newer Pentax DSLRs?

Are there any caveats or exceptions? Are adapters or modifications needed?

Answer

Yes, all Pentax DSLRs accept all K-mount lenses. This includes autofocusing (if applicable), focus confirmation, metering, IS, etc.

The oldest two series, K and M series (database), do not have aperture contacts, and thus do not work with Av and Tv mode. Instead, you'll have to use M mode, but you will get meter readings. It can also suggest a shutter speed if you push the +/- or green button (depending on camera model and settings). Metering on these digital SLRs tends to be noticeably more inconsistent than on on the film SLRs they were designed for. These two series do not get matrix metering, just center-weighted and spot, but do get focus-trap.

There is a rare breed of K-mount that Ricoh used, called "KR" mount. They have an extra pin which will get stuck if it is not removed.

You can also get a M42-PK adapter and use the endless supply of great cheap screwmount lenses available at ebay, pawnshops, etc. They will have focus confirmation, IS, center/spot metering, and can actually use Av mode as they will stop down with the aperture ring.

Check more discussion of this question.

Are there recent entry-level/prosumer DSLR cameras that can use/are compatible with high quality older manual lenses?

Question

A reason to use older lenses is to save money on bigger zoom or other normally expensive auto-focus lenses.

Is this still something people do?

Answer

Yes, there are. Most DSLRs are backwards compatible with lenses of film DSLR from the same brand. The main exceptions are Olympus, Panasonic and Sony.

Canon changed its mount completely when they introduced autofocus, so you will have less luck there.

Nikon manual focus lenses are compatible with higher-end bodies (D90, D300S, D7000, D3S, D3X, etc). Compatibility is not universal though, so not all MF lenses will work, you'll have to look up each case separately.

Pentax is known by many to have the highest-level of legacy compatibility. Most MF lens in the K-mount will work on all Pentax DSLRs. As an awesome bonus, all those lenses will benefit from stabilization provided the DSLR bodies. You only have to enter the right focal-length manually into the camera. If you are considering long zooms (when you said 'bigger') then this is huge.

Sony acquired the Konica-Minolta and its DSLRs are compatible with MF focus from the Maxxum/Dynax/Alpha (depending on where in the world you are) generation. Like Pentax, stabilization is provided by the body too.

Olympus and Panasonic use an all-new 4/3 mount which has no legacy lenses. However, if you consider the new Micro Four-Third SLDs (mirrorless cameras) they can support just about any legacy lens using an adapter.

Check more discussion of this question.

What kind of dose can you expect from a radioactive lens?

Question

I read that lens makers used to use radioactive glass to increase the refractive index property of their lenses.

How radioactive are they?

Here are some example dosages; where would looking through the viewfinder for an hour fit?

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

Answer

The article in rfusca's answer includes some references: The Aero-Ektars,by NASA scientist Michael Briggs); Radioactive Materials in Camera Lenses from the Health Physics Society, an organization focused on radiation safety; and Thoriated Camera Lens (ca. 1970s) from Oak Ridge Associated Universities's professional training on radiation safety.

From the ORAU PTP article:

Measurements have indicated that the exposure rate at a depth of 10 cm in the body of an individual carrying a camera containing 0.36 uCi of thorium would be approximately 0.01 mrem/hr. Based on this value, NUREG-1717 calculated that a serious photographer might receive an annual exposure of 2 mrem. This assumed that the photographer carried the camera 30 days per year and for 6 hours per day. They also estimated an exposure of 0.7 mrem per year for an average photographer. If the camera lens contained the maximum permitted concentration of thorium (30%), NUREG-1717 estimated that the aforementioned annual doses could triple.

This puts the "6hrs/day for a month" usage at about the same as getting a chest X-ray — or, one little green square on the xkcd chart. Or to put it another way, using the lens six hours a day for a year would be the same as taking three round-trip flights from one US coast to the other in that year. Not completely trivial, but not something people normally stress about. And that'd be really heavy usage.

The articles indicate that exposure to the eye might be a greater concern than overall dosage, particularly if you happen to have thorium in an eyepiece (unlikely for general photo equipment). So you might decide to spend a little less time holding the camera right to your eye than you might otherwise.

Check more discussion of this question.

Are there risks in using an adapter ring?

Question

I have found a couple of old Zenit lenses in a drawer. I have found online, for a very cheap amount (about 10 eur) an adapter ring (from M42 to EOS mount).

The lenses have not been particularly well preserved in the years, so I don't expect to have found a treasure, but given the very small amount of money involved I could give it a go.

The question is: will I be risking anything using this adapter? Is there some specific thing to avoid or to do? If there is even a small chance of - who knows - damaging/bumping/touching something on the camera (specifically I have a 50D), I don't think that it would be worth it.

If on the the other hand the worse which can happen is that the lens turns out to be not really usable or that focus at infinity is unattainable, I will try it.

Answer

There are two possible issues with adapters:

• A cheap adapter may not be machined to a high standard and be outside acceptable tolerances. This could affect focusing, or even damage the mount, though this is unlikely. Screw mounts may be slightly to big or small, and lenses could get stuck in them if the metal binds.
• Some lenses may collapse behind the mount and could collide with and damage the mirror (or sensor for a mirrorless camera). Examples of this would be old collapsible Leica lenses, or some old wide angle lenses.

Either way you simply need to be careful, inspect the adapter carefully, mount by itself and check that it is held firmly in place and that there is no give. Ensure it can be easily removed before mounting the lens. Inspect the lens and check that it does not protrude to far back, check at different focal lengths and zoom distances. Connect the lens to the adapter while not attached to the camera and ensure it can easily be removed. It would be wise to clean the mount on the old lens as well.

Chances are you will have no problem but care should always be taken when using non standard equipment.

Check more discussion of this question.

Why buy an intentionally soft lens?

Question

While reading some reviews of older lenses, I keep reading "Its soft wide open, but that's not always a problem with portraits." Over my rather short time in photography thus far, I've come to appreciate very sharp portraits and if some softness is needed, its easier to add softness than actual, true clarity.

Am I missing something here? Why would you want to buy a soft lens? (Note, I'm not talking about an adjustable 'soft focus' lens, just an older, not sharp lens).

Answer

Ah, I think what you may be missing is that you're putting two things together that aren't intended to be:

1. A lens that is soft isn't necessarily bad for portraits because people often soften portrait shots anyways and so the lens isn't really a problem.

2. Prefering a soft lens because the softness is a desirable feature.

They seem the same, but they aren't. The first is really a statement that, in the right conditions, the softness of the lens has really no impact. This is not a statement of desire, I think.

Anyways, all that they are really saying is that the soft lens may not be totally useless, so don't just throw it away.

Check more discussion of this question.