I received the conversion kit today and it really works! It takes just one minute to do the conversion. I highly recommend this kit for everybody that want an easy, quick, reliable and reversible conversion for the Minolta Rokkor 58.

Gerard

tagged

Tagged for feedback.

Thanks for the adapters! I havent had the time to fix them onto my lenses - will do it tomorrow, but they look great Do I still have to remove the aperture ring tab? I guess so?

DO'H just bought a nikkor.
I wanted this one at first.

Does this only work for the 58?

Only the 58/1.2 and 58/1.4.

wow great product... If I decide on the rokkor 58 I'll definitely be back!

I just received a Rokkor that Jim B converted for me, and the final version is a thing of beauty...nothing kludge-y looking about it. Great craftsmanship all around. I had bought a Rokkor for a gift for my sister and then got one for myself. The difference between how my conversion of hers looked vs. the one that Jim did for me is huge. I'll be talking to her about sending Jim her lens so that he can do a proper job on that one too.

Hat tip. Deep bow. Great work.
Jim

Ahhh... where were you 6 months ago? These look so nice and clean. I spent a span of at least 8 hours trying to get this lens sanded and filed, and mine is still not infinity (but close). For the price, this is soo worth it.

tag

emailed and tagged

JIm - care to take a stab at a Rokkor 85 1.7 kit? Erik.

One question that has been asked on several threads, with no reply-

How does this method compare to Cogitech's sanding method, regarding mirror clearance?

I am concerned as I want to remove the minimum amount necessary from my mirror.

Jim, I'm sure a lot of folks want to know. (I still have those five 58/1.2's on the shelf. Been busy!)

Yes, Allan, I have replied to this issue on several occasions. Instead of hunting for threads, I'll restate.

The Rokkor 58/1.2, like most other prime lenses, have one single assembly of elements that move as a group and do not change their relationship with any other part of the lens assembly. Exceptions to this would be floating element designs like the Zeiss ZF 50/2.0 makro, Canon FD 50L, Leica M 50/1.4 ASPH, a host of higher quality wide angles, etc.

In the case of the Rokkor 58/1.2, and countless lens designs like it, there is one and only one lens position that produces a sharp focused infinity photo, which happens to be the closest position to the sensor, and therefore could cause mirror interference issues. To be clear, regardless of method of positioning the lens assembly for infinity focus, the position will be the same. The end result can be achieved by sanding a spacer down in thickness to reduce the optical path in the case of Minolta lenses on EOS, or use my parts. It makes no difference, except for the quality, geometric accuracy, cleanliness, and appearance of my kit.

Now, if a 5D/Rokkor 58 shooter is only interested in mid-range or close range portraits, then the lens can sacrifice infinity for mirror clearance, as the lens assembly doesn't need to be as close to the mirror. I've heard descriptions of same like this, "Infinity focus needs f/4.0". In this case, the lens simply doesn't reach infinity focus and the fact is masked by the depth of field, stopped down to f/4.0 in this case. That statement is really subjective at best.

With all the variance reported in 5D camera mirror clearances, the likely scenario is filing the lens housing, filing the 5D mirror, or both, and the possible sacrifice of infinity focus altogether.

As far as I am concerned, these last options are the shooters choice, as there are so many variables.

Jim,

You missed my point (question) Maybe because it doesn't apply, but what I'm asking is:

Is there a difference, between the two methods, as to how much clearance there will be? (How much the mirror will have to be shaved)

It seems to me that with Paul's method, quite a bit of metal is / can be filed away. With your method, it seems like the flange stays original and your piece goes over it, which would mean that more must be removed from the mirror.

-Or is that incorrect?

Hi Jim,
is this still/again available?