HopeIsEternal wrote:
How much does it cost to change the mount of the MC Rokkor-X 35mm f/1.8 to M42 with focus confirmation adapter and correct EXIF? What about the Rokkor 58mm f/1.2?
Thanks!
I think M42 mount might be a step too far, there is really very little material to work with on these mounts - not saying it's impossible, but I know an a-mount conversion pushes it to the limits, so getting an M42 flange below that... just not sure it can be done, or done well.
Kyle Nordeen wrote:
Just placed an order for a 35/1.8 through KEH. Time to control myself...
ricardovaste wrote:
I think M42 mount might be a step too far, there is really very little material to work with on these mounts - not saying it's impossible, but I know an a-mount conversion pushes it to the limits, so getting an M42 flange below that... just not sure it can be done, or done well.
MC W. ROKKOR-HH I Hope ;-)
Oh yeah, it is.
Never purchased anything through KEH before, and I've already placed two orders in the past three days, haha.
ricardovaste wrote:
I think M42 mount might be a step too far, there is really very little material to work with on these mounts - not saying it's impossible, but I know an a-mount conversion pushes it to the limits, so getting an M42 flange below that... just not sure it can be done, or done well.
MC W. ROKKOR-HH I Hope ;-)
is the 49mm version worse optically or more difficult to convert?
I would say that optically there is probably little difference, but I do prefer the glass of the MC W. ROKKOR-HH. I think there is a little difference in the contrast, but perhaps it is not that significant. What is significant is the build quality, which is much higher with the MC lens. The advance of the MD is that it's much smaller, so if that's important, go for it. As for conversion: I wouldn't attempt the MD, simply because I feel there is too little material on the rear mount so you'd likely be left wth something quite unstable. But the same could be said for the MC as well, but with the 'cam' it makes it easier to create right angles and naturally with the materials being higher quality, makes it more sturdy - but this is just my opinion, nothing more.
May 17, 2011 at 10:37 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I have the 49mm, which was converted by Jim Buchanan and it is a wonderful lens and very stably converted. I would recommend having him convert the lens is you have this version. The small size is a big plus and the build quality is quite nice except for the plastic aperture ring.
Steve, my comments were regarding an a-mount (Sony/Minolta) conversion - you have to remove more material for this. I've done EOS conversion, stable as you say - enjoy!
ricardovaste wrote:
I would say that optically there is probably little difference, but I do prefer the glass of the MC W. ROKKOR-HH. I think there is a little difference in the contrast, but perhaps it is not that significant. What is significant is the build quality, which is much higher with the MC lens. The advance of the MD is that it's much smaller, so if that's important, go for it. As for conversion: I wouldn't attempt the MD, simply because I feel there is too little material on the rear mount so you'd likely be left wth something quite unstable. But the same could be said for the MC as well, but with the 'cam' it makes it easier to create right angles and naturally with the materials being higher quality, makes it more sturdy - but this is just my opinion, nothing more....Show more →
yeah, i do love the metal focus rings of the early MC and and solid build of the MC/early MD lenses. i'm always curious to find out how the different versions compare optically. since i still shoot some of my rokkors on film i'm thinking i might try a nondestructive full mount/aperture ring replacement on my 28/2. should be a lot more work in the machine shop but it would allow me to change it back if necessary as well as allowing me to put a stepless aperture ring on.
Great! Look forward to your upcoming shots with that lens. KEH must be making a killing off of the Rokkor lenses in stock. I just ordered a 135 2.8 yesterday! (granted, I got the "ugly" version for $16!!!)
Eh ? I thought stepless was because you were removing the entire aperture cam from the rear, so without that you really just have a lump of glass that focuses and with blades but no way of controlling them - or is the 28/2 MC not set up like that?
ricardovaste wrote:
Eh ? I thought stepless was because you were removing the entire aperture cam from the rear, so without that you really just have a lump of glass that focuses and with blades but no way of controlling them.
correct, though this does not require stepless, i could easily incorporate the original stepped aperture ring (or a new one). stepless is just an added feature. Ed was suggesting that if the lens was already converted you could just remove the ball bearing.
I think the ratio is roughly 99% goofball and 1% lens, but I appreciate the compliment and recommend seeking out both the 28/2 and your own goofball.
The funny thing is, my mom told me on the phone that it wasn't a very flattering look for my niece. I don't think she gets why I love this shot even after explaining... parents, sheesh.
