1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Adapter baffles?

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by nickthetasmaniac, Aug 7, 2011.

  1. nickthetasmaniac

    nickthetasmaniac Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 11, 2011
    Hi everyone, just a bit of pondering...

    I've been using a Pentax M50/f1.4 on my GH2 for a while, with a (fairly cheap) Fotodiox adapter. I've read quite a few times that one of the issues with most cheap adapters is the finish on the inside of the barrel, which tends to be shiny and a bit reflective and can cause internal reflections.

    Recently, I read an article from some bloke (can't remember who...) who can added what looked like a thin, circular, black felt baffle to his adapter, with the necessary hole in the centre to allow light through. He believed this cut down the 'glow' you get with fast old lenses (the M50 glows like a lightbulb at f1.4...).

    Anyone tried it? Any luck?

    Cheers, Nick
     
  2. You can also try stopping the light from getting into the lens in the first place by using step-down rings over the front of the lens. Only problem was that to use my screw-in lens hoods I had to use a step-up ring as well to get back to the filter diameter I needed, which becomes a little bulky. Currently I just use the hoods on their own.
     
  3. nickthetasmaniac

    nickthetasmaniac Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 11, 2011
    Do the two things have anything to do with each other? Ie, you use hoods/step-down rings to stop direct light hitting the front element and causing flare - I don't understand what this would have to do with light reflecting inside the adapter?
     
  4. Effectively the baffle and the step-down ring do the same thing, the difference being that the step-down ring blocks the excess light at the source, and the baffle does the same once the light has already passed through the lens. My thought is that it is best to "plug the leak" sooner rather than later.

    To be honest I think a hood makes the biggest difference, and not the original lens hoods either since they are sized for the full 35mm film frame and won't be as effective.
     
  5. nickthetasmaniac

    nickthetasmaniac Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 11, 2011
    I agree, especially with the coatings they were using in the 70's :eek: I suppose I was wondering if it would somehow be a magic cure for the glow you get with fast lenses wise open...
     
  6. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    If this is true, then I probably have very little to worry about because I adapt all SLR lenses to Four-Thirds, and only adapt Rangefinder lenses (as would apply to Cine and Pen FT lenses as well) directly to Micro Four-Thirds. As such my cheap adapters are very thin as they either go onto a Four-Thirds mount adapter (which is not cheap and I know works very well) or else they use a very sort flange distance to mount directly to Micro Four-Thirds.

    Adapting SLR lenses to Four-Thirds then to Micro Four-Thirds allows me several advantages. It lets me use the lenses on both body types if I want, it allows me to use teleconverters and extension tubes made for the Four-Thirds system, and it also reduces the bulk of the adapters since the only bulky part (Four-Thirds to Micro Four-Thirds) isn't repeated with every mount. This mention of shiny finishes inside cheap adapters gives me yet another advantage to using the Four-Thirds mount for all SLR lenses.