Different Lens Adapter Sizes

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by eastmanw, May 11, 2015.

  1. eastmanw

    eastmanw New to Mu-43

    3
    May 11, 2015
    Will Eastman
    I was thinking it might be better to get together a thread that includes the thickness of different lens adapters. I was trying to find this out when I was looking at which type of lens to go with but couldn't find anything. I wanted to know the depth ie. how far the adapter will stick out from the body. I will kick us off, would appreciate if anybody can add others:

    OM - M43 - 26mm
     
  2. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    You can get a really rough estimate just by comparing the flange depth of the various mounts. That's what the adapter thickness is compensating for, anyway.

    http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/mounts-by-register.html

    So using this chart, we can see that m4/3 has a 19.25mm depth and Olympus OM is expecting a 46mm depth, so you can see where you get your ~26mm thick adapter from.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Petrochemist

    Petrochemist Mu-43 Top Veteran

    655
    Mar 21, 2013
    N Essex, UK
    Mike
    If the measurements are reasonably accurate (Which they appear to be for the common mounts at least) then it's not a 'rough estimate' it is the exact size it should be between the adapters flanges (unless the adapter has optical elements). My ยต4/3 to M42 helicoid adapter is 0.25mm too long sat it's shortest - which is why it's can't focus to infinity with most lenses.
    At some point I may try to sand it down slightly allowing all my M42 lenses to focus from infinity to near macro distances, as it should have done if the manufacturer had done their maths!
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    agree with the above, to the OP I'll say that to all intents if they're 35mm SLR lenses they'll be all about the same, FD a bit shorter (as will be obvious in that table).

    here is a few blog posts which may help you visualise it

    http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2009/04/fd-lens-adapter-on-panasonic-g1.html

    in particular this post shows an FD adapter which for telephoto lenses is a good idea for better balance of the lens on a tripod

    http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2013/10/another-fd-lens-adapter-review.html

    C mount shortest along with Pentax 110

    personally I don't see any reason to even consider it, but YMMV
     
  5. dwig

    dwig Mu-43 Top Veteran

    624
    Jun 26, 2010
    Key West FL
    +1

    All 35mm full frame SLR mounts will vary by only a 2-3 mm and not by any significant amount given the differing size of various lenses.

    The Leica rangefinder mounts, both M and LTM, are noticeably shorter and are good choices for "compact" adaptions as is the Olympus Pen 35mm 1/2 frame SLR mount.

    Smaller formats like the Pentax 110 and C-mount adapters are the thinest.
     
  6. manzoid

    manzoid Mu-43 Regular

    137
    Jun 9, 2011
    I think the flange mount distance can be worth considering, even amongst slr mounts. Om is 46mm, konica AR is 40.5mm. When considering the overall size, of course you need to consider the lens and adapter.

    I don't have any om lenses, but they have the reputation for being small, and I would guess that the longer flange might allow smaller lenses generally.

    Anyway, while it already has a following I'd say the 40mm Hexanon is great. Fast, as small as some rangefinder lenses even taking adapters into account, and has a closer minimum focusing distance.