GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

Several times I have been given old Sears lenses. Most of them, (about 4) had the M-42 mount. The ones that didn't have M-42 mount, fit my Pentax dslr cameras just fine. They were Richo type which used Pentax mount.

nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY

One person's "image degradation" is another person's "perfectly acceptable" and beautiful!

There's also lens function to consider. I have Canon EF-mount cameras and a bunch of Canon FD-mount lenses. Yes, an adapter with a lens element is not recommended, and removing the element eliminates infinity focus ability.

But I have an FD-mount 500mm mirror lens which, as mirror lenses do, focuses PAST infinity. So it focuses TO infinity quite nicely.

And a macro lens is intended for closeup work, not distance work. So I do macro shooting very nicely with my 50mm macro lens.

You can shoot a lot of subjects without infinity focus!

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Perhaps not recommended I agree totally.
But it can be done and some actually are not too bad.
I tried 3 different ones and found one that was not too bad actually.

rcarol

All of this is not worth the bother or the money.

yorkiebyte Loc: Scottsdale, AZ/Bandon by the Sea, OR

...So..... did you MISS this part: "~ For having fun..I think it works fine!!" ??
Not all imaging needs to be perfect to have fun or be artistic with it. Sharpness is overrated. Yes. That is my opinion. I certainly know you have yours.

BebuLamar

If I got those lenses I wouldn't even use it on my Minolta film cameras so my initial recommendation was to toss them but then those cheap lenses under Sears and KMart brands brought up memories when in the late 70's I used to frequent those stores and saw them in the shelves. Those stores have gone so if I have those lenses I won't use them but keep them.

yorkiebyte Loc: Scottsdale, AZ/Bandon by the Sea, OR

Yep... Just like all those Telephoto Extenders, everyone seems to use for birds and other wildlife.

photosbytw Loc: Blue Ridge Mountains

nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY

What did I say that lets you think I missed the photo-poster's point?

I was AGREEING with her/him! And YOU seconded what I said!

grichie5

No wish to be critical, but the image seems to lack sharpness. I can't seem to determine where you focused. The petal on the lower right seems as sharp as one of the upper ones, but those in between are not as crisp.

But, if the image suits you, than it's fine. I Personally have a thing for sharpness.

yorkiebyte Loc: Scottsdale, AZ/Bandon by the Sea, OR

~Shot at f/2.0 from a 1.4 lens. Not much depth of focus there and all things considered, my focus was on the back blooms and they are decent for the lens used - Pixel peeping aside. Are they as sharp as my Nikkor 50mm G lens shot at F/2.0? Not even close! But that was not the point of the exercise with that adapter with an old (from the '60s) lens. Sharpness is a good thing where it belongs. I personally like a shallow Depth of Focus - lenses used wide open or one or two stops down. That is a theme/style of much of my images.

grichie5

Years ago, after taking test shots of an old Ford tractor with three cameras, two 35mm's and a 2/14 Mamiya, we blew the shots up into 8x10 prints. They all looked about equally sharp.Then my wife came on the scene. She asked which camera took one of the prints. We asked why.She said that she felt an urge to flick the peeling paint from a fender showing in one of the shots, but didn't have the same urge from the others.

The print she picked out had been made from the 2 1/4 negative.

This experience made me realize the important role that sharpness plays in many images. Perhaps the feeling is just personal, but it has stuck with me for many years.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

I treated that image to Topaz Sharpen AI - Stabilize Mode, and made it even better. Its truly amazing what this software is now able to do. The softness that an adapter with glass may produce can now be overcome with today's technology. Cheating on images is legal. And this improvement was done on a JPEG. If it were RAW, the effects can be even better.

And to think we are only looking at generation 1 in AI technology. Where does this go next?

(Download)

yorkiebyte Loc: Scottsdale, AZ/Bandon by the Sea, OR

Well done ✔... I think it's time to look into Topaz. Or learn processing better on my PS-E at least, now that I'm retired! Thank you much for a nudge into the right path!😺👍

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

That's true, particularly with the low quality optics used in cheaper adapters. Canon briefly made an FD to EF adapter, with high quality optics that worked well. But they're very rare and typically cost upwards of $1000 and act like a 1.26X teleconverter too. Of course, an FD to EF adapter doesn't help at all with Minolta MD mount lenses.

Some adapters are designed with removable optical elements. Others have it more permanently installed, but a hammer and a punch might make quick work of the glass. With the optics removed, the lens image quality won't be effected. Without the optics it won't be able to focus to infinity, but is usable at closer distances (varies, depending upon the lens).

Because the Minolta MD flange-to-film distance (43.5mm) is only .5mm less than the Canon EF flange-to-film distance (44mm), so long as it's not too thick, an adapter might have minimal effect on focusing.

For close-ups and macro like the above example, no optical elements are needed in the lens. In fact, an MD mount lens adapted to EF (or Nikon F-mount for that matter), will be able to focus even closer and render higher magnification than it could normally. Adapting the lens glasslessly improves a lens' close focus, at the same time it worsens its distant focus ability. Only infinity focus is negatively effected.

Here's a website with information about adapting lenses to use on EOS EF mount cameras. http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html In particular, take note of the "chipped" adapters. Those can be helpful with vintage lenses because they allow Focus Confirmation to assist you with manual focus. Otherwise, modern DSLRs don't have much in the way of manual focus assist features.... they lack the split image rangefinders, ground glass and micro-diaprisms that older cameras had for that purpose.

Modern DSLR viewfinders also tend to be smaller and dimmer, which doesn't help manual focus, either. When time allows, composing and focusing with Live View, which allows you to magnify, might be helpful.

EDIT:

To be brutally honest.... most Sears and Kmart lenses were cheap, lower quality zooms. They weren't all that great with film and may be even worse if used on a high resolution full frame or, especially, crop sensor DSLR. High rez and croppers "magnify" any short comings of a lens. A Minolta Rokkor prime such as was used above is in a different class... especially a fully refined design like the "normal" lenses that had been "in development" by every manufacturer since the 1930s. Sears and Kmart lenses are undoubtedly "outsourced"... bought from some manufacturer and relabeled. Neither Sears nor Kmart actually made any lenses... they just bought them from the "lowest bidder".

Without knowing exactly what lenses we're talking about here, it's hard to say... there were a few gems hiding among third party, outsourced lenses.

Some lenses have interchangeable mounts. In the case of Sears and Kmart lenses, those would most likely be "T-mount", which was an open system used by many different manufacturers. Look closely to see if the base of the lens, approx. the last 3/4 inch of the barrel and the bayonet mount itself, appears to be removable. IF the lens is a T-mount, there are EOS/EF T-mounts available, in which case simply buying one of those and replacing the MD T-mount would be much better than using an adapter. It might have three or four set screws around the perimeter (technically a "T2-mount"), which can be loosened to be able to rotate the lens to align the markings properly.

Information about T-mounts here: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/T_mount

Tamron later produced a series of Adaptall manual focus lenses, some of which are very high quality (especially their SP "professional" line). This is another popular interchangeable mount, though it was patented and exclusively used on Tamron lenses. Adaptall are being made today for Canon EOS/EF mount, too. And, again, if you happen to have one of these lenses, just changing the mount would be much better than using an adapter on it. Info on Adaptall lenses here: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Tamron

BTW, the "T" in T-mount stands for "Taisei" Kogaku, which later became Tamron. They invented both T-mounts and the Adaptall system, as well as briefly made an Adapt-a-matic lens system... Even had a hand in the T4 and Sigma YS mount, which are variants of T-mounts. The difference is that T-mounts (incl. T2) deliberately weren't patented, so all manufacturers who wished to do so could use the system. As noted above, Adaptall was a Tamron exclusive which they patented.