Washington Posted August 17, 2011 Author Share #21 Posted August 17, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) K-H, Boy am I glad you are doing the math!!!! I seem to remember that some adapters were purposely made to adjust past infinity to accommodate several lenses. I believe the #16464 (OTZFO) is but one example. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Hi Washington, Take a look here Viso Lens Adapter. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
k-hawinkler Posted August 17, 2011 Share #22 Posted August 17, 2011 Rip, You may be correct. Although I have a black 16464 (OTZFO) that is spot on for a TE 135/4. I should have a precision digital caliper by Friday. The analog Vernier Caliper I have is driving me nuts. I know how to use it, but it's so inconvenient. It's the only type the local hardware store has. Cheers, K-H. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_M Posted August 18, 2011 Share #23 Posted August 18, 2011 K-H, Just a slight correction and clarification to the numbers you quote: The best source I've found for lens flange specs and distances is at Lens mount - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . To summarize the important values for Leica (M in particular): 1) Leica Screw Mount (LTM 39mm) flange distance is 28.8 mm. I haven't seen any dispute about this distance. 2) Leica M mount has flange distance of 27.8mm . I'm aware of the web sites that quote various other distances (like you refer to). I'm sure this is somewhat wrapped up in the discussion about the Konica Hexar being a (supposed) different focus. Fact is, the LEICA LTM to M mount adapter is exactly 1mm thick. The math is simple. If you accept LTM is 28.8mm then Leica M MUST be 27.8mm. I've never seen a cheap adapter that didn't get this 1mm thickness right. I've seen ones that didn't get the start of the thread right and were poorly machined..... 3) The Viso II and III is 41mm thick for M mount to M mount. NOT 40 mm as you quote. It is 40mm for the Viso II only when it is M mount in the front and LTM is the rear. (Viso II was also made for the LTM cameras). 4) Viso II and II flange to focal plane distance is 68.8mm. 5) Viso I flange (LTM) to focal plane is 91.3mm. 6) The OUBIO (16466) adapter which compensates for Viso I flange to Viso II (III) M flange distance is 22.5mm thick (91.3-68.8 = 22.5mm). 7 Leica R flange to focal plane is 47mm. BTW, an alternate story for the LTM 39mm thread being 26 tpi is that this was a standard thread on certain microscope parts at the time. I believe this is far more plausible than the conspiracy theory of confusing the competition (there was no competition of small format at the time). First, remember that the simple explanation is usually the most accurate. Second, remember that society and technology just absorb existing standards into new measurement systems. They had equipment for 26 tpi, why rationalize some number to match a measurement system and make new tooling? Want some favorite examples: - In France, one orders a 1/4 l of beer as a "demi". You could well ask why. Half of what? Well, it is a 1/2 pint, which is about 1/4 l. - Car tires. Explain to me the rational of inch diameters of hub, mm width and % profile. (ex 225/55R17) - And, the famous one, the standard wheel width on railways (ie gauge) in Continental Europe (and US), US trucks (and old cars), etc is 4' 8.5" which is derived from the wheel width on a chariot in Roman times. Yes, the stones on streets in Pompeii even show this (I've seen it). Why? Well, it is the center to center distance between two horse's rear ends standing next to each other. My point? Metric is just a measurement. It is not a new rational system of standards. People use what they already have. RM PS: Hope the weather is better in NM than the humid, low rain monsoon in Tucson. I'm getting tired of summer.... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted August 18, 2011 Author Share #24 Posted August 18, 2011 Robert-M, Thanks for the info! The standard gauge/Roman chariot story has it’s own share of controversy. My thought is why let facts get in the way of a good story! It is interesting that before the Civil War each railroad picked whatever it felt like using: which of course meant having to unload and reload when different roads met. My memory is poor but I think it was the Erie or D&H that advertised the stability of their ‘’wide-guage’’….. which I believe was 6 feet. Naturally all this had to change with a national standard. The railroads ‘’ invented’’ standard time too! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_M Posted August 18, 2011 Share #25 Posted August 18, 2011 Rip, Roman streets were paved but also used the street for drainage of everything. Thus, there was a need for a "cross-walk" that didn't get you feet in the street. So there were big paving stones that acted as a walking point across the street. This meant there was a need for a standard opening in the stones where the chariot wheels could get through (no matter what street or city). Hence, a standard wheel track distance. Once can very accurately measure this distance by the ruts in the road in Pompeii where the paving cross-walks are still there. I'm sure you will find that it matches the track distance on your For or Chev truck. But that is not the real point of the story. Point is that there is no such thing as a new metric standard. It is just a re-measurement of existing standards. I could give you hundreds of examples but it would certainly bore the reader endlessly.... You better get some sleep so you are fresh at Sun up when the photo lighting is good! RM Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted August 18, 2011 Author Share #26 Posted August 18, 2011 Robert-M, I wasn’t doubting the story at all: how do I know? What I trying to say is that there those that do…. and I’d rather believe your version!!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted August 18, 2011 Share #27 Posted August 18, 2011 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi RM, Many thanks for your help. I was seeing all these confusing numbers and couldn't make sense of them. So, please, let me put a little table together, based on your numbers and references. I'll see then wether the references are complete or whether I have to ask you for some additional ones. Camera Mount... Flange focal distance [mm] Nikon F Bayonet 46.50 mm Lens mount - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Leica M Bayonet 27.80 mm Lens mount - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -------------------------------------- Difference........... 18.70 mm <=== Width of Leica M-AI adapter Leica LTM mount .................................... 28.80 mm Lens mount - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Leica M Bayonet ..................................... 27.80 mm Lens mount - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia --------------------------------------------------------------------- Leica LTM to M mount adapter ............... 1.00 mm http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/1804630-post23.html. Difference Leitz Visoflex II . M in front, LTM in rear 40.00 mm http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/1804630-post23.html. Do you have a reference for this? Leitz Visoflex II, III . M to M Bayonet ..... 41.00 mm http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/1804630-post23.html. Do you have a reference for this? This then also is the amount by which the Visoflex M short focus mount is shortened relative to the Rangefinder M bayonet focus mount, if I am not mistaken. Nikon F Bayonet ...................................... 46.50 mm Lens mount - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Leica R Flange focal distance ............... 47.00 mm Lens mount - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia --------------------------------------------------------------------- Difference ................................................. - 0.50 mm <=== Reason adapters don't work, need to replace flange Viso I .. LTM Flange focal distance ...... 91.30 mm Lens mount - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Viso II, III . M Flange focal distance ...... 68.80 mm Lens mount - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia --------------------------------------------------------------------- OUBIO/ 16466 adapter 91.30 - 68.80 = 22.50 mm http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/1804630-post23.html. Difference Please, correct any errors or typos. Again, thanks for your help. Best, K-H. PS: Monsoon season so far has been perfect up here in the mountains of New Mexico. ...... We only have had brief thunder showers so far, typically after lunch, with just the right amount of rain, no flooding in town. ...... Temperatures and humidity again are perfect. That feels real good after the heat and fires earlier. Apparently, WYSIWYG is not operable when entering text. Edited August 18, 2011 by k-hawinkler Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted August 18, 2011 Author Share #28 Posted August 18, 2011 Thanks, I’ll add this to my Viso Info file! Did you get yourself a digital caliper? The handiness thing is switching from decimal to metric! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted August 18, 2011 Share #29 Posted August 18, 2011 Rip, Thanks. It should arrive here this afternoon. How do you explain the about 1 mm difference in your measurements? Best, K-H. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted August 18, 2011 Author Share #30 Posted August 18, 2011 I dunno. But the Camera Quest screw to bayonet adapters have (exactly) a 1mm flange. Tho’ they are more expensive than eBay stuff… these are always great. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted August 18, 2011 Share #31 Posted August 18, 2011 I dunno. But the Camera Quest screw to bayonet adapters have (exactly) a 1mm flange. Tho’ they are more expensive than eBay stuff… these are always great. Rip, That's it. I think you just explained it. Thanks, K-H. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_M Posted August 18, 2011 Share #32 Posted August 18, 2011 K-H, Your last long post asked for a reference on the Viso thickness (40 and 41mm). Best reference I can suggest is to measure the thickness of your Viso with a dial micrometer or caliber. I did this on my viso and it checks exactly. Second best reference is using math and the Wiki article I sent a link for. Forgot to mention a source for digital micrometer/caliber. Harbor Freight seems to have a really low price digital caliber (6" size). I found one on sale for ~$10 a few months back and couldn't resist even though I already had a nice Dial type which probably cost 10x as much decades ago. I sometimes wonder how this stuff appears at such low prices. Maybe you pass one of the Harbor Freight stores in your travels (there must be one in ABQ). RM 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted August 20, 2011 Share #33 Posted August 20, 2011 K-H, Interesting question as I had not given this a close inspection. As it is at this moment the flange distance is not square as it runs from 17.90mm to 17.81. This made me notice that some of the flat-headed screws that hold the flanges to the spacer block are not flush with the mounting flange rings that attach to the spacer block. The spacer block IS square and true …. so I will have to get these screws right: flush and tight! Cheers……. Rip Rip, My 5 adapters all measure similar to your measurements But I also noticed a little ridge on the adapter camera side of about 1 mm I would guess. Unfortunately I can't measure that with my caliper as it's offset relative to the other side. So, the question is the distance of 18.7 mm is between which points exactly? RM, For my Visoflex IIIs indeed I measure 41.00 mm. Best, K-H. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted August 20, 2011 Share #34 Posted August 20, 2011 So, I did some careful measurements of distances I could measure in order to compute distances of interest. Here is what I find : Adapter width 17.90 mm Ridge width ....0.80 mm ----------------------------------- Total .............18.70 mm That's the only way I can come up with 18.7 mm on those Fotodiox adapters. K-H. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted August 20, 2011 Author Share #35 Posted August 20, 2011 Just a tip because I just screwed something up with a countersink by NOT following past experience. It’s obvious you are going to have to deepen the countersink to make the screw-heads flush (a tiny bit deeper doesn’t hurt as is hard to get it perfect by hand) Take the time to google & find a carbide countersink just a bit bigger than the diameter of the screw head. Important: make sure it is a FOUR FLUTE countersink with an 82 degree cutting angle. By being in a hurry I just used a single-flute countersink (knowing better!!!) and botched the job. Don’t be dumb like me. P.S. small carbide countersinks are not expensive. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Telyt2003 Posted August 24, 2011 Share #36 Posted August 24, 2011 (edited) (...)2) (...) Fact is, the LEICA LTM to M mount adapter is exactly 1mm thick. The math is simple. If you accept LTM is 28.8mm then Leica M MUST be 27.8mm. (...) 3) The Viso II and III is 41mm thick for M mount to M mount. NOT 40 mm as you quote. It is 40mm for the Viso II only when it is M mount in the front and LTM is the rear. (Viso II was also made for the LTM cameras). (...) 6) The OUBIO (16466) adapter which compensates for Viso I flange to Viso II (III) M flange distance is 22.5mm thick (91.3-68.8 = 22.5mm). (...) Hi RM, (...)Leitz Visoflex II . M in front, LTM in rear 40.00 mm http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/1804630-post23.html. Do you have a reference for this? Leitz Visoflex II, III . M to M Bayonet ..... 41.00 mm http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/1804630-post23.html. Do you have a reference for this? (...) K-H,Your last long post asked for a reference on the Viso thickness (40 and 41mm). Best reference I can suggest is to measure the thickness of your Viso with a dial micrometer or caliber. I did this on my viso and it checks exactly. Second best reference is using math and the Wiki article I sent a link for. (...) Since I am using Visoflex equipment, I am calculating with the above cited measures and I have never had any reason to doubt the results. The results of these measurements, albeit 10 years old , done with a Soviet-made caliper , and without another reference , are in complete agreement with those reported by Robert: - Leitz and Leica and Voigtländer/Cosina LTM-to-M-bayonet adapter: exactly 1 mm. - Leitz OUBIO/16466 LTM (Visoflex 1 lens)-to-M-bayonet (for Visoflex 2/3) adapter: exactly 22,5 mm. - Leitz Visoflex 2/3: exactly 41 mm. (Another "reference" here). Something else really puzzles me ... confuses me? ... Aren't you talking about (Cameraquest/Fotodiox) adapters for connecting long lenses with M-bayonet made for the Visoflex 2 or 3 to a Nikon reflex camera bayonet (while retaining the normal focus range) ?? Best regards, Telyt2003 Edited August 24, 2011 by Telyt2003 typo Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted August 24, 2011 Author Share #37 Posted August 24, 2011 Telyt 2003, In my case I did get an adapter from Camera Quest that allows the 200mm and 400mm Telyts to be used directly on my Nikon body: works fine! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Telyt2003 Posted August 24, 2011 Share #38 Posted August 24, 2011 Telyt 2003, In my case I did get an adapter from Camera Quest that allows the 200mm and 400mm Telyts to be used directly on my Nikon body: works fine! Thanks Rip, this is what I understand when looking at your photo in the opening post: What we see in this photo, is a Telyt 200/4 lens (with LTM for Visoflex 1), adapted to the Visoflex2/3's M-bayonet via an OUBIO with tripod socket (please see my above post), and then adapted to the Nikon reflex camera via the Cameraquest adapter which was discussed above, don't we? May I ask you a question? If adapted like this to your Nikon: Can you focus (clearly) past infinity with your Telyt 200/4 (and/or Telyt 400...) ? Thank you and best regards, Telyt2003 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted August 24, 2011 Share #39 Posted August 24, 2011 Aren't you talking about (Cameraquest/Fotodiox) adapters for connecting long lenses with M-bayonet made for the Visoflex 2 or 3 to a Nikon reflex camera bayonet (while retaining the normal focus range) ?? Yup, no problem. All that requires is that the distance from the lens to the sensor is the same for, say, M9+Visoflex and D3+Adapter. And it is. Works fine for my 200, 280, 400, and 560 mm Telyts. One also gets focus confirmation as well and 11 frames per second upon demand. Can't do that with the M9. K-H. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted August 24, 2011 Author Share #40 Posted August 24, 2011 Telyt2003, Yes I think you have it right and, as I remember infinity was right on.... but, to tell you the truth, I mess around with so many adapters I can get really confused. I'd take notes, but I'd just forget where I put them. I'll put that rig back together later and make sure what I am saying is true. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.