50mm Nikkor for Nikon f6

[Richard Williams]

<blockquote>

<p>Richard: Weird. The Leica R mount (unlike the M) is about half a mm deeper than the F mount, so I guess it's a simple matter of removing the sticky-outy bits - at least nothing should whack the mirror. Life is easier in mirrorless...</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Yes, this guy has gone to quite heroic lengths to figure out a relatively straightforward way of entirely replacing the Leica R (or Contax/Yashica, or OM) bayonet with a Nikon (or Pentax, etc.) bayonet to get infinity focus. Many lenses can be made to fit, though a few extend too far back to clear the mirror. Seems a reasonable solution for lenses that have been orphaned by their manufacturers, though as you say mirrorless (or EOS) users have it much easier with simple adapters. It's reversible, too, if you keep the original bits, and you can even fit a 'Dandelion' chip.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>The real reason I have lots of f/1.8 50mm lenses is that they're so cheap there was no point in selling them</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or buying them in the first place. I shunned 50mm from the very beginning. Got one eventually (50/1.4 AiS) for use on an F4 for low-light photography. Horrible wide open. Replaced with the 50/1.8 AF-D - never used much. Traded for the 50/1.8G AF-S that was eventually sold too as it was just sitting unused.</p>

<p>Leitax is the way to go to convert a Leica R-lens to Nikon F-mount. Have done the conversion for the Leica Apo-Telyt 180/3.4. Easy as pie. Unfortunately, at the time, I didn't know about it and sold my Leica-R Macro-Elmarit 100/2.8. When I did the conversion of the 180, a dandelion chip wasn't offered. otherwise I would have gone that route too.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Leica R-lens on Nikon DSLR:<br /> <a title="Nikon D700 with Leica Apo-Telyt 180/3.4" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/beachwalker2007/14261532153/in/photolist-tUXjzt-qWe4Tj-rdyqeR-orj2aa-nJF2jN-nsnpRb-nsn9AQ-nLD8JV-nJRKmg-nsn6W2-nJF3Eo-nr9Hj6-nr9d7m-nGg9Sy-nJf5Dp-e5uGer-anxLA8-anefVp-8u91WV-8ukzSd-8uc8dq-8ukzX5-8uhu8r-7JrGSK-5QuDvK-5CkogL" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/3/2917/14261532153_7a2429894f_c.jpg" alt="Nikon D700 with Leica Apo-Telyt 180/3.4" width="800" height="535" /></a><br>

For some R-lenses, the conversion is a bit more involved (like shaving of bits and pieces) or simply not possible.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>As Andrew mentions, any AFS G (non "E") lens can be considered as "contemporary" to the F6. I`d say AF-D lenses are contemporary to the F5, while "plain" AF lenses to the F4.<br /> My choice would be the 50/1.4AFS. It is not that expensive, althought the f1.8 version is certainly more affordable. I don`t see the point of using a MF lens on an AF camera, unless maybe you were planning to use it mostly for macro... if so, as an exception I`d probably get the ZF Zeiss Makro planar 50/2 instead of a Nikkor.<br /> About lens conversion, and specially if we are talking about film use, I don`t even consider it. Sometimes I`d like to have a Nikon quality body to use my Pentax lenses, but sincerely, it`s a couple shots` kind of wish. I just use a Pentax body and run.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

The weak link in the imaging chain will be the film

used. I doubt you'll detest any difference in IQ

between a Zeiss Otus and a cheap f/1.8 AF Nikkor.

Just decide what maximum aperture you

want/need and the choice is narrowed

immediately.

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>The weak link in the imaging chain will be the film used.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not necessarily in general. Again, I am making a very general statement: I would say typically the weakest link is what is behind the viewfinder.</p>

[James Bryant]

<p>I purchased a F6 in January and find the meter to be very useful. I use the ais 50 f1.8 and the Zeiss 2/50 is a little sharper and better overall. I am now testing a Zeiss Milvus 1.4/50 that I just purchased. I use the ais 50f1.8 when I want less weight especially when using the FM2n. If you don't want to go Zeiss, the ais 50f1.8 is a good choice and is the best of my ais Nikkors.</p>

[Albins images]

<p>Great summary, <a name="00eEg9"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=4303235">Andrew Garrard</a> !!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Glad to help, Albin - sorry again for my misinformation about the Tamron!<br />

<br />

Many moons ago I found a web site on which photographers were studiously comparing lenses and reporting which ones were the best at different apertures - which I read at the time as suggesting you should physically change lens when you want to stop down (now I think about it, not much more of a faff than changing aperture stops on my Petzval...) and ridiculously nit-picking. In retrospect, I've turned into them. Sigh.</p>

[tom_bowling1664874721]

<p>I have an f1.4 G but I don't like the bokeh (not sure how to describe it - I'm no expert on that) and would have been happier, I think, with a plain old f1.8 G. I think the Nikon f1.8 G is massively underrated - it doesn't cost enough to satisfy some people!</p>