• Welcome to TalkEmount.com, the best Sony E-mount camera and photography community on the web.
    Click here to join for free and enjoy unlimited photo uploads in our forums.

New to 'adapting'; confused re: LTM 39 to E mounts

xavyr

TalkEmount Regular
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
77
Location
east coast central
Real Name
William the Crankier
Very gratified to have found this amazingly well-informed and helpful community; thus hat-in-hand, again. Like it says: confused re: rf lenses on a Sony mirrorless, even after reading the relevant threads.

Eager to try an old but clean Industar collapsible 50 f/3.5 (now on my Zorki RF) with the ILCE 6000, but there's a welter of LTM 39 adapters available, and after reading here-and-there, am still unsure as to whether I will also need a 16mm 'spacer" tube to get the proper distance.

This one says, e.g., that it's good to go:
https://www.amazon.com/Fotasy-Adjustable-Mount-Camera-Adapter/dp/B008DBVX04

So will this rangefinder lens properly focus with the adapter alone?

Grazie mille!
 

WNG

TalkEmount Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
4,370
Location
Arrid Zone-A, USA
Real Name
Will
Very gratified to have found this amazingly well-informed and helpful community; thus hat-in-hand, again. Like it says: confused re: rf lenses on a Sony mirrorless, even after reading the relevant threads.

Eager to try an old but clean Industar collapsible 50 f/3.5 (now on my Zorki RF) with the ILCE 6000, but there's a welter of LTM 39 adapters available, and after reading here-and-there, am still unsure as to whether I will also need a 16mm 'spacer" tube to get the proper distance.

This one says, e.g., that it's good to go:
https://www.amazon.com/Fotasy-Adjustable-Mount-Camera-Adapter/dp/B008DBVX04

So will this rangefinder lens properly focus with the adapter alone?

Grazie mille!
Hi again! :)
Yes, for the Industar lens desired, this Fotasy L39/LTM adapter is the correct one. IIRC, the 'spacer' L-M39 version is required for those Russian lenses that were M42 spec spacing but used the L39 threading instead. Thus the confusion. Those damn Russians! ;) (BTW, they make great manual lenses!)

Note: I have a number of Fotasy brand adapters and have found them to be of high quality with close tolerance machining and alignment. And they aren't expensive! I use this L39/LTM adapter myself.
Some of them are rebranded by Fotodiox.
 

xavyr

TalkEmount Regular
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
77
Location
east coast central
Real Name
William the Crankier
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
Aha!
Thanks, WNG, once again for your help as I grope through the murk!
 

dbmiller

TalkEmount All-Pro
Joined
Mar 2, 2012
Messages
1,064
Location
New England
I have both the Fotasy (Or one of it's knock-offs), plus a Hawks Helcoid adapter. The Hawks is actually a Leica M-mount adapter, but you can use any L39-to-M piece to use the L39 lenses (The frame size doesn't matter). The Hawks is more expensive, but it allows you to move the lens further away from the sensor, which decreases the minimum focus distance of the lens. Most old lens won't focus nearer than a meter.

I'd start with the Fotasy.
 
Last edited:

xavyr

TalkEmount Regular
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
77
Location
east coast central
Real Name
William the Crankier
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
Well, shucks. This is embarrassing.

The Fotasy adapter per above came in, and the KMZ Industar 5,0cm f/3.5 collapsible (of - possibly - 1980) that works so well on the Zorki 4K (both from Oleg Khalyavin) will not focus closer than many feet beyond the 1 meter minimum distance for this lens, and acts a little wonky even then. It must be that a spacer is needed, yes?

But why? My error was in thinking that the Fotasy alone would suffice. Failure to read closely.

Internet research gets me nada this morning, zip.

(FSU lenses and cameras are mostly terra incognita to me - I had specifically zeroed-in on my Zorki and Kiev 4, and had gone to Oleg whose repute is sterling. The KMZ logo is of the "middle" period, 195X-198X.)

As Otis Redding said,"He'p me now."

The perpetrator:
industar.jpg
SM-N960U    ---    4mm    f/2.4    1/120s    ISO 250
 
Last edited:

AlwaysOnAuto

TalkEmount Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 17, 2015
Messages
3,355
It's my understanding, and I may be wrong here, that adapters will only adapt the lens to the camera. IE they will set the lens at the same distance from the 'film plane' [sensor] as the camera native to the lens. I would expect to have to use 'tubes' to get any kind of reduction in minimum focus distance.
Again, I may be wrong in my thinking here but that is how I see it and have proceeded with my 'adventures' in macro photography.
It has worked for me but, as they say, YMMV.
 
Last edited:

xavyr

TalkEmount Regular
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
77
Location
east coast central
Real Name
William the Crankier
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #9
Yeah, I'm missing some additional spacing of some sort, but which to get?
 

WNG

TalkEmount Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
4,370
Location
Arrid Zone-A, USA
Real Name
Will
Hmmm, the Industar 50-f/3.5 is usually a standard L39 spec. The collapsible version could have been available in both versions. I guess one way to check is to take a straight edge and measure the flange distance to the shutter plane of the Zorki to verify. If it's M42 spec (being deeper), then you will have your answer.

Note: the standard non-collapsible model of the Industar 50 f/3.5 is already so shallow.....it couldn't have gained much to be collapsible, so I suspect you have an odd M42 spec model.
It would be cheaper to order a specific adapter for this lens. The L39 adapter will be handy for genuine L39/LTM lenses I'm sure you'll add later.

Note: Some very useful info from Mike below! Another possible work-around is to purchase cheap Sony E-mount macro rings to add to the Fotasy L39 adapter.
 
Last edited:

Petrochemist

TalkEmount Regular
Joined
Oct 19, 2018
Messages
108
Location
North Essex UK
Real Name
Mike
Hi again! :)
Yes, for the Industar lens desired, this Fotasy L39/LTM adapter is the correct one. IIRC, the 'spacer' L-M39 version is required for those Russian lenses that were M42 spec spacing but used the L39 threading instead. Thus the confusion. Those damn Russians! ;) (BTW, they make great manual lenses!)

Note: I have a number of Fotasy brand adapters and have found them to be of high quality with close tolerance machining and alignment. And they aren't expensive! I use this L39/LTM adapter myself.
Some of them are rebranded by Fotodiox.
There are several variations of the M39 mount, LTM is specifically the rangefinder lenses using Leica's registration of 28.8mm (also used by Canon screw mount rangefinders)
The spacer is used with ZM39, (SLR lenses with the LTM thread - registration 42.5mm) they are not LTM lenses. It can be used with the collapsible Industar 50 however to shoot with the lens in it's retracted position, & allow the lens to be pulled out for closer focus.
In addition to these the Leitz Viscoflex I used the same thread with 40mm registration & the Paxette series II with 44mm registration.
One of my Industar lenses (the 28mm 'Industar 69') was from another Russian rangefinder using the same thread but a slightly longer registration. I can't remember which camera it was for but the lens needed a little machining to achieve infinity focus on LTM, fortunately a fairly easy job even if just armed with a file & some screwdrivers.
 

xavyr

TalkEmount Regular
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
77
Location
east coast central
Real Name
William the Crankier
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #12
Ok. Well, time to get the micrometer out and see just what the distance from the flange-edge to the shutter plane. Ideally, what should it be (in mm)?
 

Petrochemist

TalkEmount Regular
Joined
Oct 19, 2018
Messages
108
Location
North Essex UK
Real Name
Mike
Ok. Well, time to get the micrometer out and see just what the distance from the flange-edge to the shutter plane. Ideally, what should it be (in mm)?
For LTM it's 28.8mm to the sensor, but you don't want to try measuring all the way (you'll scratch your sensor).
Sony's e-mount is 18mm so the adapter should provide the remainder. Most adapters are slight shorter than the theoretical measurement in part to ensure lenses can focus to infinity. I usually find my calipers are easier to use than a micrometer for this as the surfaces are often offset.

Most of my adapters are around 0.05-0.1mm short, but I've had one that was out by 0.6mm (very nearly too much to allow my 10mm lens - the only one I had in hat mount - to focus down to infinity). Subtle shimming had improved this considerably.
 

Petrochemist

TalkEmount Regular
Joined
Oct 19, 2018
Messages
108
Location
North Essex UK
Real Name
Mike
Well, shucks. This is embarrassing.

The Fotasy adapter per above came in, and the KMZ Industar 5,0cm f/3.5 collapsible (of - possibly - 1980) that works so well on the Zorki 4K (both from Oleg Khalyavin) will not focus closer than many feet beyond the 1 meter minimum distance for this lens, and acts a little wonky even then. It must be that a spacer is needed, yes?

But why? My error was in thinking that the Fotasy alone would suffice. Failure to read closely.

Internet research gets me nada this morning, zip.

(FSU lenses and cameras are mostly terra incognita to me - I had specifically zeroed-in on my Zorki and Kiev 4, and had gone to Oleg whose repute is sterling. The KMZ logo is of the "middle" period, 195X-198X.)

As Otis Redding said,"He'p me now."

The perpetrator:
View attachment 111302
That looks like my collapsible model. If you twist the front of the lens it should then slide out to it's shooting position There are a couple of tabs which can then lock it securely at that position with another twist. If you have 13mm tubes you can use it in the recessed position, but it's not how it's intended to be used.
You may also find the little latch on the focusing lever (bottom right in your photo) fouls on the adapter. It's designed to be pressed in to release it from the two notches on the left which should be at the infinity mark.
This is a very quirky lens, quite different to normal camera lenses in it's controls, with the aperture control right at the front, lever focusing & a retracted parking position. Once you get used to it I think you'll love it nearly as much as I love mine (definitely my favorite among my Industars) :)
 

xavyr

TalkEmount Regular
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
77
Location
east coast central
Real Name
William the Crankier
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #15
Yes, crude and battered it may look, but the glass is clean and Oleg's CLA smoothed everything out.

It is indeed a collapsible, and operates as does yours. The release latch does foul on the adapter edge and I've just been looking at a posting on dpreview showing how a scoop was ground out of the adapter edge at the proper place so that the latch clears. A nice fix.

Lord forbid that I should rub a micrometer probe against my sensor!

It is clear that I know zero about flange-to-focal-plane distances, have never considered it, only ever used native lenses. How to know which things to measure?

Well, the adapter is indeed of offset "levels," with three diameters: from the bottom - 1) the E mount bit that extends into the body, 2) the wider knurled ring that provides grip, and 3) the ring against which the screwed-in lens seats home.

Amazingly, I found my little calipers, but I am unsure as to which things I should be measuring to see just how far short of the ideal 28.8 distance this thing falls (if I have understood at all).

If the measure is from the flat of the adapter that the lens seats against (#3) plus the knurled mounting ring (# 2), then that measured thickness is 10.56 mm, according to this 15-dollar micrometer.

Have I understood correctly? Measured the right things, the correct thicknesses?

St Paul observed: All creation is subject to futility. I appreciate the patience of all in helping to get my light bulb lit in this matter.

Industar-50-f3-RESIZED.jpg
   ---            
 
Last edited:

AlwaysOnAuto

TalkEmount Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 17, 2015
Messages
3,355
X - are #2 and #3 two separate pieces or one?

Edit - re-reading your post I see it is the adapter so it is one piece. The distance you want to measure is from the top surface of #3 to the bottom surface (seating face) of #2. That plus the Sony focal plane distance should be what you need. Sony = 18mm, your adapter = 10.56, so total it looks like your lens is sitting 28.56mm away from the sensor.
At least that's the way I see it from here in So Cal. Others may have better input.
 
Last edited:

xavyr

TalkEmount Regular
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
77
Location
east coast central
Real Name
William the Crankier
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #17
X - are #2 and #3 two separate pieces or one?

Edit - re-reading your post I see it is the adapter so it is one piece. The distance you want to measure is from the top surface of #3 to the bottom surface (seating face) of #2. That plus the Sony focal plane distance should be what you need. Sony = 18mm, your adapter = 10.56, so total it looks like your lens is sitting 28.56mm away from the sensor.
At least that's the way I see it from here in So Cal. Others may have better input.
Yep, that's exactly what I got, thus 0.24 shy. Shim, rather than spacer, territory. If I'm understanding. Huh.

Guess I understand now at first hand why folks talk about "shimming" lenses.
 

Petrochemist

TalkEmount Regular
Joined
Oct 19, 2018
Messages
108
Location
North Essex UK
Real Name
Mike
Yes sounds like you've measured the right bits.
Some LTM adapters have a 2-part construction with 3 tiny screws holding an inner threaded part (this design allows the threaded part to be rotated to have the lens the right way up. I guess just cutting the threads to start at the right point, as camera bodies do, needs more expensive machinery or much more time. With such adapters a shim (or collection of shims) of a suitable thickness (0.2mm would be reasonable for yours) to be fitted between the two halves so it works for all lenses.
If yours is a one piece variant you can use something of the right thickness cut into a washer that slips over the lenses mount. card from a document file might work OK as a quick test (roughly the right thickness IIRC & easy to cut) but plastic or metal would be more durable in the long run.
I've used both approaches on different mounts my c-mount adapters need the washer over the lens threads, but all the others that were far enough out to matter have internal shims often made up from laminated photocopies of the adapter to give me an easy indicator of where to cut holes for screws that need to pass through the shim. Translucent shim material shouldn't be an issue if hidden in the middle of an adapter but I wouldn't use that for a shim to slip on the lenses thread.
 

xavyr

TalkEmount Regular
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
77
Location
east coast central
Real Name
William the Crankier
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #19
SM-N960U    ---    4mm    f/1.5    1/30s    ISO 320


Right you are, Gents! Two-piece it is, with three of the world's smallest Allen screws spaced equidistant around the perimeter, quod vide. One marvels at the manufacturing steps required to make such a thing, a compound device that sells for $8.59 USD, shipping included. Those Chinese hourly wages must necessarily be really, really low.

So disassembling the two halves (assuming I can locate a hex key that tiny) and laying in a 0.24mm shim between them would be the orthodox approach, whereas cutting a round of some suitably-thick material to place - where? over the mount, or between lens and adapter? would be the quick-and-dirty. Hmm.

Because I do not anticipate using this lens on anything other than the Zorki and the ILCE 6000, then the easy-on, easy-off latter method would be more appropriate. I guess. Maybe.

I have just seen one helpful post on the 'Net wherein a fella used self-adhesive copper sheet that he could cut with scissors. He did not make a full circle, but cut-out small appropriately-thick pieces of shim to place all around, and for him, it worked.

So I need material of 0.24mm thickness.

I have with me an empty lime fizzy water can and a pair of scissors. The thicker aluminum of the can top looks to be 0.27mm; a bit too thick.

The very light aluminum of the can body is a scant 0.13mm - way too thin. Perhaps I can sand-down material cut from the top by 0.03mm to get where we need to be on a very flat surface using a sanding block with very fine grit automotive bodywork paper.

Or, alternatively, just fold-over two layers of the 0.13 can side metal to get a compressed 0.26, just 0.01mm shy.

Or go looking for something else. One wishes that there were Internet shim stores with online ordering - talk about a niche market!

So, shim located, where should it go?

What a saga this is getting to be! But thanks to you fellas, some degree of enlightenment has been reached; focus may yet be, umm, in sight.

Grazie mille!
 

Petrochemist

TalkEmount Regular
Joined
Oct 19, 2018
Messages
108
Location
North Essex UK
Real Name
Mike
View attachment 111310

Right you are, Gents! Two-piece it is, with three of the world's smallest Allen screws spaced equidistant around the perimeter, quod vide. One marvels at the manufacturing steps required to make such a thing, a compound device that sells for $8.59 USD, shipping included. Those Chinese hourly wages must necessarily be really, really low.

So disassembling the two halves (assuming I can locate a hex key that tiny) and laying in a 0.24mm shim between them would be the orthodox approach, whereas cutting a round of some suitably-thick material to place - where? over the mount, or between lens and adapter? would be the quick-and-dirty. Hmm.

Because I do not anticipate using this lens on anything other than the Zorki and the ILCE 6000, then the easy-on, easy-off latter method would be more appropriate. I guess. Maybe.

I have just seen one helpful post on the 'Net wherein a fella used self-adhesive copper sheet that he could cut with scissors. He did not make a full circle, but cut-out small appropriately-thick pieces of shim to place all around, and for him, it worked.

So I need material of 0.24mm thickness.

I have with me an empty lime fizzy water can and a pair of scissors. The thicker aluminum of the can top looks to be 0.27mm; a bit too thick.

The very light aluminum of the can body is a scant 0.13mm - way too thin. Perhaps I can sand-down material cut from the top by 0.03mm to get where we need to be on a very flat surface using a sanding block with very fine grit automotive bodywork paper.

Or, alternatively, just fold-over two layers of the 0.13 can side metal to get a compressed 0.26, just 0.01mm shy.

Or go looking for something else. One wishes that there were Internet shim stores with online ordering - talk about a niche market!

So, shim located, where should it go?

What a saga this is getting to be! But thanks to you fellas, some degree of enlightenment has been reached; focus may yet be, umm, in sight.

Grazie mille!
If you have the right allen key (there are a stupid variety of tiny sizes around, but 0.7mm is right for both M1.4 & M1.6 standard grub screws - wikipedia does list smaller size grub screws) then plastic packing, paper & card type should give a range of options that are already flat, any of these materials should be adequate if clamped between the two halves of the adaptor.
Remember you want to stay on the short side of the 0.24mm shim target. 0.26mm will probably make infinity focus only available by stopping down, 0.2mm would IMO be preferable even if you do loose a fraction form the minimum focus end.

If thats not possible it needs to slip over the lenses rear screw thread & sit against that silver ring on the adaptor 39mm id & 50mm od should be reasonable.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom