# Does flange distance effect IQ and sharpness?



## Patriot (Feb 9, 2013)

I already know that some lens can't be used on all bodies because of the different of *flange focal distance*. I learned this with the Hexanon 135 3.2 which I can't use because of the FFD and no mount exist to adapt to me camera. that  However I'm using lens that's suppose to work with my Nikon body ex. Helios MC 44m-7 and some Takumar lens. When using them I don't see the sharpness everyone else gets when using the lens. I see pictures with them wide open and really sharp while I dare not shoot wide open. Today I tested out the 44m-7 and it seemed just about unusable. This is the same lens that is suppose to be the sharpest of the Helios M lens and the last to be made. I used it and nothing but soft cotton. 


I also started to use the Takumar 200mm 3.5 today for the first time also. It is or seem to be lighter than the 135 2.5 and performs great so far stopped down. Once again I'm couldn't shoot wide open because of the softness that came with it. Here is where I read the review of the lens and seen shot taken wide open at 3.5 with awesome results, but not me. I still have 701 more photos to comb through to find some keepers from todays shoot. If I can find at least one keeper then I'll know that it's user error. I don't expect much from the bird shots since it's only a 200mm lens so detail will be lost in the distance. 

So can distance in the FFD cause softness?


----------



## JohnF1956 (Feb 9, 2013)

Basically, no.

The reason for your softness vs. sharp pictures by others could lie in your lens. If it was dropped or otherwise abused, decentering could occur that would explain the difference.  The only real effect an adapter might have is an inability to focus at infinity if it was poorly made (i.e. the wrong length).

The only way to find this out is to take it to your friendly neighborhood lens repairer.


----------



## Patriot (Feb 9, 2013)

I do have a cheap M42 to F-mount adapter. I don't know where to get a quality one from. If I don't have to get my lens calibrated then I'm to have to wait until I get back stateside. I haven't given up on the Tak 200 3.5 just yet. I'm going to trying again tomorrow with another tak 200 3.5 if I get a chance. Yep I two of them.


----------



## BrianV (Feb 9, 2013)

1) Helios MC 44m-7: Russian lenses are known for sample-to-sample variation. I have Jupiter-3 lenses that are very sharp, as good as a Zeiss lens. Others that were so bad that I parted them out to fix other lenses.

2) what camera are you using the Takumar on? This is an M42 mount lens, to use it on a Nikon would require an adapter with some optics in it to focus to infinity. Any optics in an adapter will degrade the quality of the image.

With digital- flange distance does have an affect on performance, has to do with the efficiency that light is collected at the edges of the sensor. Makes a difference with lenses that sit very close to the sensor. This does not apply in your case, all of these lenses are far from the sensor.

Use the Takumar on an M42 body, or with a mirrorless camera- will be very different from using with an adapter with glass in it.

My Helios 44-2 wide-open at F2, on the Olympus EP-2.


----------



## Helen B (Feb 9, 2013)

If you have one of the glassless adapters you should be able to see some sharp regions close up - though the lens will be too far from the film/sensor plane to focus at infinity it should be capable of focusing close up. Flange focal distance itself does not have any effect on image quality or sharpness, and neither does the proximity of the nearest lens element to the sensor plane. The problem comes when there is a mismatch between the camera FFD and the FFD the lens was designed for, particularly if the lens' FFD is shorter than the camera's.


----------



## Patriot (Feb 11, 2013)

Can anyone recommend a good quality adapter?

I went out to day to test the other Tak 200 3.5 lens to see if it was better than the other one. I found that this lens unlike the other one can't focus to infinity! Closer object were no problem but getting it to infinity wasn't happening. I even tried it on the FG and got the same results. So this lens is useless unless I find someone to "calibrate it" or find someone with a mirrorless camera to test on. The reviews for this lens are far from what I'm getting with it.   

-Hunt


----------



## BrianV (Feb 11, 2013)

Does the adapter have optics in it? These would be required to make up for the diatance in flange distance. Basically, the Pentax is too far from the image plane to focus to infinity.

Some companies will adapt a lens by taking off the original mount and putting on a new one: this is expensive.

My advice: Look for a Nikkor 200/4 AI or AIs series lens. This is a 5-element, compact design and is very good. It replaced the older "Nikkor-Q 200/4", which is "decent", one of the first lenses in the Nikon F line.


----------



## Patriot (Feb 11, 2013)

Yes the adapter does have a glass optic in it. The other Taks work just fine and focus to infinity as should. So I think just that one can't focus for some reason. Maybe one of the optics is out of place. 


I might have to look into that lens.


----------



## BrianV (Feb 11, 2013)

I doubt that the Takumar is at fault, more likely the optics in the adapter just cannot deal with a relatively fast Telephoto lens. 

It would be best to try the M42 lenses with an M42 film camera, or a mirrorless lens. I use Pentax lenses on the Olympus EP2 and Fujica ST-801.


----------



## Patriot (Feb 11, 2013)

You can bet I'm putting some money aside for the Nex-7. Until then I'll slap it on the Vivitar 220 SL to see if it makes a difference.


----------



## Patriot (Feb 14, 2013)

JohnF1956 said:


> Basically, no.
> 
> The reason for your softness vs. sharp pictures by others could lie in your lens. If it was dropped or otherwise abused, decentering could occur that would explain the difference.  The only real effect an adapter might have is an inability to focus at infinity if it was poorly made (i.e. the wrong length).
> 
> The only way to find this out is to take it to your friendly neighborhood lens repairer.





BrianV said:


> I doubt that the Takumar is at fault, more likely the optics in the adapter just cannot deal with a relatively fast Telephoto lens.
> 
> It would be best to try the M42 lenses with an M42 film camera, or a mirrorless lens. I use Pentax lenses on the Olympus EP2 and Fujica ST-801.



Well all of you seem to be right about the adapter. I remembered that I have an adapter without the optics, so I tried it and realized how much that cheaply made glass made a difference. My Helios 44m-7 was actually sharp without the glass, same goes for the Takumars. I might lost infinity focus but at least i could use my Helios and Takumar 50 1.4 for portraits and other pictures that doesn't need infinity focus. As for the Tak 200 3.5, I will look for a adapter with higher quality glass. 

Thank everyone for pointing me in the right direction. 

-Hunt


----------



## BrianV (Feb 14, 2013)

> As for the Tak 200 3.5, I will look for a adapter with higher quality glass. 

The adapter with glass in it will not do justice to the lens. The results from a Nikkor 200/4 will be far better, even the older Nikkor-Q which can be found for about the same price as the adapter.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 14, 2013)

Flange is such a great word


----------

