Subforums
-
The EOSHD YouTube Channel (23,354 visits to this link)
17,292 topics in this forum
-
- 1.2k replies
- 463.6k views
-
- 5.8k replies
- 1.9m views
-
- 9.1k replies
- 2.6m views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.6k views
-
- 700 replies
- 307.4k views
-
- 1.8k replies
- 756k views
-
- 13 replies
- 634 views
-
- 39 replies
- 2.3k views
-
- 7 replies
- 275 views
-
- 2 replies
- 2.3k views
-
- 82 replies
- 8k views
-
- 127 replies
- 59.7k views
-
- 121 replies
- 64.3k views
-
- 96 replies
- 75.9k views
-
- 19 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 13 replies
- 6.4k views
-
- 0 replies
- 262 views
-
- 0 replies
- 325 views
-
- 0 replies
- 338 views
-
- 5 replies
- 759 views
-
- 314 replies
- 149k views
-
- 12 replies
- 5.8k views
-
- 51 replies
- 3.9k views
-
- 30 replies
- 33.6k views
-
- 1 reply
- 341 views
-
- 8 replies
- 13.4k views
-
- 45 replies
- 12.8k views
-
- 13 replies
- 721 views
-
- 6 replies
- 2.2k views
-
- 2 replies
- 752 views
-
- 7 replies
- 577 views
-
- 7 replies
- 3.2k views
-
- 560 replies
- 261.4k views
-
- 18 replies
- 2.3k views
-
- 2 replies
- 495 views
-
- 20 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 57 replies
- 19.3k views
-
- 60 replies
- 19.9k views
-
- 3 replies
- 936 views
-
- 88 replies
- 59.2k views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.3k
-
Total Posts351.8k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
A very quick search found this -
After mixing up 2 wheel barrow loads of cement, my back doesn't think very much of me.. thought i'd do some math instead. My digital calipers have decided to throw in the towel, bit like my back... tried different batteries no change. Was getting different readings, but consistent readings, so i took some measurements with the idea of helping kye out. Measuring from the back of the m42 lens to the furthest the lenses can protrude backwards on focusing gives me these measurements, er we have to minus 23.60 as thats what the calipers have decided is zero 🙄 17mm smc fisheye 30.80 - 23.60 - 7.2 35mm 3.5 super tak 31.80 23.60 - 8.2 35mm 2 super tak 31.70 23.60 - 8.1 50mm 1.4 super tak 32.00 23.60 - 8.4 85mm 1.9 super tak 0.3 so close to being flush 100mm smc macro flush to flange no change in length So it seems like the 50mm can protrude the furthest from what i have measured. With an ef adapter on the 50mm tukumar i get a distance of 7.4 Which makes sense as the thickness of the adapter looks to be 1mm. Which also has the effect of moving the lens away from the glass of the speed booster i would think. I am wondering at this point about your M42-EF adapter ? everything else works fine on it ? I have had 2 bad experiences with cheap adapters curious if yours is cheap ? I'd be tempted to reexamine your adapter. 50mm at full extension. Thats 8.4 mm from lens protrusion to the back of the lens. Anything on youtube as to altering the viltrox ? maybe a lens clamp seen them used on pulling lenses apart.
-
The plot thickens.... My Zeiss ZE 50/1.4 arrived and (apart from being an incredible chunk of glass and metal) it won't focus to infinity on the Viltrox EF-M2II. The Zeiss is properly seated on the Viltrox, the Viltrox is properly seated on the camera, and it's talking to the camera fine. I'm blaming the Viltrox because both the Zeiss and M42 Takumar both have the same issue, plus, the Zeiss has a hard-stop for infinity so it will be well calibrated and I'd trust their engineering over Viltrox any day! The advice online is that the optical element inside the Viltrox can be rotated to fix the issue, which makes perfect sense, only mine doesn't rotate, and I gave it a good go (with just my fingers) but it wouldn't budge. Do I just need to (carefully) attack it with tools? Any advice? -
-
Breaking news. The product is so obvious no-brainer, DJI has decided to declare a legal war against their most serious threat: https://petapixel.com/2026/06/11/dji-is-suing-insta360-for-violating-multiple-osmo-pocket-patents/
-
