Adapter from Nikon to Canon

[tonwhite]

Tell me if anyone is informed there is an adapter from NikonAF to CanonEOS with all the functionality working.

[Manfred M]

So far as I am aware, that cannot be done. The Canon flange to sensor distance is the shortest of any of the mainstream DSLRs.

An adapter does two things; it allows the lens to to mate with the camera body AND to compensate for the differences in the flange to sensor distance. As long as the lens you are adapting to the camera has a longer flange to sensor distance than the camera system you are converting to, you can't build an adapter that will allow the lens to focus to infinity.

The EOS flange to sensor distance is shorter than the Nikon F, so you can't adapt a Nikon F lens to EOS. Going from EOS to Nikon F, on the other hand can be done from a mechanical / optical standpoint. EF mount is 44mm and F mount is 46.5mm.

[inkista]

...The EOS flange to sensor distance is shorter than the Nikon F, so you can't adapt a Nikon F lens to EOS. Going from EOS to Nikon F, on the other hand can be done from a mechanical / optical standpoint. EF mount is 44mm and F mount is 46.5mm. ...

Uh... Manfred...? You're gonna kick yourself You've got it backwards. Deeper mount can be adapted to shallower mount with a simple ring making up the distance difference and bayonet differences. It's shallower mount to deeper mount that requires an optical element to act as a teleconverter if you want to maintain focus to infinity and not end up in a macro-extension-tube type situation.

I adapted a Nikon F mount lens to my Canon XT back in the day.

The question here is what the OP means by Nikon AF and Canon EOS.

If we're talking Nikon F to Canon EF/EF-S then, there are simple adapter rings that allow for focus to infinity, but AFAIK, there are no autofocus-capable adapters probably (I guess) because most of the lenses being adapted are manual-focus anyway, and the main reason to want electronic communication was for aperture control. And up until the G-series lenses, all the Nikkors had aperture rings on them (unlike EOS lenses), so it wasn't a requirement to adapting.

The vast majority of the adapters for Nikon F on Canon EOS I've seen, however, have no electronic reporting, and both aperture and focus are manual. Those with aperture control do it by adding their own iris mechanism, which is a little funky.

So the answer is no not with full function, just not for the reason Manfred stated.

If by Nikon AF and Canon EOS, otoh, you mean the mirrorless Nikon Z and Canon EOS R (RF) mounts, then Manfred's reason is why that can't happen. The Nikon Z mount depth is 16mm; Canon RF mount depth is 20mm. And since it's really hard to shave 4mm off the back of a lens or off a camera lens mount, that's not going to work.

There are full-reporting autofocus-capable adapters to put EOS (EF) lenses onto Nikon Z (example). But like most of the cross-brand EOS adapters, I'd expect an AF performance hit of some kind. The only no-hit adapters are typically same-brand, like Canon's EF -> RF and EF->EF-M adapters.

[Manfred M]

Uh... Manfred...? You're gonna kick yourself You've got it backwards. Deeper mount can be adapted to shallower mount with a simple ring making up the distance difference and bayonet differences. It's shallower mount to deeper mount that requires an optical element to act as a teleconverter if you want to maintain focus to infinity and not end up in a macro-extension-tube type situation.

I adapted a Nikon F mount lens to my Canon XT back in the day.

The question here is what the OP means by Nikon AF and Canon EOS.

If we're talking Nikon F to Canon EF/EF-S then, there are simple adapter rings that allow for focus to infinity, but AFAIK, there are no autofocus-capable adapters probably (I guess) because most of the lenses being adapted are manual-focus anyway, and the main reason to want electronic communication was for aperture control. And up until the G-series lenses, all the Nikkors had aperture rings on them (unlike EOS lenses), so it wasn't a requirement to adapting.

The vast majority of the adapters for Nikon F on Canon EOS I've seen, however, have no electronic reporting, and both aperture and focus are manual. Those with aperture control do it by adding their own iris mechanism, which is a little funky.

So the answer is no not with full function, just not for the reason Manfred stated.

If by Nikon AF and Canon EOS, otoh, you mean the mirrorless Nikon Z and Canon EOS R (RF) mounts, then Manfred's reason is why that can't happen. The Nikon Z mount depth is 16mm; Canon RF mount depth is 20mm. And since it's really hard to shave 4mm off the back of a lens or off a camera lens mount, that's not going to work.

There are full-reporting autofocus-capable adapters to put EOS (EF) lenses onto Nikon Z (example). But like most of the cross-brand EOS adapters, I'd expect an AF performance hit of some kind. The only no-hit adapters are typically same-brand, like Canon's EF -> RF and EF->EF-M adapters.

Definitely a senior's moment on my part; DUH!. Thanks for catching it. My logic was impeccable, but I got that one small detail wrong and reversed (mentally) the the advice. Yes, due to the Canon's short flange to sensor distance, the Canon lenses can be used on any body, but nothing will focus to infinity when other OEM lenses would be mounted on a Canon body.

Agreed, the lens to body communications (which includes aperture settings) cannot be done electronically and manual focus plus data transfer would not be possible. Any you are right about the aperture setting. I have a Novoflex converter which I use on my Panasonic video camera (Nikon to Panasonic) and the aperture setting is a manual lever on the converter which sort of works.

In terms of "shaving" the lens down; when I got my first DSLR, I had a number of Leica-R lenses I would have liked to have used. Nikon's lens to flange distance is 0.5 mm shorter than the Leica-R one, so in theory, this could work. The problem being was that 0.5mm is not a lot of thickness to work with and there were kits on the market that allowed the user to remove the Leica-R mount from the lens and then permanently install a Nikon-F mount.

[DanK]

I may be wrong, but the I think the problem of using cross-brand adapters has nothing to do with the adapters. After all, all they need to do is connect the correct contacts on the lens to the correct contacts on the camera body. I suspect that the real problem is that the controls in lenses from manufacturer A are not designed to work with the computer in bodies from manufacturer B.

The reviews I've read are consistent with what Kathy wrote: Canon EF lenses attached to R bodies with the Canon EF => R adapters function flawlessly.

[xpatUSA]

Tell me if anyone is informed there is an adapter from NikonAF to CanonEOS with all the functionality working.

I may be wrong, but the I think the problem of using cross-brand adapters has nothing to do with the adapters.

True in terms of electronic connectivity but the factor of registration distance introduced by Manfred still remains ...

[rpcrowe]

This is slightly off subject but, maybe not. Just physically fitting one lens to a body of a different type/manufacturer is not the only problem that concerns the mixing and matching of lenses with other bodies.

When I first started using Sony bodies, I tried adapting my Canon glass with different type adapters: MC-11, Metabones Mk.4, and Viltrox Focal reducer. I found that using different Sony bodies with different Canon lenses gave different results especially in the area of auto focus.

Some lenses like the Canon 85mm f/1.8 adapted fairly well to any of my Sony eMount bodies using the MC-11 while other lenses like the 100mm f/2.8 Macro hardly worked at all despite the type of adapter I tried.

Surprisingly, the lowly Viltrox Focal Reducer EOS to eMount generally worked best with the spectrum of EOS full frame lenses (especially those of a longer focal length) on the Sony APSC bodies. The Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens auto focused very well on my A6500 using the Viltrox focal reducer.

I did not see any advantage with the Metabones.

My point is that one probably cannot give an all-encompassing reply to whether a lens family can be adapted to different bodies.

However, I did not find any adapted combination which worked as well as native eMount lenses on any of my Sony bodies. I realized this when I purchased the Sony 50mm f/1.8 OSS lens. The auto focus was night and day better than any of my adapted glass.

However, if I am willing to work with manual focus lenses, I can adapt virtually any lens from any manufacturer with a cheap adapter. Of course, I need an adapter which will mesh with the lens I am using. I love some of the older Legacy lenses for the renditions they achieve.

I have an off-brand (Kipon M42 to eMount) focal reducer which works great with older Legacy lenses on my Sony APSC cameras. The virtual increase in aperture makes an f/4 lens into f/2.8 and an f/2.8 lens into f/2.0. This is great for portraiture and it also negates the crop factor in using those lenses.

[inkista]

...My point is that one probably cannot give an all-encompassing reply to whether a lens family can be adapted to different bodies....

I still gave it the old college try.

https://photo.stackexchange.com/ques...camera-brand-y

[inkista]

... In terms of "shaving" the lens down; when I got my first DSLR, I had a number of Leica-R lenses I would have liked to have used. Nikon's lens to flange distance is 0.5 mm shorter than the Leica-R one, so in theory, this could work. The problem being was that 0.5mm is not a lot of thickness to work with and there were kits on the market that allowed the user to remove the Leica-R mount from the lens and then permanently install a Nikon-F mount.

Yup. I usually give the Leitax lens mount replacement kits a footnote for specific lens/body combos. There were also a few C/Y (Zeiss!) and OM mount lenses that could use them for Nikon F. A similar Canon case would be the old Minolta MC Rokkor 58/1.2. One of those combos where the difference is small enough that replacing the lens mount would with a Leitax kit would work.

[lunaticitizen]

I still gave it the old college try.

https://photo.stackexchange.com/ques...camera-brand-y

Wow. How long did it take to compose that kind of detailed answer?

[William W]

Wow. How long did it take to compose that kind of detailed answer?

Kathy knows her oats.

One of the most articulate, technically correct, informed and detailed writers I have ever had the pleasure to read; and not just here at CiC.

WW

[inkista]

Wow. How long did it take to compose that kind of detailed answer?

Don't try this at home kids. First draft probably didn't take that long. I used to be a professional technical writer, and I type about 100 wpm, so blorfing out a ton of text quickly, and organizing it to have flow are among my superpowers. And the key here is that to me, this type of article is never finished. I tend to continually tweak it. A minute here or there to clarify, add footnote, a link, reorganize a new thought, respond to a comment someone makes, that sort of thing.

Stackexchange encourages continual editing, both by the author and by other folks on SE. What you're seeing there is version 26 (granted, SE's automated editing to change http links to https links constitutes a version; fixing a typo is a version). I wrote the first draft in April of 2015, according to the revision history and that same day ran through 13 tweaks over the next 24 hours. [grin]. But total time spent that first day? Maybe... two hours? It's the continual tweaking, though that makes it easy to make it thorough and clear. First draft wasn't formatted or organized like that.

I think the Yongnuo model tracking one had twice as many versions. The Godox-not-firing one is only on v9. The Godox firmware troubleshooting one got a massive edit/update about a year and a half after I wrote it when I finally tried to use Windows 10 to update a device, and I ran into the driver signing issue. It's like that.

Kathy knows her oats.

One of the most articulate, technically correct, informed and detailed writers I have ever had the pleasure to read; and not just here at CiC.

Awww. Thanks!!! I try to use my superpowers for good.

[lunaticitizen]

Don't try this at home kids. First draft probably didn't take that long. I used to be a professional technical writer, and I type about 100 wpm, so blorfing out a ton of text quickly, and organizing it to have flow are among my superpowers. And the key here is that to me, this type of article is never finished. I tend to continually tweak it. A minute here or there to clarify, add footnote, a link, reorganize a new thought, respond to a comment someone makes, that sort of thing.

Stackexchange encourages continual editing, both by the author and by other folks on SE. What you're seeing there is version 26 (granted, SE's automated editing to change http links to https links constitutes a version; fixing a typo is a version). I wrote the first draft in April of 2015, according to the revision history and that same day ran through 13 tweaks over the next 24 hours. [grin]. But total time spent that first day? Maybe... two hours? It's the continual tweaking, though that makes it easy to make it thorough and clear. First draft wasn't formatted or organized like that.

I think the Yongnuo model tracking one had twice as many versions. The Godox-not-firing one is only on v9. The Godox firmware troubleshooting one got a massive edit/update about a year and a half after I wrote it when I finally tried to use Windows 10 to update a device, and I ran into the driver signing issue. It's like that.

Thanks for the explanation. I used to read Stack Overflow a lot when I started learning Python more than a decade ago. I was usually a leecher instead of a contributor, though.

[William W]

. . . I used to be a professional technical writer, and I type about 100 wpm, so blorfing out a ton of text quickly, and organizing it to have flow are among my superpowers. And the key here is that to me, this type of article is never finished. I tend to continually tweak it. . . I try to use my superpowers for good. . .

I reckon, the key to being 'professional' anything, is "to continually tweak it" - AND - to "try to use superpowers for good".

WW

[inkista]

Thanks for the explanation. I used to read Stack Overflow a lot when I started learning Python more than a decade ago. I was usually a leecher instead of a contributor, though.

Basically what I do on every other SE. And questions, comments, and voting are just as important to how SE works.

[inkista]

I reckon, the key to being 'professional' anything, is "to continually tweak it" - AND - to "try to use superpowers for good". ...

Yup. I went to a lighting workshop taught by Kyle Cassidy, and saw what that looks like with photography. Absolute bull-headed stubborn determination not just to get a shot but to get the shot. He kept pushing and experimenting long after I would've walked away. It was a real education seeing how that worked and how the professional mindset differs from the amateur one.