So far my experience with the Russian stuff has been that the optics are consistent, it's the mechanics that vary wildly in quality from one sample to the next. The other issue is that the glass is very, very soft. Most are scratched when I get them, the ones that aren't I have to be very careful with. A really scratched up 58 makes a cool soft focus lens though! Sandblaster anyone? ;-)
Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 6:31 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: M42 lenses on *ist bodies, or, I'm an idiot > > > I'm thinking a Carl Zeiss Jena 20/2.8 MC Flektogon is the way to go for > now. $200-ish on eBay. And Super-Tak 85/1.9's are not too much more. but > I can be a real snob about glass in some cases (I'm a little hesitant to > buy russian glass, poor QC). > > -Adam > > > > Mat Maessen wrote: > > >I bought a vivitar 20/3.8 in M42 mount for about $45 about 6 months > >ago. Not the greatest lens, but it works, and the price was right. :-) > >I also have a Jupiter-9 85/2 in M42 mount. Once again, not the > >sharpest tool in the shed, but a very nice bokeh for people pictures. > >Now if I could only afford the real Pentax 20mm and 85mm lenses... > > > >-Mat > > > > > >On 1/1/06, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>That was me mentioning how well M42 lenses work on DSLR's. And the film > >>*ist should be no different for that. > >> > >>Cost savings. The M42 lenses just need metering, the K/M lenses need > >>hardware that the M42 and KA and later lenses don't require. > >> > >> >
