Re: M42 ultra-wide

[David Nelson]

Only the recently announced (not yet available) DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited 
(Pancake lens).

David
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
your answer doesn't meet the terms of the question.
Are there any other PENTAX DA prime lenses besides the
14mm?
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 1:08 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide

The Nikon 14 is actually a Tamron 14 clone, with ED element. At least
that's 
what Tamron HK said.

Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan

BTW, are there any other Pentax PRIME DA lenses
other than the 14mm F2.8?
JCO

RE: M42 ultra-wide

[Rob Studdert]

On 26 Oct 2004 at 22:13, Alan Chan wrote:

> Maybe someone with better memory can have the final word. A15/3.5 was my 
> dream lens back in early 90's and I saw it advertised in PopPhoto Magazine at
> US$6xx. I don't have any old magazines to double check now of course.

I bought mine new late 1997 in the US at US$969 and it was on a shelf not made 
to order, I probably paid too much.


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: M42 ultra-wides

[edwin]

Thanks to whoever tipped me off to kevinscameras.com, but the 15/3.5
lenses they have are SMC-Pentax (K-mount) not SMC-Takumar (M42).
K-mount 15s aren't that hard to find since they were made in K and A 
versions from 1975 until 1980-something and apparently still availible by 
special order, and I'll bet that third-party 14/2.8s can be had in K-mount.  
M42 is a lot trickier since they only made 15/3.5s in M42 mount from 
1974-1975 and the only new M42 cameras made since the 1970s are those 
retro Bessaflex thingies and oddball Russian models.

Believe it or not, somebody makes an adapter to put K-mount lenses on 
M42 cameras, but it's got glass in it and it's likely to really destroy 
the optical performance of something like a 15mm lens, even after
the APS-sized sensor crops the edges off.

DJE

RE: M42 ultra-wide

[J. C. O'Connell]

your answer doesn't meet the terms of the question.
Are there any other PENTAX DA prime lenses besides the
14mm?
JCO

-Original Message-
From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 1:08 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide


The Nikon 14 is actually a Tamron 14 clone, with ED element. At least
that's 
what Tamron HK said.

Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan

>BTW, are there any other Pentax PRIME DA lenses
>other than the 14mm F2.8?
>
>JCO

RE: M42 ultra-wide

[Alan Chan]

Maybe someone with better memory can have the final word. A15/3.5 was my 
dream lens back in early 90's and I saw it advertised in PopPhoto Magazine 
at US$6xx. I don't have any old magazines to double check now of course.

Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
I do not believe the 15mm K or 15mm A was ever a $699 lens
either list price or street retail price for new.  Not even close
and you have probably got it backwards, it is made
on order (special order?) because it is expensive, not expensive because
its made on order.
JCO

RE: M42 ultra-wide

[Alan Chan]

The Nikon 14 is actually a Tamron 14 clone, with ED element. At least that's 
what Tamron HK said.

Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
BTW, are there any other Pentax PRIME DA lenses
other than the 14mm F2.8?
JCO

RE: M42 ultra-wide

[J. C. O'Connell]

I do not believe the 15mm K or 15mm A was ever a $699 lens
either list price or street retail price for new.  Not even close
and you have probably got it backwards, it is made
on order (special order?) because it is expensive, not expensive because
its made on order.
JCO

-Original Message-
From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 12:43 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide


>Secondly, isnt a 15mm F3.5 A lens like $2000 list?


Well, US$6xx not that many years ago.  :-)  It is expensive now probably

because they are made on order.

Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan

RE: M42 ultra-wide

[Alan Chan]

Secondly, isnt a 15mm F3.5 A lens like $2000 list?

Well, US$6xx not that many years ago.  :-)  It is expensive now probably 
because they are made on order.

Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan

Re: M42 ultra-wide

[edwin]

William Robb said:

>The A 15mm f/3.5 offers 35mm coverage with 13 elements in 12 groups, 
>3.1 inches long by 3.3 inches in diameter, and a comparatively 
>porcine 20.9 ounces. It also gives up uncomfortably close to a stop 
>of speed.

Assuming it's useful wide open, which I've heard that it might not be
for some people's standards--if the 14 is better wide open then it's more 
like a two stop difference.  I haven't had the money to fiddle with 
anybody's 15mm lens to know how good they are at any aperture--most of 
the 15mm lens designs are rather old.  I bought a cheap sigma 14mm lens 
and have regretted it every time I use it.

>The Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 is also very big, a little bigger than the 
>Pentax 15mm and 2.5 ounces heavier.

Wrong comparison.  The 15/3.5 Pentax dates optically to 1974.  The 14/2.8 
Nikkor to the late '90s or early '00s.  Compare the 15/3.5 Pentax to the
15/3.5 AIS Nikkor which is much closer to a contemporary.  The 14 Pentax 
is much more rightly compared to the 14 Nikkor, despite one being 35mm and 
the other being APS-format.

>While the APS coverage lens is certainly smaller and lighter, it 
>isn't hugely smaller, and surprisingly heavy.

One doesn't know what a 14/2.8 non-DA Pentax would look like.  The
12-24 APS-format Nikkor isn't small, light, or cheap as most people
assumed an APS-format lens would be, but it's probably a lot smaller
and cheaper than it would be in 35mm format (assuming you could even do it 
with 35mm coverage...)

>There is certainly the matter of cost to factor in, the 15mm was a 
>bloody expensive lens.

What gets me is that I HAVE seen 15/3.5 Pentax lenses (K-mount, never 
M42, of which there are apparently less than 1000) for sale,
for less than $1000 used.  The 15/3.5 Nikkor, which is fairly common on 
the used market right now, goes for over $1000 despite the availibility of 
Nikkor and third-party 14/2.8 lenses that are AF, newer, and from 
everything I've hear much better optically.  The 14mm Nikkor goes for 
something like $1300 new--I wish I'd bought one instead of the crappy 
Sigma I did buy.

DJE

RE: M42 ultra-wide

[J. C. O'Connell]

Most people don't "need" a camera at all either, high performance
cameras are generally a "want" item, not a "need" item.

JCO

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

edited

>If Pentax were to release a FF
>digital body that is affordable (or becomes affordable), then a 
>wide-angle APS prime would only be of real value on the body with an
APS sized 
>sensor.

Don't hold your breath.  It will probably happen sooner or later, but by

then the current generation will be totally obsolete.  The bottom of the

FF market right now is about $4500, with the next jump up at $8000. Most
people simply don't need FF sensors.

RE: M42 ultra-wide

[edwin]

Tom said: 

>I'm coming to the conclusion that I can't find a really good reason to 
>buy an 'APS' sized lens, especially if one already has some regular 35mm 
>lenses that work perfectly fine on the *ist D.  

The main reason for 'APS' sized lenses is to make ultra-ultra-wides and 
ultra-wide zooms that are not obscenely big, expensive, or awful.  Pentax 
doesn't make a 35mm-format 14mm lens, so you HAVE to get the DA, or a 
third party lens.  This is a bit odd, since almost EVERYBODY else makes
a 35mm-format 14mm lens.
Increasingly, another reason is to make lenses for DSLRs smaller and 
cheaper.  A third viable reason for 'APS' format lenses is that the
front element can be smaller, which is a real advantage in some ways.

>If Pentax were to release a FF 
>digital body that is affordable (or becomes affordable), then a 
>wide-angle APS prime would only be of real value on the body with an APS sized 
>sensor.

Don't hold your breath.  It will probably happen sooner or later, but by 
then the current generation will be totally obsolete.  The bottom of the 
FF market right now is about $4500, with the next jump up at $8000.
Most people simply don't need FF sensors.

>It seems to me that digital bodies and lenses would quickly become 
>disposable (throwaway/almost never used).  I'd rather buy a 35mm lens 
>than 
>invest in the smaller format lenses.

Most DSLRs are owned by certain types of professionals (high volume, high 
speed) and in those fields cameras, especially digital cameras, ARE 
considered expendable.  It's cheaper to use up a DSLR in three years and 
buy a newer model than it is to pay film costs for three years.  That's 
the main reason many genres of pro photography have gone digital.

>In a couple of years I bet the *istD will be the equivalent of the Pentax 
>110 SLR.

Lots of people say that the current 6MP SLRs have sufficient quality to
do pro work.  If that's true, they'll always be good enough even if 
state-of-the-art is a lot better.  110 was always acknowleged to be a 
tradeoff in quality for size and ease-of-use.   You rarely saw "serious" 
photographers with 110 cameras.

DJE

RE: M42 ultra-wide

[J. C. O'Connell]

the contention was APS lenses have a lot
of advantages over FF lenses on APS bodies. FF ability is
not an advantage on a APS body.
JCO

-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: M42 ultra-wide



- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide


> see my last post, I was pointing out
> the benefit of APS lenses on APS cameras
> vs FF lenses on APS cameras WITH SAME FOCAL
> LENGTH, They would both have exact same AOV
> on a APS camera.

But they wouldn't work on full frame, and as I pointed out in my last 
post, the size difference, while there, is not as dramatic as you are 
making it out to be.

William Robb 

RE: M42 ultra-wide

[J. C. O'Connell]

It is going to be more than you suggest, see my last post.
You werent comparing KA lenses of same
focal length and speed in your
comparison. the Nikon has a different
flange distance, not sure which way,
and a hate to ask but HOW MUCH for
a Nikon 14mm F2.8 lens? I have a feeling
it's a lot  more than $699 huh?

BTW, are there any other Pentax PRIME DA lenses
other than the 14mm F2.8? 


JCO

-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: M42 ultra-wide



- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide


> see my last post, I was pointing out
> the benefit of APS lenses on APS cameras
> vs FF lenses on APS cameras WITH SAME FOCAL
> LENGTH, They would both have exact same AOV
> on a APS camera.

But they wouldn't work on full frame, and as I pointed out in my last 
post, the size difference, while there, is not as dramatic as you are 
making it out to be.

William Robb 

RE: M42 ultra-wide

[J. C. O'Connell]

The original poster said he wanted a ultra-wide lens
for the *istD only at this time but didn't want to buy APS
lens because he thought APS sensors will be
obsolete soon and I explained that it still 
makes a lot of sense to go with APS lenses
even if they go obsolete because the things
I mentioned like size, weight, lower cost, and likely
optical advantages too.

And in your example below 14mm is wider than 15mm
and F2.8 is faster. If the the APS lens in question was 15mm F3.5 DA
it most certainly would be smaller and lighter and
cheaper than it is now as a 14mm F2.8 DA.

Secondly, isnt a 15mm F3.5 A lens like $2000 list?
Is the i4mm 2.8 DA lens $699 list or $699 retail street price?
JCO

-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: M42 ultra-wide



- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide


> wrong comparison, I said using APS lens of
> same focal length as FF lens makes sense when using
> a APS camera (istd). Someone claimed that they
> would never buy APS type lenses and I was pointing
> out the advantages to them.
>
> You would only have to compare the size weight
> and cost of two 14mm lenses one FF, and
> one APS to see what I was talking about.

Your comparison is absolutely correct, but not of much use, unless 
all you are shooting is APS sized.
The DA 14mm

The DA 14mm f/2.8 offers APS sized coverage in a lens with 12 elements
in 11 groups. It takes a 77mm filter is 3.3 inches in diameter, 2.7
inches long, and weighs 14.8 oz.

The A 15mm f/3.5 offers 35mm coverage with 13 elements in 12 groups, 
3.1 inches long by 3.3 inches in diameter, and a comparatively 
porcine 20.9 ounces. It also gives up uncomfortably close to a stop 
of speed.

The Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 is also very big, a little bigger than the 
Pentax 15mm and 2.5 ounces heavier.

While the APS coverage lens is certainly smaller and lighter, it 
isn't hugely smaller, and surprisingly heavy.

There is certainly the matter of cost to factor in, the 15mm was a 
bloody expensive lens.

The advantage that the 15 has is that it works on full frame 35mm, 
something the DA lens doesn't.

William Robb

Re: M42 ultra-wide

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide


see my last post, I was pointing out
the benefit of APS lenses on APS cameras
vs FF lenses on APS cameras WITH SAME FOCAL
LENGTH, They would both have exact same AOV
on a APS camera.
But they wouldn't work on full frame, and as I pointed out in my last 
post, the size difference, while there, is not as dramatic as you are 
making it out to be.

William Robb 

Re: M42 ultra-wide

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide


wrong comparison, I said using APS lens of
same focal length as FF lens makes sense when using
a APS camera (istd). Someone claimed that they
would never buy APS type lenses and I was pointing
out the advantages to them.
You would only have to compare the size weight
and cost of two 14mm lenses one FF, and
one APS to see what I was talking about.
Your comparison is absolutely correct, but not of much use, unless 
all you are shooting is APS sized.
The DA 14mm

The DA 14mm f/2.8 offers APS sized coverage in a lens with 12
elements in 11 groups.
It takes a 77mm filter is 3.3 inches in diameter, 2.7 inches long,
and weighs 14.8 oz.
The A 15mm f/3.5 offers 35mm coverage with 13 elements in 12 groups, 
3.1 inches long by 3.3 inches in diameter, and a comparatively 
porcine 20.9 ounces. It also gives up uncomfortably close to a stop 
of speed.

The Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 is also very big, a little bigger than the 
Pentax 15mm and 2.5 ounces heavier.

While the APS coverage lens is certainly smaller and lighter, it 
isn't hugely smaller, and surprisingly heavy.

There is certainly the matter of cost to factor in, the 15mm was a 
bloody expensive lens.

The advantage that the 15 has is that it works on full frame 35mm, 
something the DA lens doesn't.

William Robb

RE: M42 ultra-wide

[J. C. O'Connell]

David Nelson wins pop quiz!

The reason the 14mm DA lens on a istD is so damn complex
is the incredible 0.307 retrofocus factor. the focal length
is only about 31% of the flange distance.

The ff 20mm lens is still impressive but it only has
a 0.439 retrofocus factor (f.l. = 44% of flange distance).

This is a huge disadvantge for wide angle lenses in a APS camera with
35mm
legacy design. The flange distance is way out of proportion
for the size of the sensor for good application of wide angle lenses.

JCO

-Original Message-
From: David Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: M42 ultra-wide


I think that rob's point is that while focal length is nearly the same,
AOV isn't, and hence a comparison of AOV is more pertinant to the
discussion of APS vs FF. Comparing the DA 14mm with the FA 20mm shows
nicely how the APS lens isn't a saving in size and weight (or
cost!) for an equivalent AOV.
You talk about an APS camera. The *ist D is not one of these - it's a
35mm body with an APS sized sensor in it. An APS camera would have a
smaller lens-film distance, a smaller mount or something like that. The
*ist D is saddled with 35mm's heritage.

Cheers,
Procrastinating David

RE: M42 ultra-wide

[J. C. O'Connell]

see my last post, I was pointing out
the benefit of APS lenses on APS cameras
vs FF lenses on APS cameras WITH SAME FOCAL
LENGTH, They would both have exact same AOV
on a APS camera.
JCO

-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: M42 ultra-wide



- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide


> your comparison is not what I was talking
> about. I was talking about two lenses of
> the same focal length, one designed only
> to cover APS and one designed to cover
> FF 35mm.

I think to make a valid comparison, angle of view must be taken into 
account, since the different formats require different focal lengths 
to get similar feild of view.

>
> BTW out of curiosity, what is the size and price of the lenses you 
> mentioned?

See my other post on this topic for size.
Check yer favourite retailer for price.

William Robb

RE: M42 ultra-wide

[J. C. O'Connell]

wrong comparison, I said using APS lens of
same focal length as FF lens makes sense when using 
a APS camera (istd). Someone claimed that they
would never buy APS type lenses and I was pointing
out the advantages to them.

You would only have to compare the size weight
and cost of two 14mm lenses one FF, and
one APS to see what I was talking about.
JCO

-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 8:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: M42 ultra-wide



- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide


>I think the APS sized lens makes sense for one
> thing, the widest lenses, under 20mm. The reason
> is they would be much smaller and less expensive
> than ones designed to cover full frame 35mm and
> theretically they could also be sharper and more
> contrasty because far fewer elements would be
> needed to cover the APS angle vs, the full frame
> angle of the same focal length.

You might want to rethink that, based on products that are on the 
shelves.

The DA 14mm f/2.8 offers APS sized coverage in a lens with 12 
elements in 11 groups.
It takes a 77mm filter is 3.3 inches in diameter, 2.7 inches long, 
and weighs 14.8 oz.

This lens has approximately the same angle of view as a 20mm lens has 
on 35mm.

The FA 20mm f/2.8 has 10 elements in 9 groups, uses a 67mm filter is 
1.73 inches long, 2.75 inches in diameter and weighs in at 9 oz.

The APS coverage lens is substantially larger and heavier, and has 
more glass than it's equivalent lens coverage in full frame 35mm. I
realize this is one example only.

William Robb

RE: M42 ultra-wide

[J. C. O'Connell]

sorry I meant kA-mount APS size digital sensor camera when I  said APS
camera
JCO


-Original Message-
From: David Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: M42 ultra-wide


I think that rob's point is that while focal length is nearly the same,
AOV isn't, and hence a comparison of AOV is more pertinant to the
discussion of APS vs FF. Comparing the DA 14mm with the FA 20mm shows
nicely how the APS lens isn't a saving in size and weight (or
cost!) for an equivalent AOV.
You talk about an APS camera. The *ist D is not one of these - it's a
35mm body with an APS sized sensor in it. An APS camera would have a
smaller lens-film distance, a smaller mount or something like that. The
*ist D is saddled with 35mm's heritage.

Cheers,
Procrastinating David

Re: M42 ultra-wide

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide


thanks for sending the info on the lenses you
mentioned. Time for a pop quiz.
Anybody know why a 14mm DA lens with 90 degrees
coverage would be bigger, slower, and costlier to make than the 20
mm lens with 94 degress coverage ASSUMING identical image
quality?
I am pretty sure I know why. The reason seems obvious
to me but what do you all think the reason is?
The placement of the rear nodal point outside the lens has a lot to 
do with it.
Removing the mirror assembly would allow the lens designers a lot of 
freedom to make smaller lenses, at the expense of TTL viewfinders.

William Robb 

Re: M42 ultra-wide

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide


your comparison is not what I was talking
about. I was talking about two lenses of
the same focal length, one designed only
to cover APS and one designed to cover
FF 35mm.
I think to make a valid comparison, angle of view must be taken into 
account, since the different formats require different focal lengths 
to get similar feild of view.

BTW out of curiosity, what is the size and price of the lenses
you mentioned?
See my other post on this topic for size.
Check yer favourite retailer for price.
William Robb

Re: M42 ultra-wide

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide


I think the APS sized lens makes sense for one
thing, the widest lenses, under 20mm. The reason
is they would be much smaller and less expensive
than ones designed to cover full frame 35mm and
theretically they could also be sharper and more
contrasty because far fewer elements would be
needed to cover the APS angle vs, the full frame
angle of the same focal length.
You might want to rethink that, based on products that are on the 
shelves.

The DA 14mm f/2.8 offers APS sized coverage in a lens with 12 
elements in 11 groups.
It takes a 77mm filter is 3.3 inches in diameter, 2.7 inches long, 
and weighs 14.8 oz.

This lens has approximately the same angle of view as a 20mm lens has 
on 35mm.

The FA 20mm f/2.8 has 10 elements in 9 groups, uses a 67mm filter is 
1.73 inches long, 2.75 inches in diameter and weighs in at 9 oz.

The APS coverage lens is substantially larger and heavier, and has 
more glass than it's equivalent lens coverage in full frame 35mm.
I realize this is one example only.

William Robb

Re: M42 ultra-wide

[David Nelson]

> Anybody know why a 14mm DA lens with 90 degrees
> coverage would be bigger, slower, and costlier to make than the 20
> mm lens with 94 degress coverage ASSUMING identical image
> quality?

The heritage of 35mm - as I just said, I suspect it's distance to film
plane. Don't know enough about it for this to be more than
speculation.

Re: M42 ultra-wide

[David Nelson]

I think that rob's point is that while focal length is nearly the
same, AOV isn't, and hence a comparison of AOV is more pertinant to
the discussion of APS vs FF. Comparing the DA 14mm with the FA 20mm
shows nicely how the APS lens isn't a saving in size and weight (or
cost!) for an equivalent AOV.
You talk about an APS camera. The *ist D is not one of these - it's a
35mm body with an APS sized sensor in it. An APS camera would have a
smaller lens-film distance, a smaller mount or something like that.
The *ist D is saddled with 35mm's heritage.

Cheers,
Procrastinating David

RE: M42 ultra-wide

[J. C. O'Connell]

thanks for sending the info on the lenses you
mentioned. Time for a pop quiz.

Anybody know why a 14mm DA lens with 90 degrees
coverage would be bigger, slower, and costlier to make than the 20
mm lens with 94 degress coverage ASSUMING identical image
quality?

I am pretty sure I know why. The reason seems obvious
to me but what do you all think the reason is?

JCO

-Original Message-
From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 8:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide


HUH? two lenses of same focal length will always have
SAME AOV on same camera. I was talking about the merits
of using a APS designed lens on a APS camera
vs the waste of using a FF 35mm (24x36) lens
on a APS camera.

JCO

-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 8:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide


On 26 Oct 2004 at 19:57, J. C. O'Connell wrote:

> your comparison is not what I was talking
> about. I was talking about two lenses of
> the same focal length, one designed only
> to cover APS and one designed to cover
> FF 35mm.

So what is the point drawing comparisons between lenses with different
final 
AOV?

> BTW out of curiosity, what is the size and price of the lenses you
> mentioned?

FA20/2.8, L 1.7", D 2.7", W 0.56 lb, AOV (35mm) 94 Degrees, $499.95
(B&H) DA14/2.8, L 2.7", D 3.3", W 14.8 oz, AOV (APS) 90 Degrees, $699.95
(B&H)


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

RE: M42 ultra-wide

[J. C. O'Connell]

HUH? two lenses of same focal length will always have
SAME AOV on same camera. I was talking about the merits
of using a APS designed lens on a APS camera
vs the waste of using a FF 35mm (24x36) lens
on a APS camera.

JCO

-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 8:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide


On 26 Oct 2004 at 19:57, J. C. O'Connell wrote:

> your comparison is not what I was talking
> about. I was talking about two lenses of
> the same focal length, one designed only
> to cover APS and one designed to cover
> FF 35mm.

So what is the point drawing comparisons between lenses with different
final 
AOV?

> BTW out of curiosity, what is the size and price of the lenses you 
> mentioned?

FA20/2.8, L 1.7", D 2.7", W 0.56 lb, AOV (35mm) 94 Degrees, $499.95
(B&H) DA14/2.8, L 2.7", D 3.3", W 14.8 oz, AOV (APS) 90 Degrees, $699.95
(B&H)


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

RE: M42 ultra-wide

[Rob Studdert]

On 26 Oct 2004 at 19:57, J. C. O'Connell wrote:

> your comparison is not what I was talking
> about. I was talking about two lenses of
> the same focal length, one designed only
> to cover APS and one designed to cover
> FF 35mm.

So what is the point drawing comparisons between lenses with different final 
AOV?

> BTW out of curiosity, what is the size and price of the lenses
> you mentioned?

FA20/2.8, L 1.7", D 2.7", W 0.56 lb, AOV (35mm) 94 Degrees, $499.95 (B&H)
DA14/2.8, L 2.7", D 3.3", W 14.8 oz, AOV (APS) 90 Degrees, $699.95 (B&H)


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

RE: M42 ultra-wide

[J. C. O'Connell]

your comparison is not what I was talking
about. I was talking about two lenses of
the same focal length, one designed only
to cover APS and one designed to cover
FF 35mm.

BTW out of curiosity, what is the size and price of the lenses
you mentioned?
JCO

-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 6:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide


On 26 Oct 2004 at 15:57, J. C. O'Connell wrote:

> I think the APS sized lens makes sense for one
> thing, the widest lenses, under 20mm. The reason
> is they would be much smaller and less expensive
> than ones designed to cover full frame 35mm and
> theretically they could also be sharper and more
> contrasty because far fewer elements would be
> needed to cover the APS angle vs, the full frame
> angle of the same focal length.

There is no need to theorize regarding most of your points. Just compare
the 
size, construction and price of the DA14/2.8 and the FA20/2.8.


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: M42 ultra-wide

[Herb Chong]

that's a big IF. lenses that were acceptable on film are no longer so on the
*istD. if you have excellent sharpness lenses, you don't have to worry. if
you have "consumer" grade lenses, test to see if they are good enough for
you.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 2:18 PM
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide


> I'm coming to the conclusion that I can't find a really good reason to buy
> an 'APS' sized lens, especially if one already has some regular 35mm
lenses
> that work perfectly fine on the *ist D.

RE: M42 ultra-wide

[Rob Studdert]

On 26 Oct 2004 at 15:57, J. C. O'Connell wrote:

> I think the APS sized lens makes sense for one
> thing, the widest lenses, under 20mm. The reason
> is they would be much smaller and less expensive
> than ones designed to cover full frame 35mm and
> theretically they could also be sharper and more
> contrasty because far fewer elements would be
> needed to cover the APS angle vs, the full frame
> angle of the same focal length.

There is no need to theorize regarding most of your points. Just compare the 
size, construction and price of the DA14/2.8 and the FA20/2.8.


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: M42 ultra-wide

[Jim Apilado]

The Pentax 110 was a curious system for Pentax to release.  When I collected
cameras,  I picked up the camera and all of the lenses that went with it,
including the big tele unit.  Even got the transparent and beige colored
models.

Jim A.

> From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:18:08 -0600
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:19:18 -0400
> 
> I'm coming to the conclusion that I can't find a really good reason to buy
> an 'APS' sized lens, especially if one already has some regular 35mm lenses
> that work perfectly fine on the *ist D.  If Pentax were to release a FF
> digital body that is affordable (or becomes affordable), then a wide-angle
> APS prime would only be of real value on the body with an APS sized sensor.
> 
> It seems to me that digital bodies and lenses would quickly become
> disposable (throwaway/almost never used).  I'd rather buy a 35mm lens than
> invest in the smaller format lenses.
> 
> In a couple of years I bet the *istD will be the equivalent of the Pentax
> 110 SLR.
> 
> 
> 
> Tom C.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide
>> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:30:26 -0400
>> 
>> are there no APS format prime lenses with the KA mount
>> wider than 20mm? It seems absurd to use a huge expensive lens like
>> the 15mm SMCT/K/KA for APS sensor format.
>> JCO
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:22 AM
>> To: pentax list
>> Subject: Re: M42 ultra-wide
>> 
>> 
>> On 25/10/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
>> 
>>> Are the 15/3.5 SMC-Takumars actually
>>> availible now and then?
>> 
>> I've seen one in a long time and that was actually a K mount. They do
>> exist apparently.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Cotty
>> 
>> 
>> ___/\__
>> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
>> ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
>> _
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

RE: M42 ultra-wide

[J. C. O'Connell]

I think the APS sized lens makes sense for one
thing, the widest lenses, under 20mm. The reason
is they would be much smaller and less expensive
than ones designed to cover full frame 35mm and
theretically they could also be sharper and more
contrasty because far fewer elements would be
needed to cover the APS angle vs, the full frame
angle of the same focal length.

On the other hand if the APS digital format 
fades away then the APS lens would have little resale
value but the initial cost would be so much less to
begin with that it wouldn't be much to worry about.

JCO

-Original Message-
From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 2:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide


I'm coming to the conclusion that I can't find a really good reason to
buy 
an 'APS' sized lens, especially if one already has some regular 35mm
lenses 
that work perfectly fine on the *ist D.  If Pentax were to release a FF 
digital body that is affordable (or becomes affordable), then a
wide-angle 
APS prime would only be of real value on the body with an APS sized
sensor.

It seems to me that digital bodies and lenses would quickly become 
disposable (throwaway/almost never used).  I'd rather buy a 35mm lens
than 
invest in the smaller format lenses.

In a couple of years I bet the *istD will be the equivalent of the
Pentax 
110 SLR.



Tom C.




>From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide
>Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:30:26 -0400
>
>are there no APS format prime lenses with the KA mount
>wider than 20mm? It seems absurd to use a huge expensive lens like the 
>15mm SMCT/K/KA for APS sensor format. JCO
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:22 AM
>To: pentax list
>Subject: Re: M42 ultra-wide
>
>
>On 25/10/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> > Are the 15/3.5 SMC-Takumars actually
> >availible now and then?
>
>I've seen one in a long time and that was actually a K mount. They do 
>exist apparently.
>
>
>
>
>Cheers,
>   Cotty
>
>
>___/\__
>||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
>||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
>_
>
>

RE: M42 ultra-wide

[pnstenquist]

I don't expect to buy a lot of DA lenses, but I'm quite pleased with the one I have, 
and I could be talked into the 14/2.8. 

I don't think the *istD will ever be the equivalent of the 110SLR. Because the *istD 
will always be capable of producing good images no matter what advances follow it. And 
the 110SLR never was and never will be capable of producing good images.


> I'm coming to the conclusion that I can't find a really good reason to buy 
> an 'APS' sized lens, especially if one already has some regular 35mm lenses 
> that work perfectly fine on the *ist D.  If Pentax were to release a FF 
> digital body that is affordable (or becomes affordable), then a wide-angle 
> APS prime would only be of real value on the body with an APS sized sensor.
> 
> It seems to me that digital bodies and lenses would quickly become 
> disposable (throwaway/almost never used).  I'd rather buy a 35mm lens than 
> invest in the smaller format lenses.
> 
> In a couple of years I bet the *istD will be the equivalent of the Pentax 
> 110 SLR.
> 
> 
> 
> Tom C.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide
> >Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:30:26 -0400
> >
> >are there no APS format prime lenses with the KA mount
> >wider than 20mm? It seems absurd to use a huge expensive lens like
> >the 15mm SMCT/K/KA for APS sensor format.
> >JCO
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:22 AM
> >To: pentax list
> >Subject: Re: M42 ultra-wide
> >
> >
> >On 25/10/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
> >
> > > Are the 15/3.5 SMC-Takumars actually
> > >availible now and then?
> >
> >I've seen one in a long time and that was actually a K mount. They do
> >exist apparently.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Cheers,
> >   Cotty
> >
> >
> >___/\__
> >||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> >||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
> >_
> >
> >
> 
> 

RE: M42 ultra-wide

[Tom C]

I'm coming to the conclusion that I can't find a really good reason to buy 
an 'APS' sized lens, especially if one already has some regular 35mm lenses 
that work perfectly fine on the *ist D.  If Pentax were to release a FF 
digital body that is affordable (or becomes affordable), then a wide-angle 
APS prime would only be of real value on the body with an APS sized sensor.

It seems to me that digital bodies and lenses would quickly become 
disposable (throwaway/almost never used).  I'd rather buy a 35mm lens than 
invest in the smaller format lenses.

In a couple of years I bet the *istD will be the equivalent of the Pentax 
110 SLR.


Tom C.


From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:30:26 -0400
are there no APS format prime lenses with the KA mount
wider than 20mm? It seems absurd to use a huge expensive lens like
the 15mm SMCT/K/KA for APS sensor format.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:22 AM
To: pentax list
Subject: Re: M42 ultra-wide
On 25/10/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
> Are the 15/3.5 SMC-Takumars actually
>availible now and then?
I've seen one in a long time and that was actually a K mount. They do
exist apparently.

Cheers,
  Cotty
___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: M42 ultra-wide

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide


are there no APS format prime lenses with the KA mount
wider than 20mm? It seems absurd to use a huge expensive lens like
the 15mm SMCT/K/KA for APS sensor format.
DA14mm, DA 16-45, A 18-55 (covers full frame, but not well).
I like the 15mm because I can use it on my film cameras as well, so 
it makes sense to me.

William Robb 

Re: M42 ultra-wide

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide


There is a 15mm SMCT on ebay now but the bids over $1100.
Sheesh, if thats US$, it's not far off what I paid for my brand new 
in the box A15/3.5 this past spring.

William Robb 

RE: M42 ultra-wide

[J. C. O'Connell]

are there no APS format prime lenses with the KA mount
wider than 20mm? It seems absurd to use a huge expensive lens like
the 15mm SMCT/K/KA for APS sensor format.
JCO

-Original Message-
From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:22 AM
To: pentax list
Subject: Re: M42 ultra-wide


On 25/10/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:

> Are the 15/3.5 SMC-Takumars actually
>availible now and then?

I've seen one in a long time and that was actually a K mount. They do
exist apparently.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: M42 ultra-wide

[Cotty]

On 25/10/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:

> Are the 15/3.5 SMC-Takumars actually 
>availible now and then?

I've seen one in a long time and that was actually a K mount. They do
exist apparently.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

RE: M42 ultra-wide

[J. C. O'Connell]

There is a 15mm SMCT on ebay now but the bids over $1100.
JCO

-Original Message-
From: Eugene Homme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 5:25 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide





>What other options have I got?  Are the 15/3.5 SMC-Takumars actually
>availible now and then?  From what I've seen I'd probably pay less than

>$1000 if I could find one.   Nobody seems to make a 14mm in adaptall or


http://www.kevincameras.com has several. His prices are at the high end
of the range of SPLOSdb.

RE: M42 ultra-wide

[Jim Colwell]

I use Tamron Adaptall lenses on my 20D (which I received last week).  I have
an Adaptall 2 to M42 adapter, and then put it in a M42 to EOS adapter -
everything works fine.  There are two kinds of M42 to EOS adapters commonly
available on eBay; a normal one with the M42 screw thread all of the way
through the body of the adapter, and another kind with a rim at the bottom
of the threads which depresses the aperture control pin.  Do a search for
"M42 EOS" on eBay Cameras http://photography.ebay.com/ and you'll often find
many 'normals' and one or two 'rimmed' (no rimmed today).  I have two of
these rimmed adapters from DVD Technik (various eBay user names), also at
http://www.dvdtechcameras.com/other.htm.

BTW the rimmed adapters don't work well with the newer ES-compatible M42
mounts which have an aperture coupling lever (see www.aohc.it/tak00e.htm) as
the coupling lever touches the rim when it is screwed all of the way in -
this happens on my SMC Mac Tak 50/4, and so I also have a 'normal' M42 to
EOS adapter.

Jim
www.jcolwell.ca

RE: M42 ultra-wide

[Eugene Homme]

>What other options have I got?  Are the 15/3.5 SMC-Takumars actually 
>availible now and then?  From what I've seen I'd probably pay less than 
>$1000 if I could find one.   Nobody seems to make a 14mm in adaptall or 

http://www.kevincameras.com has several. His prices are at the high end of
the range of SPLOSdb.

M42 ultra-wide

[edwin]

I've got a Canon 20D on order (which will come in "when it comes in", 
according to my supplier) with the single intent of being a digital
imaging back for my M42 lenses.  I decided that for me the 20D was a 
better option than the Pentax models currently on the market.

For most of what I'd like to do, I've got the glass I need (that's why I 
bought the camera...) but that nasty 1.6x crop factor means that my 20/4.5 
is going to frame like a 32mm lens, leaving me a little weak at the wide 
end.  I'm quite used to having a 28mm lens field of view availible.

I've got a Tamron adaptall 17/3.5, but it doesn't have an A/M lever and 
the Canon obviously doesn't have a Spotmatic push-plate, so it's a 17/3.5 
ONLY unless I tape over the pin or something equally drastic.  I've got a 
17/4 Takumar fisheye, so if I can figure out exactly the right correction 
I can rectilinearize it on the computer, but this lens has its issues
in use.

What other options have I got?  Are the 15/3.5 SMC-Takumars actually 
availible now and then?  From what I've seen I'd probably pay less than 
$1000 if I could find one.   Nobody seems to make a 14mm in adaptall or 
M42 mount.  I've seen a Sigma 18/3.2 listed in M42 mount, but I'm 
reluctant to commit money to a lens that may not have an A/M lever 
and probably has old Sigma "quality" as well.

DJE

M42 Taks vs. K mounts - any preference one or the other?

[johnbailey]

Hi,

Does anyone prefer to use the super-taks or smc
taks to their equivalent smc K, A, or M lenses.
(I'm not even going to ask about the A*).

See the Pentax 85/1.4 A* for Ricoh on the well
loved and hated auction site?

John Bailey

=
jb `:^)

Re: tentative M42 lens dates

[Rfsindg]

DJE,

Anytime you talk about nuts, I suppose I qualify.  I'm still hunting for m42 SMC stuff 
but have a stable of ES & ESII's... What you said about having enough to strip for 
parts, plus they are really nice ways to use the glass.  Other Pentax stuff seems to 
accumulate at my house, some Spotmatics, some earlier cameras including a nice K, pre 
SMC lenses, some off brand lenses I've got to get rid of.  

My latest acquisition, a genuine Pentax tripod - industrial strength and size (6 feet 
easy).  It comes complete with a little step on each leg so you can mount it firmly in 
the soil.  Let me at those landscapes... :-)

Regards,  Bob S.

>>I'm curious how many other M42 nuts we've got on the list.  I know J.C. O'Connell 
>>must have a bunch, and I seem to recall Cesar being in M42-acquisition mode lately.

I'm mostly done accumulating Takumar glass, I think.  What I don't have I either don't 
use (135 SMC, 35 SMC), don't want (anything auto-takumar), can't afford/justify (24 
SMC, 300 SMC, 85/1.9), or can't find (15, 120, 500).  I'm still accumulating Spotmatic 
SPIIs on the theory that with enough to strip for parts I can keep them going 
indefinitely. 

DJE <<

tentative M42 lens dates

[edwin]

OK, I sat down with the "The Ultimate Asahi Pentax Screwmount Guide" and
the serial number data from m-fortytwo.info and hashed out some serial 
number/date correspondances.

The method used was this: determine the year of introduction of a lens, 
determine the lowest attested serial number for this lens, assume that
that the serial numbers had progressed to said number by said year.

This assumes the following:
1) serial numbers are unique.  As I understand it, there is no evidence 
   that this in not true.
2) while Asahi may have produced lenses in batches, serial numbers were
   in general used sequentially.
3) Gerjan's dates of introduction are correct.
4) m-fortytwo.info's serial numbers are correct.  Most of them are 
   Gerjan's!  I expect some errors exist in the database either from
   typographical errors or misidentification of exact lens models.
5) the lens serial numbers are original, not changed by replacement of
   parts for repair or deliberate forgery.

Note that this doesn't say anything about dates of sale.  Stuff could have 
sat around a while in some dark corner before actually entering the 
market or the field.

serial #  546014 was in use by 1958
(interpolation puts serial # 60 in use by 1961)
serial #  677842 was in use by 1963
serial #  732001 was in use by 1965
serial # 2241359 was in use by 1967 (big jump!)
serial # 3435021 was in use by 1968
serial # 4188173 was in use by 1971
serial # 4635057 was in use by 1972
(interpolation puts serial # 550 in use by 1973)
serial # 6872336 was in use by 1974
serial # 7370589 was in use by 1974

I suspect that slightly lower numbers were in fact in use by any
given year, given that it seems unlikely that the several thousand
entries in the database have captured the first production batch
of every lens when over 7 million lenses were made.
Also, I'd expect Japanese availibility of many of the lenses to be a 
little earlier than for Europe/America, and I assume fewer of the 
Japanese-market lenses made it into the database.

My underlying interest in the whole chronology thing is that I was
born in January of 1969.  I was sure that I had a couple of lenses
with serial numbers around the 1,000,000 mark that were older than I am
because the lenses were discontinued before 1969.  In fact it appears
that serial number 1,000,000 was probably issued in 1965 or 1966.
It looks very likely that any lens with a serial number less than 
3,500,000 is older than I am--this includes almost all my Takumars and 
Super Takumars, pretty much my entire pre-SMC kit!

DJE

Re: What's the best zoom(s) for M42?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: What's the best zoom(s) for M42?


> I had every SMC Takumar lens from 35mm fish to 300/4 and
> they were all virtually identical performance, FANTASTIC!
> And that included the 200mm F4 6x7 SMC Takumar. I didn't find
> it lacking in any way whatsoever.

I suspect this is another case of one very good lens being improved
upon. While I have no first hand experience with the SMC Pentax 6x7
200mm f/4, others that I know do rather rave about it.

William Robb

RE: What's the best zoom(s) for M42?

[J. C. O'Connell]

I had every SMC Takumar lens from 35mm fish to 300/4 and
they were all virtually identical performance, FANTASTIC!
And that included the 200mm F4 6x7 SMC Takumar. I didn't find
it lacking in any way whatsoever. Never used
the SMC M200/4 though.
JCO

-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 7:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What's the best zoom(s) for M42?



- Original Message - 
From: "Raimo K"
Subject: Re: What's the best zoom(s) for M42?


> Usually, yes - but IMO my old 4.5/80-200 SMC Pentax-M was better
than my
> 4.0/200 SMC Pentax-M.

I wonder what the deal was at the time with their 200mm f/4 lenses? I
have the M200 f/4 and quite right, it isn't one of their better
attempts. The 6x7 Takumar 200mm f/4 isn't an especially good lens
either.

Did they make a 645 200mm f/4 as well back then?
Was it any good?

William Robb

Re: What's the best zoom(s) for M42?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Raimo K"
Subject: Re: What's the best zoom(s) for M42?


> Usually, yes - but IMO my old 4.5/80-200 SMC Pentax-M was better
than my
> 4.0/200 SMC Pentax-M.

I wonder what the deal was at the time with their 200mm f/4 lenses?
I have the M200 f/4 and quite right, it isn't one of their better
attempts.
The 6x7 Takumar 200mm f/4 isn't an especially good lens either.

Did they make a 645 200mm f/4 as well back then?
Was it any good?

William Robb

Re: What's the best zoom(s) for M42?

[Raimo K]

Perhaps you would?
All the best!
Raimo K
Personal photography homepage at:
http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho


- Original Message - 
From: "Frantisek Vlcek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 1:55 AM
Subject: Re: What's the best zoom(s) for M42?


> 
 
> Yes, but _nobody_ in their sane mind, unless looking for a very
> special effect (about 0.01%%) would ever carry all such similar focal
> lengths to be "equivalent" to a zoom. Or do you ;-) ?
> 
> Best regards,
>Frantisek Vlcek
> 

Re: What's the best zoom(s) for M42?

[Raimo K]

Usually, yes - but IMO my old 4.5/80-200 SMC Pentax-M was better than my
4.0/200 SMC Pentax-M.
All the best!
Raimo K
Personal photography homepage at:
http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho


- Original Message - 
From: "John C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 12:22 AM
Subject: RE: What's the best zoom(s) for M42?


> Zooms are continuous, to carry "equivalent"
> primes you have to carry them all. the prime
> list below IS increments...No focal lengths
> are duplicated.
>
> Zoom can save a lot of weigh over carrying
> all the primes but they are slower in speed
> and lower in quality
>
> JCO
>
> -Original Message-
> From: alex wetmore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 5:03 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: What's the best zoom(s) for M42?
>
>
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> > no way,
> > the primes?
> > 24
> > 28
> > 35
> > 40
> > 50
> > 55
> > 85
> > 105
> > 135
> > 200
> > 300
>
> I assumed that one was carrying a selection of the primes in a set of
> increments, not everything.
>
> I don't see any reason to carry 35, 40, 50, and 55.  35 and 55 maybe.
> Likewise for 24, 28.  Or 105, 135.
>
> From that selection I would probably take:
> 24, 35, 50, 105, 200, 300
>
> or maybe just:
> 28, 50, 85, 135, 200
>
> I've done many trips just carrying a 24 and a 50 and that has worked
> well for me.
>
> alex
>

Re: What's the best zoom(s) for M42?

[Anthony Farr]

Sid,

The first generation of Vivitar Series1 lenses came in M42, and IIRC they
were ES-II compatible.  I have no idea if later generations of Series 1 had
screwmount versions, though.  Be aware that the original Series 1 35~85/2.8
is a varifocal zoom which needs refocusing whenever the focal length is
altered.  Manual focus zooms are usually parfocals which don't (or at least
shouldn't) require refocusing after zooming.

Aso IIRC, Angineaux (sp?) had screwmount models of its very sexy and very
expensive zooms, at least they did when M42 was a mainstream lens-mount.

I think you'd be very pleased with either of those labels, if you can find
an example.  They are both very hoardable so may be rare commodities.

regards,
Anthony Farr

- Original Message - 
From: "Sid Barras" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> HI All,
> Well, I'm getting less and less inclined to lug around the entire SMC
> tak prime lens collection these days... So, I'm wondering, to all the
> screwmount afficanados, I ask the question:
> The best (available, anyway-- I intend to seek and buy the lens) zoom
> lenses for M42. My requirements would be two or three good quality zoom
> lenses in screw mount to cover the 28 (or 24 if I'm really fortunate)
> to 300 or so zoom lenses. It wouldn't have to be one of those 28-300
> mega zooms like the tamron K mount I've got. It could be two three or
> four even lenses that together would cover that range.
> Infrared markings would be nice too.
> Greetings from CajunLand USA South Louisiana
> Sid Barras
>
>

RE: What's the best zoom(s) for M42?

[J. C. O'Connell]

I have a large aluminum case which holds all my prime takumar
lenses from 15mm to 200mm. If I am going on a shoot and not
sure what I will need I sometimes throw them ALL in the trunk of my
car to be sure I have exactly what I need. The 35mm format
is so marginal there is no allowance for cropping like there
is in large format so you need the best lenses and just the right
focal lengths for the job for good results.
JCO

-Original Message-
From: Frantisek Vlcek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 6:55 PM
To: John C. O'Connell
Subject: Re: What's the best zoom(s) for M42?



Thursday, July 1, 2004, 11:22:07 PM, John wrote:
JCOC> Zooms are continuous, to carry "equivalent"
JCOC> primes you have to carry them all. the prime
JCOC> list below IS increments...No focal lengths
JCOC> are duplicated.

Yes, but _nobody_ in their sane mind, unless looking for a very special
effect (about 0.01%%) would ever carry all such similar focal lengths to
be "equivalent" to a zoom. Or do you ;-) ?

Best regards,
   Frantisek Vlcek

Re: What's the best zoom(s) for M42?

[Frantisek Vlcek]

Thursday, July 1, 2004, 11:22:07 PM, John wrote:
JCOC> Zooms are continuous, to carry "equivalent"
JCOC> primes you have to carry them all. the prime
JCOC> list below IS increments...No focal lengths
JCOC> are duplicated.

Yes, but _nobody_ in their sane mind, unless looking for a very
special effect (about 0.01%%) would ever carry all such similar focal
lengths to be "equivalent" to a zoom. Or do you ;-) ?

Best regards,
   Frantisek Vlcek

RE: What's the best zoom(s) for M42?

[alex wetmore]

On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> no way,
> the primes?
> 24
> 28
> 35
> 40
> 50
> 55
> 85
> 105
> 135
> 200
> 300

I assumed that one was carrying a selection of the primes in a set of
increments, not everything.

I don't see any reason to carry 35, 40, 50, and 55.  35 and 55 maybe.
Likewise for 24, 28.  Or 105, 135.

>From that selection I would probably take:
24, 35, 50, 105, 200, 300

or maybe just:
28, 50, 85, 135, 200

I've done many trips just carrying a 24 and a 50 and that has worked
well for me.

alex

Re: What's the best zoom(s) for M42?

[alexanderkrohe]

There was a Tamron SP 70-210 f3.5 that is said to be
quite good (I don't know this lens from my own
experience though). It was made in the eighteens (long
after M42 was widespread) but it can be mounted to an
adapter to an M42 camera. 

There was also a Tamron SP 80-200MM 2.8LD that mounts
via an adapter . 
Enjoy 
Alexander 


Antonio wrote: 

> Sid, my understanding is that zoom lens tech wasn't
very good when M42 was around and that the M42 zoom
offering is therefore not as good as it got later.
> 
> Antonio
> 
> 
> On 1 Jul 2004, at 21:48, Sid Barras wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > HI All,
> > Well, I'm getting less and less inclined to lug
around the entire SMC tak prime lens collection these
days... So, I'm wondering, to all the screwmount
afficanados, I ask the question:
> > The best (available, anyway-- I intend to seek and
buy the lens) zoom lenses for M42. My requirements
would be two or three good quality zoom lenses in
screw mount to cover the 28 (or 24 if I'm really
fortunate) to 300 or so zoom lenses. It wouldn't have
to be one of those 28-300 mega zooms like the tamron K
mount I've got. It could be two three or four even
lenses that together would cover that range.
Infrared markings would be nice too.
> > Greetings from CajunLand USA South Louisiana
> > Sid Barras





__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 

RE: What's the best zoom(s) for M42?

[J. C. O'Connell]

no way,
the primes?
24
28
35
40
50
55
85
105
135
200
300

11 primes are going to weigh more than 3 or
even 4 zooms if you don't go for superfast zooms.
jco

-Original Message-
From: alex wetmore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 4:43 PM
To: Pentax discussion Pentax discussion list
Subject: Re: What's the best zoom(s) for M42?


On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Sid Barras wrote:
> Well, I'm getting less and less inclined to lug around the entire SMC 
> tak prime lens collection these days... So, I'm wondering, to all the 
> screwmount afficanados, I ask the question: The best (available, 
> anyway-- I intend to seek and buy the lens) zoom lenses for M42. My 
> requirements would be two or three good quality zoom lenses in screw 
> mount to cover the 28 (or 24 if I'm really fortunate) to 300 or so 
> zoom lenses. It wouldn't have to be one of those 28-300 mega zooms 
> like the tamron K mount I've got. It could be two three or four even 
> lenses that together would cover that range.

4 zooms covering that range in K mount would be about as heavy as the
primes covering that range, if not heavier.

alex

Re: What's the best zoom(s) for M42?

[alex wetmore]

On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Sid Barras wrote:
> Well, I'm getting less and less inclined to lug around the entire SMC
> tak prime lens collection these days... So, I'm wondering, to all the
> screwmount afficanados, I ask the question:
> The best (available, anyway-- I intend to seek and buy the lens) zoom
> lenses for M42. My requirements would be two or three good quality zoom
> lenses in screw mount to cover the 28 (or 24 if I'm really fortunate)
> to 300 or so zoom lenses. It wouldn't have to be one of those 28-300
> mega zooms like the tamron K mount I've got. It could be two three or
> four even lenses that together would cover that range.

4 zooms covering that range in K mount would be about as heavy as the
primes covering that range, if not heavier.

alex

RE: What's the best zoom(s) for M42?

[J. C. O'Connell]

You need to specify the lens speed you want.
Most zooms come in 2 speed classes.

Since M42 original era zooms are both rare
and mediocre generally, consider researching
what has been made in Tamron Adaptall 2 as
you can get both generic M42 and ESII M42
adapters for Tamron Adaptall 2 lenses.

That said, here is my "lightweight" M42 lens
package.

24mm 3.5 SMC Takumar PRIME
28-85 F4 RMC Tokina (exceptionally good)
80-200 F2.8 Tamron Adaptall 2 (fantastic but large)
300 mm SMC Takumar PRIME

The two zooms cover most of the shots. I often
use 2 bodies so I don't need to switch lenses.

JCO

-Original Message-
From: Sid Barras [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 3:49 PM
To: Pentax discussion Pentax discussion list
Subject: What's the best zoom(s) for M42?


HI All,
Well, I'm getting less and less inclined to lug around the entire SMC 
tak prime lens collection these days... So, I'm wondering, to all the 
screwmount afficanados, I ask the question:
The best (available, anyway-- I intend to seek and buy the lens) zoom 
lenses for M42. My requirements would be two or three good quality zoom 
lenses in screw mount to cover the 28 (or 24 if I'm really fortunate) 
to 300 or so zoom lenses. It wouldn't have to be one of those 28-300 
mega zooms like the tamron K mount I've got. It could be two three or 
four even lenses that together would cover that range.
Infrared markings would be nice too.
Greetings from CajunLand USA South Louisiana
Sid Barras

RE: 645/67 mount for M42 SMCT 500/4.5 ?

[Paul Ewins]

Adrian,
I have seen a few comments in the past about a 6x7 adapter for this
lens but have never seen anything in a Pentax catalog to support this. The
rear of the lens from just behind the focusing collar is removable and would
probably allow some sort of short mount adapter to be manufactured. However
when I checked the image circle it was too small for even 6x6. There is an
internal baffle in the focusing section that may need to be removed, but I
still don't know whether that would give a big enough image circle. All of
that stuff is to the rear of the lens groups, so you can fiddle about
without too much chance of upsetting the lens,

Regards,

Paul Ewins
Melbourne, Australia

-Original Message-
From: Adrian Sorescu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 12:30 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 645/67 mount for M42 SMCT 500/4.5 ?

  Hello

  I noticed the image produced by M42 S-M-C-T 500/4.5 seems big enough
  for 645/67 format. Is there any adapter for 645/6x7 ?

  What's the dissasembly procedure for this lens (starting from
  the front element)?



  tia,
  adrian sorescu

Re: M42 28:was:Semi OT-Street Photography survey

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Steve Desjardins"
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: M42 28:was:Semi OT-Street Photography survey


> It is cheap.  I would be more attracted to this is if could
permanently
> mount the K adaptor to the lens, not the body.

You probably can.

William Robb

Re: M42 28:was:Semi OT-Street Photography survey

[Steve Desjardins]

It is cheap.  I would be more attracted to this is if could permanently
mount the K adaptor to the lens, not the body.


Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/23/04 11:09AM >>>
I have the M42, 28mm lens i bought from Chris Brogden last year. 
Its excellent.
Even my IR pictures are sharper than with the 55 1.8.

Good price too:-)

Dave
 
> There are many M42 versions out there, however.
> 
> 
> Steven Desjardins
> Department of Chemistry
> Washington and Lee University
> Lexington, VA 24450
> (540) 458-8873
> FAX: (540) 458-8878
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> 
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/23/04 08:50AM >>>
> "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >I don't own a 35 or a 28 so I can't speak about this. 
> >What's the smallest (good) 28?
> 
> I think the M28/3.5 is probably the smallest. I have one and it's
> outstanding.
> 
> -- 
> Mark Roberts
> Photography and writing
> www.robertstech.com 
> 

Re: M42 28:was:Semi OT-Street Photography survey

[brooksdj]

I have the M42, 28mm lens i bought from Chris Brogden last year. 
Its excellent.
Even my IR pictures are sharper than with the 55 1.8.

Good price too:-)

Dave
 
> There are many M42 versions out there, however.
> 
> 
> Steven Desjardins
> Department of Chemistry
> Washington and Lee University
> Lexington, VA 24450
> (540) 458-8873
> FAX: (540) 458-8878
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/23/04 08:50AM >>>
> "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >I don't own a 35 or a 28 so I can't speak about this. 
> >What's the smallest (good) 28?
> 
> I think the M28/3.5 is probably the smallest. I have one and it's
> outstanding.
> 
> -- 
> Mark Roberts
> Photography and writing
> www.robertstech.com 
> 

For Sale Friday : M42 Screwmount Bellows and two macro lenses

[J. C. O'Connell]

Currently only $69.99 bid:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3809921637

Although this ALPA bellows is M42 Pentax Screwmount, it can be used
with virtually any 35mm Film SLR or DSLR via a simple adapter
because with a bellows unit, camera/lens registration distance is
not an issue when mixing and matching different makes of
cameras.

Laters,
JCO


   J.C. O'Connell   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://jcoconnell.com

Anybody need a 400mm Takumar? (Pentax screwmount M42)

[J. C. O'Connell]

Asahi Pentax 400mm F5.6 Tele-Takumar Lens, Pentax screwmount (M42)
Real nice shape, Ends in 18 hours:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4688&item=3807989806

Later,
JCO


   J.C. O'Connell   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://jcoconnell.com

Re: m42 lens on pentax me or mx

[Kostas Kavoussanakis]

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, Katrin  wrote:

> one question: is it supposed to work with the meter? when I have in
> on the camera and turn the apperture ring, the light which indicates
> the time doesn't change at all...

No, you have to put it in Manual (diaphragm); not only will the
shutter speed change, your view will also go dark as the iris closes.
I think the recommended way to sort this out is by focusing in maximum
aperture, then stopping down before you release the shutter.

Regards,
Kostas

m42 lens on pentax me or mx

[Katrin]

Hi!
I just got my smc takumar 1:3,5/35 mm lens. I also have a m "m42-
pentax K/M" adapter. so I can mount it on my pentax me now one
question: is it supposed to work with the meter? when I have in on 
the
camera and turn the apperture ring, the light which indicates the 
time
doesn't change at all... is this the way it is or am I making
something wrong? Please help me! Tomorrow I fly to Japan and I want 
to
use it there! Thanks Katrin
**

Desertrose
Chris' & Katrin's X Japan homepage! Please visit it!
http://www.xjapan.de
*
>From now on I will try to live for you and for me.
I will live with love...with dreams...
and forever with tears..
**

m42 lens on pentax me or mx

[Katrin]

Hi!
I just got my smc takumar 1:3,5/35 mm lens. I also have a m "m42-
pentax K/M" adapter. so I can mount it on my pentax me now one
question: is it supposed to work with the meter? when I have in on 
the
camera and turn the apperture ring, the light which indicates the 
time
doesn't change at all... is this the way it is or am I making
something wrong? Please help me! Tomorrow I fly to Japan and I want 
to
use it there! Thanks Katrin
**

Desertrose
Chris' & Katrin's X Japan homepage! Please visit it!
http://www.xjapan.de
*
>From now on I will try to live for you and for me.
I will live with love...with dreams...
and forever with tears..
**

Re: M42 lens on K mount

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Peter J. Alling"
Subject: Re: M42 lens on K mount


> No it doesn't work with all M42 lenses some of the lenses have
flanges
> that are too narrow.

I don't have a lot of M42 lenses, the 17mm Tak is the only one I have
with a wide enough flange to allow this, were I inclined to try it on
another lens (I'm not).

William Robb

Re: M42 lens on K mount

[Peter J. Alling]

No it doesn't work with all M42 lenses some of the lenses have flanges 
that are too narrow.

William Robb wrote:

- Original Message - 
From: "Don"
Subject: Re: M42 lens on K mount



 

It's fine, mine is the same way.
I ended up permanently mounting the adaptor to the lens and
 

cutting a
 

locking notch in the mount so as to make a bayonet lens out of it.
Works like a hot damn.
William Robb
 

Any advise on how to do this?  I wouldn't mind modding my one screw
   

mount
 

for this.
   

Take the spring clip off of an M42-K adaptor. Screw the adaptor onto
the lens, and then put the screw that held the spring in place back
into it's hole.
With the spring gone, the screw will go in far enough to lock the
adaptor to the lens.
Now, you have a K mount lens that mon't lock.
Here's the part that requires some bravery.
You have to determine where best to drill a hole in the lens mount to
mesh with the locking pin on the camera.
Once you have done that, you drill a wee hole into the mount.
A machine shop and drill press would be a good place to do this,
although I did mine with a Dremel.
I don't know if this will work with all M42 lenses or not.

I take no responsibility for any damages cause to persons or property
from attempting the above described modification.
William Robb



 

Re: M42 lens on K mount

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Don"
Subject: Re: M42 lens on K mount



> >It's fine, mine is the same way.
> >I ended up permanently mounting the adaptor to the lens and
cutting a
> >locking notch in the mount so as to make a bayonet lens out of it.
> >Works like a hot damn.
> >
> >William Robb
>
> Any advise on how to do this?  I wouldn't mind modding my one screw
mount
> for this.

Take the spring clip off of an M42-K adaptor. Screw the adaptor onto
the lens, and then put the screw that held the spring in place back
into it's hole.
With the spring gone, the screw will go in far enough to lock the
adaptor to the lens.
Now, you have a K mount lens that mon't lock.
Here's the part that requires some bravery.
You have to determine where best to drill a hole in the lens mount to
mesh with the locking pin on the camera.
Once you have done that, you drill a wee hole into the mount.
A machine shop and drill press would be a good place to do this,
although I did mine with a Dremel.

I don't know if this will work with all M42 lenses or not.

I take no responsibility for any damages cause to persons or property
from attempting the above described modification.

William Robb

Re: M42 lens on K mount

[Don]

At 05:57 PM 3/9/2004 -0600, you wrote:

- Original Message -
From: "Kostas Kavoussanakis"
Subject: M42 lens on K mount
>
> I got my Fish-eye Takumar 17/4.0 and it looks *lovely*. I also
bought
> an adaptor (Asahi Pentax, so probably an early one) which clicks
> reassuringly in the mount. However, I notice that when I screw the
> lens in, the orange dot does not align perfectly with the middle of
> the camera. Is that OK, or is there a problem?
It's fine, mine is the same way.
I ended up permanently mounting the adaptor to the lens and cutting a
locking notch in the mount so as to make a bayonet lens out of it.
Works like a hot damn.
William Robb
Any advise on how to do this?  I wouldn't mind modding my one screw mount 
for this.

Don

M42 lens on K mount

[edwin]

>From: Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I got my Fish-eye Takumar 17/4.0 and it looks *lovely*. I also bought
>an adaptor (Asahi Pentax, so probably an early one) which clicks
>reassuringly in the mount. However, I notice that when I screw the
>lens in, the orange dot does not align perfectly with the middle of
>the camera. Is that OK, or is there a problem?

There is no precise alignment for screw-mount lenses, due to manufacturing
tolerances and brand-differences.  They all seem to work fine no matter
where they actually align.  Since the M42-K converter is basically just an
insert to make the inside of the K-mount smaller and threaded, it should 
work the same as an actual M42 mount.

The lack of precise alignment is one of the problems of the screw-mount 
and one of the reasons for a bayonet-mount system.  The Spotmatic F and
SMC Takumar lenses needed a special lug to index the open-aperture
metering system due to this variability.

DJE

Re: M42 lens on K mount

[brooksdj]

Mine don't line up either,and i have experience no ill effects from this.I thinks its
normal not to line up 
perfect.

Dave  

> 
> I got my Fish-eye Takumar 17/4.0 and it looks *lovely*. I also bought
> an adaptor (Asahi Pentax, so probably an early one) which clicks
> reassuringly in the mount. However, I notice that when I screw the
> lens in, the orange dot does not align perfectly with the middle of
> the camera. Is that OK, or is there a problem?
> 
> On a tangential note, as part of a bundle I got a thin silver ring
> with two incisions on one side of it. Any idea what it is?
> 
> Thanks,
> Kostas
> 

M42 lens on K mount

[Kostas Kavoussanakis]

I got my Fish-eye Takumar 17/4.0 and it looks *lovely*. I also bought
an adaptor (Asahi Pentax, so probably an early one) which clicks
reassuringly in the mount. However, I notice that when I screw the
lens in, the orange dot does not align perfectly with the middle of
the camera. Is that OK, or is there a problem?

On a tangential note, as part of a bundle I got a thin silver ring
with two incisions on one side of it. Any idea what it is?

Thanks,
Kostas

FS: Proxitel 200mm F4 lens (M42)

[Gary Sibio]

Proxitel 200mm f:4 lens for sale on Ebay

This is a 200mm f:4 lens that focuses down to 1/3 life size making it great 
for flowers and larger insects. Here's the vital statistics:

Mount: M42 Pentax screw mount
Diaphram: Automatic or Manual
Filter Size: 62mm
Mimimum Aperture: f:22
Length: 4 3/4 inches
Diameter: 2 3/4 inches
The lens comes with a metal screw-in front lens cap and a plastic rear lens 
cap. Photo available on Ebay. Here's the link:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3802549045



Gary J Sibio
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.earthlink.net/~garysibio/
You know you're having a bad day when Elton John rewrites the lyrics to 
"Candle in the Wind" for you. 

Re: K-m42 alignment

[Bill D. Casselberry]

Familie Scheffler wrote:

> The focus scale doesn't line up correctly with the K-mount-body 
> but I think it's because I use a Hama M42-PK adapter. I have 
> just ordered a Pentax-brand one -  wait and see. (Infinity focus
> seems to be ok.)
 
This misalignment is normal and of no consequence, as long
as the lens is all the way threaded in infinity focus will
be fine. To assure dead top center for the lens markings
would require a very precise starting cut of the adapter
threads adjusted to a matching standard on the male threads
of all m42 lenses to bring them tight to the mount w/ the
aligner mark at top dead center. A bit of cosmetic overkill
when all that is necessary is a tight mounting.

Bill

-
Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast

http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-

Re: Using M42 on K adapter w/o MAN

[Peter Alling]

If you're willing to damage the lens you can devise a way to keep the pin 
in at all
times, (a spot of super glue, cyanoacrylate, works wonders).

At 08:25 AM 1/22/04, Carlos Nascimento wrote:
 :::
From: "Bill D. Casselberry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
first, get a good Pentax brand adapter
then put the lens switch to "MAN" (manual aperture)
and body to aperture priority mode
(...)
:::


I've a Meyer Görlitz 50/2.8 lens which dont have the MAN position. The 
unique way to close
the apperture is a pin located near the screw. With adapter (M42-->K) I 
only can use at
full aperture (2.8), but I would like to use another appertures.

Sugestions???

Tks,
Carlos Nascimento
www.tedio.hpg.com.br
I drink to make other people interesting.
-- George Jean Nathan  

Re: Using M42-K adapter w/o MAN

[Bill D. Casselberry]

Carlos Nascimento wrote:
 
> I've a Meyer Görlitz 50/2.8 lens which dont have the MAN position. The unique way to 
> close
> the apperture is a pin located near the screw. With adapter (M42-->K) I only can use 
> at
> full aperture (2.8), but I would like to use another appertures.
 
> Sugestions???
 
You'll have to somehow keep that pin pushed in all the time.
All I can think of is some sort of epoxy, which would ruin
it for open aperture/auto stopdown operation, I suspect. You
would end up w/ a strictly manual aperture lens. Perhaps two
tiny holes could be tapped and a small metal plate bolted
tightly across the pin pressing it in - it would be delicate
work, but there may be room for such a thing w/o interference
in mounting the lens.

Bill

-
Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast

http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-

Using M42 on K adapter w/o MAN

[Carlos Nascimento]

 :::
From: "Bill D. Casselberry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
first, get a good Pentax brand adapter
then put the lens switch to "MAN" (manual aperture)
and body to aperture priority mode
(...)
:::



I've a Meyer Görlitz 50/2.8 lens which dont have the MAN position. The unique way to 
close
the apperture is a pin located near the screw. With adapter (M42-->K) I only can use at
full aperture (2.8), but I would like to use another appertures.

Sugestions???


Tks,
Carlos Nascimento
www.tedio.hpg.com.br

M42 Equipment for Students

[Tiger Moses]

I am starting a photography group/club at the high school where I teach 
this semester.

Was wondering if anyone has m42 equipment they don't want to go through the 
Ebay hassle with
but want it to find a good home.  Doesn't have to be our beloved brand, 
maybe you got a Petri or Yashica or Chinon
in the back of some drawer.  Bodies or lenses.  Would love for each student 
to have a camera they can carry around.

I'm excited because that is how and when I fell into Pentax.  In 1982 
during my senior year of high school, I found an old "broke" spotmatic body 
(meter doesn't work and mirror would stick) and found a dented 50/1.4 that 
would screw into it.  I found that I COULD take pictures with it, nothing 
great, but I did my own B&W and wet lab stuff for yearbook and it was just 
too much fun.

I don't want to list all the equipment I gathered since then, but I have 
that same Spotmatic and two more I'll be loaning to some of my students, 
and if I could get 2 or three more systems for them - WOW! That would be great.

So if you have some M42 stuff you want to go to a good homecontact me!

Actually, and working camera equipment (not darkroom stuff) you want to 
find a home in some excited under-privileged teenagers hands...let me know 
and I'll tell you if I can figure out how to make good use of it!

Re: My M42 equipment

[frank theriault]

Well, at least your Leicas are screwmount, eh Paul?  

Still, it's kind of a passing of an era.  I'm guessing m42 was your entry 
into Pentax.

Wish I could afford some of that nice glass (the 85mm sounds so yummy - I've 
been yearning for a portrait lens), but alas, whenever I have money to spend 
on equipment, it inevitable goes to that new-fangled bayonet-mount stuff.  


I hope you find good homes for your stuff, Paul.

cheers,
frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: My M42 equipment
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 20:40:21 -0500
The K mount compatibility won me over. And the res-up software that's now 
available. From what I've read I can now shoot with a 6 megapixel camera 
and res up to 40 meg files with very good image quality. And even if it 
doesn't work out, I can use the digital for personal photography. I don't 
snoot anything with my screw mount cameras these day, so I'll only miss the 
looking and fondling. Yeah, I will miss that, but I have to be practical. 
I'll keep all my K and M lenses as well as my LX and MX. And of course I'll 
keep all my 6x7 kit. I'll still shoot a lot of 6x7 film. At least until I'm 
convinced I can equal it in digital. But I have to look at the time savings 
that I can achieve in digital. Even if I lose a bit in quality, I can crank 
the work out for commercial projects. Then if the mood suits me, I can take 
out the LX for personal photography. Or one of my Barmacl Leicas. I haven't 
been completely reformed :--)
Paul
On Jan 10, 2004, at 7:56 PM, Bill Sawyer wrote:

Wow, This is a big upheaval for you, Paul!  Giving up your screwmount 
stuff,
buying Pentax digital, and buying new. What prompted this?

-Original Message-
From:   Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:   January 10, 2004 4:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:FS: My M42 equipment
I didn't think I was holding back just because of the K
incompatibility, but I guess I was. I'm going to buy an *istD and
perhaps one autofocus zoom. (I've also learned from some local Canon
digital pros that I can get great 40 meg files with res-up software or
RAW conversion -- if and when PhotoShop adds Pentax digital to the
list.) In any case, I will be selling some of my screw mount cameras
and lenses.  If you want something, give me a shout. Add ten dollars
shipping on all items to US buyers. International shipping will be
actual cost. They go on ebay Monday night.
Pentax Spotmatic Motor Drive with smc takumar 55/1.8, voltmeter,
battery handle and fresh battery. I have the charger as well, but it
doesn't seem to work. I charge the battery with a 12 volt trickle
charger (not included). The camera is cosmetically very nice (KEH
excellent), and it works quite well. I'll take $350 now plus shipping.
Pentax H3v with clip on meter. Both camera and meter work well.
Cosmetically KEH excellent. A hundred bucks plus shipping and it's
yours.
Pentax Spotmatic F. A very nice camera. Only minor blemishes, mostly on
the base plate from tripod use. CLAed two years ago. Shutter speeds
good, everything works. It has a body plug and the flash synch plugs.
$150 plus shipping
SMC Pentax 17/4 fisheye lens. This is the lens with three built in
filters. It's in very nice condition and yields wonderful results. I'm
a bit hesitant about selling this one because I don't have the K. But,
hey, if you want it, it's  yours for $250 plus shipping
SMC Pentax 50/4 macro. Very nice condition. A good macro lens. $100
plus shipping.
SMC Pentax 120/2.8. Great lens and not very common. KEH excellent. $150
plus shipping.
SMC Pentax 105/2.8. This is a very highly regarded lens, and this is a
fine example of the breed. $175 plus shipping.
SMC Pentax 28/3.5. A great lens at a great price. KEH excellent. $75
plus shipping.
SMC Pentax 85/1.8. Quite possibly the best Pentax screwmount lens ever
made. This one is near mint. I'll take $250 plus shipping.
SMC Pentax 300/4. Minor dings and rub marks on hood and focus ring but
very nice glass. Unlike the K version, this one has a tripod mount.
I've gotten some good motorsport shots with this one. Good glass for
$250 plus shipping.
That's it for now. It goes on ebay Monday night or thereabouts.



_
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca

Re: My M42 equipment

[Paul Stenquist]

The K mount compatibility won me over. And the res-up software that's 
now available. From what I've read I can now shoot with a 6 megapixel 
camera and res up to 40 meg files with very good image quality. And 
even if it doesn't work out, I can use the digital for personal 
photography. I don't snoot anything with my screw mount cameras these 
day, so I'll only miss the looking and fondling. Yeah, I will miss 
that, but I have to be practical. I'll keep all my K and M lenses as 
well as my LX and MX. And of course I'll keep all my 6x7 kit. I'll 
still shoot a lot of 6x7 film. At least until I'm convinced I can equal 
it in digital. But I have to look at the time savings that I can 
achieve in digital. Even if I lose a bit in quality, I can crank the 
work out for commercial projects. Then if the mood suits me, I can take 
out the LX for personal photography. Or one of my Barmacl Leicas. I 
haven't been completely reformed :--)
Paul
On Jan 10, 2004, at 7:56 PM, Bill Sawyer wrote:

Wow, This is a big upheaval for you, Paul!  Giving up your screwmount 
stuff,
buying Pentax digital, and buying new. What prompted this?

-Original Message-
From:   Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:   January 10, 2004 4:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:FS: My M42 equipment
I didn't think I was holding back just because of the K
incompatibility, but I guess I was. I'm going to buy an *istD and
perhaps one autofocus zoom. (I've also learned from some local Canon
digital pros that I can get great 40 meg files with res-up software or
RAW conversion -- if and when PhotoShop adds Pentax digital to the
list.) In any case, I will be selling some of my screw mount cameras
and lenses.  If you want something, give me a shout. Add ten dollars
shipping on all items to US buyers. International shipping will be
actual cost. They go on ebay Monday night.
Pentax Spotmatic Motor Drive with smc takumar 55/1.8, voltmeter,
battery handle and fresh battery. I have the charger as well, but it
doesn't seem to work. I charge the battery with a 12 volt trickle
charger (not included). The camera is cosmetically very nice (KEH
excellent), and it works quite well. I'll take $350 now plus shipping.
Pentax H3v with clip on meter. Both camera and meter work well.
Cosmetically KEH excellent. A hundred bucks plus shipping and it's
yours.
Pentax Spotmatic F. A very nice camera. Only minor blemishes, mostly on
the base plate from tripod use. CLAed two years ago. Shutter speeds
good, everything works. It has a body plug and the flash synch plugs.
$150 plus shipping
SMC Pentax 17/4 fisheye lens. This is the lens with three built in
filters. It's in very nice condition and yields wonderful results. I'm
a bit hesitant about selling this one because I don't have the K. But,
hey, if you want it, it's  yours for $250 plus shipping
SMC Pentax 50/4 macro. Very nice condition. A good macro lens. $100
plus shipping.
SMC Pentax 120/2.8. Great lens and not very common. KEH excellent. $150
plus shipping.
SMC Pentax 105/2.8. This is a very highly regarded lens, and this is a
fine example of the breed. $175 plus shipping.
SMC Pentax 28/3.5. A great lens at a great price. KEH excellent. $75
plus shipping.
SMC Pentax 85/1.8. Quite possibly the best Pentax screwmount lens ever
made. This one is near mint. I'll take $250 plus shipping.
SMC Pentax 300/4. Minor dings and rub marks on hood and focus ring but
very nice glass. Unlike the K version, this one has a tripod mount.
I've gotten some good motorsport shots with this one. Good glass for
$250 plus shipping.
That's it for now. It goes on ebay Monday night or thereabouts.

Re: FS: My M42 equipment

[Paul Stenquist]

As Shel pointed out, all of these lenses, with the exception of the 
17/4 fisheye, should be described as Super Multi-Coated Takumars. The 
17/4 is a Fisheye Takumar.
Paul
On Jan 10, 2004, at 4:45 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:

I didn't think I was holding back just because of the K 
incompatibility, but I guess I was. I'm going to buy an *istD and 
perhaps one autofocus zoom. (I've also learned from some local Canon 
digital pros that I can get great 40 meg files with res-up software or 
RAW conversion -- if and when PhotoShop adds Pentax digital to the 
list.) In any case, I will be selling some of my screw mount cameras 
and lenses.  If you want something, give me a shout. Add ten dollars 
shipping on all items to US buyers. International shipping will be 
actual cost. They go on ebay Monday night.
Pentax Spotmatic Motor Drive with smc takumar 55/1.8, voltmeter, 
battery handle and fresh battery. I have the charger as well, but it 
doesn't seem to work. I charge the battery with a 12 volt trickle 
charger (not included). The camera is cosmetically very nice (KEH 
excellent), and it works quite well. I'll take $350 now plus shipping.
Pentax H3v with clip on meter. Both camera and meter work well. 
Cosmetically KEH excellent. A hundred bucks plus shipping and it's 
yours.
Pentax Spotmatic F. A very nice camera. Only minor blemishes, mostly 
on the base plate from tripod use. CLAed two years ago. Shutter speeds 
good, everything works. It has a body plug and the flash synch plugs. 
$150 plus shipping
SMC Pentax 17/4 fisheye lens. This is the lens with three built in 
filters. It's in very nice condition and yields wonderful results. I'm 
a bit hesitant about selling this one because I don't have the K. But, 
hey, if you want it, it's  yours for $250 plus shipping
SMC Pentax 50/4 macro. Very nice condition. A good macro lens. $100 
plus shipping.
SMC Pentax 120/2.8. Great lens and not very common. KEH excellent. 
$150 plus shipping.
SMC Pentax 105/2.8. This is a very highly regarded lens, and this is a 
fine example of the breed. $175 plus shipping.
SMC Pentax 28/3.5. A great lens at a great price. KEH excellent. $75 
plus shipping.
SMC Pentax 85/1.8. Quite possibly the best Pentax screwmount lens ever 
made. This one is near mint. I'll take $250 plus shipping.
SMC Pentax 300/4. Minor dings and rub marks on hood and focus ring but 
very nice glass. Unlike the K version, this one has a tripod mount. 
I've gotten some good motorsport shots with this one. Good glass for 
$250 plus shipping.
That's it for now. It goes on ebay Monday night or thereabouts.

Re: FS: My M42 equipment

[Paul Stenquist]

You're right of course. I mean Super Multi-Coated Takumar lenses. I 
should have at least included the Takumar designation. All are 
screwmount lenses. No K mount.

On Jan 10, 2004, at 5:22 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

Paul ... you refer to the lenses that you're selling as SMC Pentax.  
Them's
be "K" lenses, m'friend.  Is that what you're selling?  Or do you mean 
SMC
Takumar?

Paul Stenquist wrote:

[...] I will be selling some of my screw mount cameras
and lenses.
SMC Pentax 17/4 fisheye lens. This is the lens with three built in
filters. It's in very nice condition and yields wonderful results. I'm
a bit hesitant about selling this one because I don't have the K. But,
hey, if you want it, it's  yours for $250 plus shipping
SMC Pentax 50/4 macro. Very nice condition. A good macro lens. $100
plus shipping.
SMC Pentax 120/2.8. Great lens and not very common. KEH excellent. 
$150
plus shipping.
SMC Pentax 105/2.8. This is a very highly regarded lens, and this is a
fine example of the breed. $175 plus shipping.
SMC Pentax 28/3.5. A great lens at a great price. KEH excellent. $75
plus shipping.
SMC Pentax 85/1.8. Quite possibly the best Pentax screwmount lens ever
made. This one is near mint. I'll take $250 plus shipping.
SMC Pentax 300/4. Minor dings and rub marks on hood and focus ring but
very nice glass. Unlike the K version, this one has a tripod mount.
I've gotten some good motorsport shots with this one. Good glass for
$250 plus shipping.
That's it for now. It goes on ebay Monday night or thereabouts.

Re: FS: My M42 equipment

[Shel Belinkoff]

Paul ... you refer to the lenses that you're selling as SMC Pentax.  Them's
be "K" lenses, m'friend.  Is that what you're selling?  Or do you mean SMC
Takumar?

Paul Stenquist wrote:

> [...] I will be selling some of my screw mount cameras
> and lenses.
> SMC Pentax 17/4 fisheye lens. This is the lens with three built in
> filters. It's in very nice condition and yields wonderful results. I'm
> a bit hesitant about selling this one because I don't have the K. But,
> hey, if you want it, it's  yours for $250 plus shipping
> SMC Pentax 50/4 macro. Very nice condition. A good macro lens. $100
> plus shipping.
> SMC Pentax 120/2.8. Great lens and not very common. KEH excellent. $150
> plus shipping.
> SMC Pentax 105/2.8. This is a very highly regarded lens, and this is a
> fine example of the breed. $175 plus shipping.
> SMC Pentax 28/3.5. A great lens at a great price. KEH excellent. $75
> plus shipping.
> SMC Pentax 85/1.8. Quite possibly the best Pentax screwmount lens ever
> made. This one is near mint. I'll take $250 plus shipping.
> SMC Pentax 300/4. Minor dings and rub marks on hood and focus ring but
> very nice glass. Unlike the K version, this one has a tripod mount.
> I've gotten some good motorsport shots with this one. Good glass for
> $250 plus shipping.
> That's it for now. It goes on ebay Monday night or thereabouts.

Re: M42

[John Dallman]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Francis Ebury) wrote:

> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/M42

Having just joined it, that's "ClubM42"

--- 
John Dallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: 2x converter,K-M42 adaptor & metering

[Peter Alling]

I have the Vivitar version of this converter and that is one of the other 
things that can change the light reaching the film plane.
I have noticed that nothing I want to do actually increases the amount of 
light reaching the film plane.  ;)

At 09:51 PM 10/8/03 +0400, you wrote:
Hi!

Peter, I just did not know that 2x applies not only to focal length but to 
other parameters as well. I actually thought that the light loss is 
__totally__ different parameter that varies from converter to converter.
That's because the only converter I have, that being Panagor Macro 
Converter, has different light loss depending on chosen magnification factor...

Boris

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 13:27:31 -0400
 Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A 2x TC will cost you at least two full stops.  (More depending on the TC 
but that's another problem).

At 04:33 PM 10/8/03 +0400, you wrote:
Hi!

I really should be embarrassed to ask this,but i'm over 50 and i can 
claim the "senior moment" disorder now.lol
I am over 30, but I think I had my "ignorance moment" when I read your 
questions...
Does the 2x make the lens a 400 from a 200 AND the f stop from f4 to f 
8
I think that if converter looses half the light it means it is one stop 
which I suppose is f5.6 from f4 and not f8.

I wonder whether I have just irreparably damaged my reputation in the 
club... 

Boris
I drink to make other people interesting.
-- George Jean Nathan
I drink to make other people interesting.
-- George Jean Nathan 

Re: 2x converter,K-M42 adaptor & metering

[graywolf]

Let's look at it this way. A 200mm lens at f4 has a 50mm aperture.
Now with the 2x converter it becomes a 400mm with the same 50mm 
aperture. 400 / 50 = 8. So the f-stop is f8. From this we can deduce 
that when using a 2x teleconverter out actual f-stop is double the 
marked f-stop (e.g. f4.0=f8.0), or 2 stops.

Boris Liberman wrote:

Hi!

I really should be embarrassed to ask this,but i'm over 50 and i can 
claim the "senior moment" disorder now.lol


I am over 30, but I think I had my "ignorance moment" when I read your 
questions...

Does the 2x make the lens a 400 from a 200 AND the f stop from f4 to f 
8


I think that if converter looses half the light it means it is one stop 
which I suppose is f5.6 from f4 and not f8.

I wonder whether I have just irreparably damaged my reputation in the 
club... 

Boris


--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com
"You might as well accept people as they are,
you are not going to be able to change them anyway."

Re: 2x converter,K-M42 adaptor & metering

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!

Peter, I just did not know that 2x applies not only to focal length 
but to other parameters as well. I actually thought that the light 
loss is __totally__ different parameter that varies from converter to 
converter. 

That's because the only converter I have, that being Panagor Macro 
Converter, has different light loss depending on chosen magnification 
factor...

Boris

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 13:27:31 -0400
 Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A 2x TC will cost you at least two full stops.  (More depending on 
the TC but that's another problem).

At 04:33 PM 10/8/03 +0400, you wrote:
Hi!

I really should be embarrassed to ask this,but i'm over 50 and i can 
claim the "senior moment" disorder now.lol
I am over 30, but I think I had my "ignorance moment" when I read 
your questions...
Does the 2x make the lens a 400 from a 200 AND the f stop from f4 to 
f 8
I think that if converter looses half the light it means it is one 
stop which I suppose is f5.6 from f4 and not f8.

I wonder whether I have just irreparably damaged my reputation in the 
club... 

Boris
I drink to make other people interesting.
-- George Jean Nathan 

Re: 2x converter,K-M42 adaptor & metering

[Peter Alling]

A 2x TC will cost you at least two full stops.  (More depending on the TC 
but that's another problem).

At 04:33 PM 10/8/03 +0400, you wrote:
Hi!

I really should be embarrassed to ask this,but i'm over 50 and i can 
claim the "senior moment" disorder now.lol
I am over 30, but I think I had my "ignorance moment" when I read your 
questions...
Does the 2x make the lens a 400 from a 200 AND the f stop from f4 to f 8
I think that if converter looses half the light it means it is one stop 
which I suppose is f5.6 from f4 and not f8.

I wonder whether I have just irreparably damaged my reputation in the 
club... 

Boris
I drink to make other people interesting.
-- George Jean Nathan 

Re: 2x converter,K-M42 adaptor & metering

[brooksdj]

> Hi Dave,
> 
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 08:00:44 US/Eastern, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > I really should be embarrassed to ask this,but i'm over 50 and
> > i can claim the "senior moment" disorder now.lol
> 
> That's OK.  I've been having them since I was a senior in high school.

HAR. :-)
> :-)
> 
> > I put the K-M42 adaptor on the K1000, a 2x converter and used an M42,
> > 200 f 4 tak.The spot meter suggested 125 at just under f 8.
> 
> What film speed were you using?  For the moon, use 1/filmASA at f/11
> for the center of your bracket (the "Moony 11" rule).

Was using TMax 400.So my spot was not far off then at F 8
> 
> > Does the 2x make the lens a 400 from a 200 AND the f stop from
> > f4 to f 8
> 
> 2X T/C doubles both focal length and f-stop ... it became a 400/8.  The
> doubler causes only the center 1/4th of the lens' image to be projected
> onto the film.  That means you "lose" two stops of light.  A 1.4X T/C
> only costs you one stop of light.

Ok, got ya.
> 
> > If the later is the case should i have left the lens at f4, set
> > the switch to auto and it would have been at f8 for the picture.??
> 
> That sounds right.

I seem to have 25 shots in this roll,so i'll see what i get tonight with lens at F4 and
all.

Dave
> 
> 
> TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
> 
> 

Re: 2x converter,K-M42 adaptor & metering

[Doug Franklin]

Hi Dave,

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 08:00:44 US/Eastern, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I really should be embarrassed to ask this,but i'm over 50 and
> i can claim the "senior moment" disorder now.lol

That's OK.  I've been having them since I was a senior in high school.
:-)

> I put the K-M42 adaptor on the K1000, a 2x converter and used an M42,
> 200 f 4 tak.The spot meter suggested 125 at just under f 8.

What film speed were you using?  For the moon, use 1/filmASA at f/11
for the center of your bracket (the "Moony 11" rule).

> Does the 2x make the lens a 400 from a 200 AND the f stop from
> f4 to f 8

2X T/C doubles both focal length and f-stop ... it became a 400/8.  The
doubler causes only the center 1/4th of the lens' image to be projected
onto the film.  That means you "lose" two stops of light.  A 1.4X T/C
only costs you one stop of light.

> If the later is the case should i have left the lens at f4, set
> the switch to auto and it would have been at f8 for the picture.??

That sounds right.


TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

Re: 2x converter,K-M42 adaptor & metering

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 2:00 AM
Subject: 2x converter,K-M42 adaptor & metering

>
> Does the 2x make the lens a 400 from a 200 AND the f stop from f4 to f
8

A 2x converter costs 2 stops of light. Your f/4 lens effectively becomes an
f/8 lens.

William Robb

Re: 2x converter,K-M42 adaptor & metering

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!

I really should be embarrassed to ask this,but i'm over 50 and i can 
claim the "senior moment" disorder now.lol
I am over 30, but I think I had my "ignorance moment" when I read your 
questions... 

Does the 2x make the lens a 400 from a 200 AND the f stop from f4 to 
f 8
I think that if converter looses half the light it means it is one 
stop which I suppose is f5.6 from f4 and not f8.

I wonder whether I have just irreparably damaged my reputation in the 
club... 

Boris

Re: M42 SLR bodies with auto winders FA

[Jim Apilado]

Looking at that picture of the Chinon brought back memories when I actually
owned one including the winder.  I got it because I wanted to have the auto
exposure with my old Super Takumars and also because motor drives were
something new.
Eventually I found a Spotmatic MD camera, motor, and battery unit (which I
still have), and sold my Chinon outfit.

Jim A.

> From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 22:44:14 -0400
> To: "Spotmatic discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "SLR Manual Mailing list"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "pentax discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Club M42"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: M42 SLR bodies with auto winders FA
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Resent-Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 22:44:12 -0400
> 
> FA: Rare chinon M42 bodies with winders:
> 
> http://jcoconnell.com/JCO_AUCT.HTM
> 
> later,
> 
> JCO
> 
> 
> J.C. O'Connell   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://jcoconnell.com
> 
> 

M42 SLR bodies with auto winders FA

[J. C. O'Connell]

FA: Rare chinon M42 bodies with winders:

http://jcoconnell.com/JCO_AUCT.HTM

later,

JCO


   J.C. O'Connell   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://jcoconnell.com

Photos w/ Mamiya/Sekor-SX 21mm F4 (M42) lens

[J. C. O'Connell]

There has been some interest in the 20/21mm SLR
lenses here lately so I took& posted a few shots using the
MAMIYA/SEKOR-SX 21mm F4 (M42) lens on this page:
http://www.jcoconnell.com/temp/ms21mm/ms21mm.htm

Later,
JCO


 J.C. O'Connell   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://jcoconnell.com

Pentax M42 to EOS adapter

[Cotty]

It's arrived...



Nice build quality and fits well. Just waiting for a 55mm Tak now ;-)




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

Re: New M42/Thread Mount Body (Bessaflex TM)

[Christopher Lillja]

Thanks, Lon! I'll check the archives.

Ya' know, If they built one of these puppies in K mount, it would be in
my bag already!

Regards,

Chris L.

Christopher Lillja
Director of Publications
The Pennington School
www.pennington.org
(609) 737-6121

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/26/03 10:37AM >>>
Chris, there was a thread about this very topic a week or two
ago.  Welcome back.

-Lon