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
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
||=|
: 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
- 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
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
]
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.
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
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
]
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
. 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
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
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
- 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
- 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
- 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
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
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
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
: 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
- 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
- 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
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
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
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
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
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),
...)
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
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
-
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 `:^)
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
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
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
) for M42?
snip
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
, 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
- 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
[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
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
) 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
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
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
: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
- 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
Currently only $69.99 bid:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=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
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?ViewItemcategory=4688item=3807989806
Later,
JCO
J.C. O'Connell mailto
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
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
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,
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
- 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 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
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
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
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
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Well, at least your Leicas are screwmount, eh Paul? vbg
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
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
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
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,
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
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]
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
- 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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
It's arrived...
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2948968661
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
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
Hello all,
I've been out of touch for a while - I sold all my AF pentax gear and
dropped off the list for a bit. (But I still love and use my MX on an
almost daily basis.)
I'm you all have discussed this - but I was well and truly shocked to
discover the Voigtlander Bessaflex - a brand-new
what is it like optically? flare distortion, bokeh?
anyone got any experience with it?
also i heard there were two versions one that yellows and one that doesnt
801 - 900 of 1105 matches
Mail list logo
