Pentax Q Lenses

I'm pretty much of the same mind as Adrian. In fact I would go as far as to start criticising my own rationale as I get carried away with Q fever! So far I've only used the 01 prime and its £200 price tag I paid is justifiable on account of its image quality and smallness. The other reason I got it was for doing long telephoto shots on a compact size, cheaply, for holidays etc.. But I imagine that everything over a 100mm lens will mean it will lose its ease of use and portability. If I can get 500mm equiv hand held with that it would be ok. But to contemplate adding £200 ish for the adapter makes the cost well above a quality Panasonic Bridge camera that would probably give me easy and better pics at 600mm. So that just leaves the tricky set up with say a 300mm lens to do something perhaps cannot be done any other way. I'm beginning to think it is the fun of trying out all sorts of combinations that is the attraction rather than the logic behind it
Dave

I have been playing a bit with adapted lenses and I am starting to formulate intitial conclusions. I think by far the best use of the Q is with the lenses designed for it. The new telephoto zoom will I suspect be by far the best option for that range 80-250 and f2.8 is pretty good. You could adapt a K mount 70-85 range f1.8 or similar get the extra speed at the long end but wide open the results with the Q aren't so good, you need to stop down a bit and that rather defeats the object. The DFA100 gets you more reach (360mm) and you gave greater sharpness wide open, The combination with the Q feels quite usable but another feature of adapted lenses seems to be that CA is significantly exaggerated and can become a real problem. Looking at longer options then a 500 or 600mm equivalent does seem enticing. I don't have 135mm prime to try here so I had a go with the 55-300. Things start to become difficult in that range. Handheld becomes very difficult, in fact probably nigh on impossible. A good tripod is required and remote shutter release. The lack of viewfinder makes it difficult to lock on to a subject and if conditions are bright as they often are then everything becomes even more difficult. The IQ of the 55-300 is not good enough either. I think a DA* and 1.7xTC is a much better option in this range. However, a 135 f2.5 for instance might produce ok results as a budget alternative. I don't have one so I will give the 50-135 a go at the long end to see what results can be achieved on a static subject. For moving subjects then I think the official adaptor would be essential as the rolling shutter effect comes in. Having said that a moving subject is exceptionally difficult on a rear screen in the light. Once we get to 300mm, which I did try, then I can see why the elaborate (and expensive) setups on the other forum are employed. I seem to be in a bit of a minority in being unimpressed with the results I've seen, the odd photo is OK but my thoughts are usually, why not just get closer and get the K5 out. I'll definitely change my mind when someone come up with a shot of Nessie. I tried with last night's Moon, not the ideal subject as it was approaching full and thereofore rather featurelss. The results weren't great. For photographing the Moon a perfectly adequate used scope would give much better results for less than the price of the official adapter. I have tried normal macro and the results are OKish but again much better with an slr, plus a Q macro lens is on the roadmap. More extreme macro is probably the best use I have seen yet for the Q, again nowhere near as good as something like a reversed 50 but definitely easier. To use flash then the official adaptor is really required here. I shall give this a go too. I shall report my further findings here if anyone is interested. I agree with Dave, I think the attraction is as much in trying the exotic combinations. Now to locate Kate Middleton, or Nessie.


P.S I know, way too large for a paragraph.

I didn't know Kate was back in France!

I'm planning on getting the 110 adapter and seeing how Auto110 lense perform but of course they don't have irises

Amazed to read that the Pentax polarising filter cant be used with 'lens food'

I have to say that it has a real quality feel to it and reasonably priced.

I haven't seen a Pentax Q to 110 adapter, made one for my m4/3 cameras which I use a lot, I use slide in 'Westinghouse' apertures an idea borrowed from the old mahogany and brass cameras from the turn of the last century.

Flickr images here

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris-judge/sets/72157622413311303/

Who lists the Q to 110 adapter?

Nobody in the UK has any 5 - 15mm zooms for sale, at least I can't find one.

Where have all the 5-15mm lenses gone? Perhaps a call to SRS will help?

loads on eBay from Chinese manufacturers/sellers