All Forum Comments
To be honest they should never be overly tight anyway, as long as it fits up into place then there should be no more problems. Glad you found the pencil rubber trick useful!
Comment by hefty1 posted on Can this be repaired? at 08/04/2009 - 16:59
Snap!
Comment by hefty1 posted on SMC FA 100-300 - Instruction Manual at 08/04/2009 - 11:47
http://www.pentax-manuals.com/manuals/accessories/accessmanuals.htm
It's covered in the manual "SMC PENTAX-FA LENSES 8/03" - the password it asks for is Pentax (case sensitive).
It's covered in the manual "SMC PENTAX-FA LENSES 8/03" - the password it asks for is Pentax (case sensitive).
Comment by hefty1 posted on SMC FA 100-300 - Instruction Manual at 08/04/2009 - 11:46
Having done a few lens repairs recently I struggle enough getting 5+6 blade designs back together; my mind boggles at the thought of having to line 16 of them up during assembly - especially as these would have been 100% hand made!
Comment by hefty1 posted on Lens Review: Ross Anastigmat 196mm f/8 (on Pentax K10D) at 08/04/2009 - 11:38
The thing that grabs my eyes first is the bright reflection on the billboard centre-left. I know it's reflecting the low sunlight but I'd be tempted to "cheat" and turn its brightness down in Photoshop to match the rest of the surroundings - then I think I'd rather like this shot as the overall composition is quite pleasing.
Comment by hefty1 posted on Meskel Square, early morning at 08/04/2009 - 10:28
Welcome to the forum JudithAnn - I'm sure you'll look back on the pictures you take with the K-m just as fondly as you do those taken with the K1000
Comment by hefty1 posted on Hi From Canada at 08/04/2009 - 10:14
Nice to have a happy ending in one of these stories for once
Comment by hefty1 posted on Ripped off on Ebay for £410 at 08/04/2009 - 10:05
Although I'm often guilty of cloning out parts of a photo that I don't want others to see, I think leaving the ropes in this instance is the way to go. For me they add to the picture rather than detract from it - nice shot by the way!
Comment by hefty1 posted on The Chevin Cross at 07/04/2009 - 23:00
Thanks for the positive comments guys - glad you enjoyed it!
In the meantime has anyone else tried macro with a milk bottle..?
shim wrote:
You should stick that review on a website somewhere.
Isn't that what I've just done? You should stick that review on a website somewhere.
Hardgravity wrote:
Which lens are you testing next Hefty?
I'm itching to try out my Schneider Componon but there was a problem with my 39-25mm step down ring (long story but a replacement should be on its way about now). I'm expecting great things! Which lens are you testing next Hefty?
In the meantime has anyone else tried macro with a milk bottle..?
Comment by hefty1 posted on Lens Review: Ross Anastigmat 196mm f/8 (on Pentax K10D) at 07/04/2009 - 22:35
LENS REVIEW - ROSS ANASTIGMAT 196mm f/8
It's a question that's been asked on these forums a thousand times; should I get a new Pentax DA*200 or would I be better off with a Ross Anastigmat 196? Well, it seems the good people at DP Review and Photozone have overlooked testing the Ross, so I thought I'd better have a go instead and present you with my findings, to help you decide.
Testing was carried out in my all-expenses-spared LowTechLab (aka my house) using state of the art Approximation-By-Eye (TM) equipment and my own Completely/Subjective (Pat. Pending) testing procedures. Any comments or complaints regarding testing procedure can be directed to me in writing using the forms freely available from your local branch of Woolworths.
HISTORY
The first Anastigmat lens was developed for Carl Zeiss by Paul Rudolph in 1889 and they wasted no time in licensing the design to several camera lens manufacturers (including Ross of London who made this one). Up until this time camera lenses had generally suffered from astigmatism and it wouldn't be a stretch to say that the moniker "Anastigmat" was the "Multi Coated" of its day, appearing as it did on a multitude of lenses up until the mid-1950's when the terms Coated or Coating shunted it off the lens barrel and, therefore, out of the general consciousness. These days it's accepted that all lenses have an anastigmatic design (well, except perhaps for a couple of highly specialised lenses) just as it's accepted that they're all carrying some form of coating, so you'll just have to take it from me that back in the 19th Century this was a revolution!
This particular lens was bought by my grandfather back in the 1940's (when it was already 50 years old and looking forward to retirement) and has seen service in my family on a half-plate camera (grandfather), developer, projector (father) and is now in front of a camera again where it belongs (me). I'd be fascinated to know what it'll be doing in another 120 years' time but I doubt I'll be around to find out.
CONSTRUCTION
The lens is made from brass and glass with a little steel thrown in for the aperture blades. As it was meant for a bellows camera there is no focussing mechanism, just a slider that changes the aperture from f/8 all the way down to f/64. The movement is actually incredibly smooth and there are positive notches for it to click into at each EV step. The blades number 16 and make for a near-perfect circle at each setting, leading me to believe this could be a bokeh monster! The glass is fairly clean and clear given the age of the lens and the small marks shouldn't show up in the tests, of course the glass comes from a pre-coatings age so I'm not expecting great things in terms of contrast. The lens weighs in at a mere 141.4g.
[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/ross%20lens%20review/IMGP6428.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/ross%20lens%20review/IMGP6426.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/ross%20lens%20review/IMGP6427.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/ross%20lens%20review/IMGP6429.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/ross%20lens%20review/IMGP6430.jpg[/IMG]
HANDLING
This is an area where I think the DA*200 would probably hold the advantage. In order to use the Ross on my K10D I have to firstly fit the camera with a K-M42 adapter, then a set of M42 bellows, then a M42-L39 step down ring and finally the lens itself. At this point the Ross is no longer a featherweight and, indeed, all but unuseable hand-held so a tripod is called for.
[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/ross%20lens%20review/rosslens.jpg[/IMG]
Focussing with the bellows is actually quite easy and at full extension the Ross can go down to around 1.5m; at the other end it will focus well past infinity. The shots in the tests below were taken in Av mode with no exposure compensation given or required, in fact it gave a far better metering performance than any other manual lens I've used!
TEST 1 - SHARPNESS AND PURPLE FRINGING
This is an object that I've photographed more times than I could shake a stick at as it makes for a good test subject. It's dark yet detailed and is strongly backlit by the window behind.
[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/ross%20lens%20review/bike.jpg[/IMG]
I wanted to see how the Ross performed at various apertures and how well it dealt with backlighting (in terms of the detail retained on the bike). The following shots are full size crops from the centre and are "as taken" without sharpening or other adjustments - just a crop and a conversion to JPEG in Pentax Photo Lab.
f/8:
[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/ross%20lens%20review/f8.jpg[/IMG]
With the lens wide open there's a little softness all around the picture, however, there's no trace of purple fringing and if this was a portrait the softness could actually be quite attractive!
f/11:
[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/ross%20lens%20review/f11.jpg[/IMG]
At one stop down from the maximum the picture is now sharp all over and there is excellent detail retention. The quality is easily on a par with a modern lens here.
f/16:
[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/ross%20lens%20review/f16.jpg[/IMG]
Unfortunately the good work done at f/11 has all but disappeared by the time f/16 is reached. From this point onwards diffraction has taken its toll and the sharpness has fallen off a cliff. I won't post pictures from the even smaller apertures as they just get progressively worse, however, it's safe to say that remaining tests were all shot at f/11 for maximum quality.
By the way, although I haven't shown it here there is absolutely no drop off in sharpness across the entire frame. You'll be familiar with the theory that using a "full frame" lens on a digital camera utilises only the sweet spot in the centre as it's designed to cover an area of 36mmx24mm? Well this lens is designed to cover an area around the size of a dinner plate, so it's less of a "sweet spot" and more of a "sweet with jelly and ice cream and cherries and jam and chocolate sauce and hundreds & thousands spot". I think that's the technical term anyway...
TEST 2 - COLOUR
Now this is a tricky one to show as nobody reading this has ever been to my garden, however, I know the colours of my flowers very well and use them as my personal colour chart. I set the camera's white balance to "daylight" (it was a sunny afternoon) and again the result you see below is exactly "as shot" without any form of correction, just a re-sizing in PPL (the whole frame this time without cropping) along with conversion to JPEG.
[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/ross%20lens%20review/flowers.jpg[/IMG]
Without any coatings on the glass to influence things, and with the WB fixed, the lens has captured the subtle tonal ranges of my aubretias exactly as I see them when I'm standing in the garden. This is actually quite an achievement as many more expensive lenses have required some WB tweaking in order to get the same result - kudos to the Ross!
TEST 3 - BOKEH
This is an area where I expected the Ross to shine but actually, although it's good, it still lags behind other lenses in my arsenal. Here's the full picture:
[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/ross%20lens%20review/flowers2.jpg[/IMG]
As you can see, the background is rendered pleasantly enough (although working at a constant f/11 means it's tricky to get a really 3D feel) but have a look at the 1:1 crop from the top left:
[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/ross%20lens%20review/bokeh.jpg[/IMG]
Although the specular highlights are rendered circular (thanks to those 16 blades) they do carry faint bright lines around their circumferences. Although this is a better result than you'd expect from most lenses, I've been spoiled by both my Pentax FA77 and my Zeiss Sonnar 135 - hence this can only be rated as "close but no cigar".
CONCLUSION
The Ross Anastigmat 196mm f/8 is capable of very good results but only with careful handling and favourable conditions. Its weight once attached to bellows and effective maximum (only!) aperture of f/11 means that hand-held work isn't really an option. On a tripod with a stationary subject it will achieve satisfactory results with outstandingly neutral colour rendition and pleasant (if not exactly class leading) bokeh.
It does have one other big advantage of the DA*200 though and that's price. Some careful shopping on a certain auction site can turn up examples of this lens and its contemporaries for as little as £10-£20; that's quite a saving! Plus, how many DA*200's do you think will still be in service in the year 2129?
It's a question that's been asked on these forums a thousand times; should I get a new Pentax DA*200 or would I be better off with a Ross Anastigmat 196? Well, it seems the good people at DP Review and Photozone have overlooked testing the Ross, so I thought I'd better have a go instead and present you with my findings, to help you decide.
Testing was carried out in my all-expenses-spared LowTechLab (aka my house) using state of the art Approximation-By-Eye (TM) equipment and my own Completely/Subjective (Pat. Pending) testing procedures. Any comments or complaints regarding testing procedure can be directed to me in writing using the forms freely available from your local branch of Woolworths.
HISTORY
The first Anastigmat lens was developed for Carl Zeiss by Paul Rudolph in 1889 and they wasted no time in licensing the design to several camera lens manufacturers (including Ross of London who made this one). Up until this time camera lenses had generally suffered from astigmatism and it wouldn't be a stretch to say that the moniker "Anastigmat" was the "Multi Coated" of its day, appearing as it did on a multitude of lenses up until the mid-1950's when the terms Coated or Coating shunted it off the lens barrel and, therefore, out of the general consciousness. These days it's accepted that all lenses have an anastigmatic design (well, except perhaps for a couple of highly specialised lenses) just as it's accepted that they're all carrying some form of coating, so you'll just have to take it from me that back in the 19th Century this was a revolution!
This particular lens was bought by my grandfather back in the 1940's (when it was already 50 years old and looking forward to retirement) and has seen service in my family on a half-plate camera (grandfather), developer, projector (father) and is now in front of a camera again where it belongs (me). I'd be fascinated to know what it'll be doing in another 120 years' time but I doubt I'll be around to find out.
CONSTRUCTION
The lens is made from brass and glass with a little steel thrown in for the aperture blades. As it was meant for a bellows camera there is no focussing mechanism, just a slider that changes the aperture from f/8 all the way down to f/64. The movement is actually incredibly smooth and there are positive notches for it to click into at each EV step. The blades number 16 and make for a near-perfect circle at each setting, leading me to believe this could be a bokeh monster! The glass is fairly clean and clear given the age of the lens and the small marks shouldn't show up in the tests, of course the glass comes from a pre-coatings age so I'm not expecting great things in terms of contrast. The lens weighs in at a mere 141.4g.
[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/ross%20lens%20review/IMGP6428.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/ross%20lens%20review/IMGP6426.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/ross%20lens%20review/IMGP6427.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/ross%20lens%20review/IMGP6429.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/ross%20lens%20review/IMGP6430.jpg[/IMG]
HANDLING
This is an area where I think the DA*200 would probably hold the advantage. In order to use the Ross on my K10D I have to firstly fit the camera with a K-M42 adapter, then a set of M42 bellows, then a M42-L39 step down ring and finally the lens itself. At this point the Ross is no longer a featherweight and, indeed, all but unuseable hand-held so a tripod is called for.
[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/ross%20lens%20review/rosslens.jpg[/IMG]
Focussing with the bellows is actually quite easy and at full extension the Ross can go down to around 1.5m; at the other end it will focus well past infinity. The shots in the tests below were taken in Av mode with no exposure compensation given or required, in fact it gave a far better metering performance than any other manual lens I've used!
TEST 1 - SHARPNESS AND PURPLE FRINGING
This is an object that I've photographed more times than I could shake a stick at as it makes for a good test subject. It's dark yet detailed and is strongly backlit by the window behind.
[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/ross%20lens%20review/bike.jpg[/IMG]
I wanted to see how the Ross performed at various apertures and how well it dealt with backlighting (in terms of the detail retained on the bike). The following shots are full size crops from the centre and are "as taken" without sharpening or other adjustments - just a crop and a conversion to JPEG in Pentax Photo Lab.
f/8:
[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/ross%20lens%20review/f8.jpg[/IMG]
With the lens wide open there's a little softness all around the picture, however, there's no trace of purple fringing and if this was a portrait the softness could actually be quite attractive!
f/11:
[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/ross%20lens%20review/f11.jpg[/IMG]
At one stop down from the maximum the picture is now sharp all over and there is excellent detail retention. The quality is easily on a par with a modern lens here.
f/16:
[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/ross%20lens%20review/f16.jpg[/IMG]
Unfortunately the good work done at f/11 has all but disappeared by the time f/16 is reached. From this point onwards diffraction has taken its toll and the sharpness has fallen off a cliff. I won't post pictures from the even smaller apertures as they just get progressively worse, however, it's safe to say that remaining tests were all shot at f/11 for maximum quality.
By the way, although I haven't shown it here there is absolutely no drop off in sharpness across the entire frame. You'll be familiar with the theory that using a "full frame" lens on a digital camera utilises only the sweet spot in the centre as it's designed to cover an area of 36mmx24mm? Well this lens is designed to cover an area around the size of a dinner plate, so it's less of a "sweet spot" and more of a "sweet with jelly and ice cream and cherries and jam and chocolate sauce and hundreds & thousands spot". I think that's the technical term anyway...
TEST 2 - COLOUR
Now this is a tricky one to show as nobody reading this has ever been to my garden, however, I know the colours of my flowers very well and use them as my personal colour chart. I set the camera's white balance to "daylight" (it was a sunny afternoon) and again the result you see below is exactly "as shot" without any form of correction, just a re-sizing in PPL (the whole frame this time without cropping) along with conversion to JPEG.
[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/ross%20lens%20review/flowers.jpg[/IMG]
Without any coatings on the glass to influence things, and with the WB fixed, the lens has captured the subtle tonal ranges of my aubretias exactly as I see them when I'm standing in the garden. This is actually quite an achievement as many more expensive lenses have required some WB tweaking in order to get the same result - kudos to the Ross!
TEST 3 - BOKEH
This is an area where I expected the Ross to shine but actually, although it's good, it still lags behind other lenses in my arsenal. Here's the full picture:
[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/ross%20lens%20review/flowers2.jpg[/IMG]
As you can see, the background is rendered pleasantly enough (although working at a constant f/11 means it's tricky to get a really 3D feel) but have a look at the 1:1 crop from the top left:
[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/ross%20lens%20review/bokeh.jpg[/IMG]
Although the specular highlights are rendered circular (thanks to those 16 blades) they do carry faint bright lines around their circumferences. Although this is a better result than you'd expect from most lenses, I've been spoiled by both my Pentax FA77 and my Zeiss Sonnar 135 - hence this can only be rated as "close but no cigar".
CONCLUSION
The Ross Anastigmat 196mm f/8 is capable of very good results but only with careful handling and favourable conditions. Its weight once attached to bellows and effective maximum (only!) aperture of f/11 means that hand-held work isn't really an option. On a tripod with a stationary subject it will achieve satisfactory results with outstandingly neutral colour rendition and pleasant (if not exactly class leading) bokeh.
It does have one other big advantage of the DA*200 though and that's price. Some careful shopping on a certain auction site can turn up examples of this lens and its contemporaries for as little as £10-£20; that's quite a saving! Plus, how many DA*200's do you think will still be in service in the year 2129?
Comment by hefty1 posted on Lens Review: Ross Anastigmat 196mm f/8 (on Pentax K10D) at 07/04/2009 - 18:39
