Exellent lens but they are quite pricey to acquire at the moment. The decent ones (according to the descriptions) go for around the £100.00 mark, some as much as £150. I bought my SMC-F for not much more than that.

This one caught my eye
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7590873209&ru=http:...

and I thought, who in their right mind would put screw holes in a £600 lens. I know I wouldn't have the bottle (no pun intended).

Still, if it stays at about the price it is now ($95'ish) it'll be OK for manual focus work as long as there is no swarf rattling around inside.

Correction: it's the F version I have bought, not the FA, still too pricey, even on eBay.

Already done, I ordered a SMC-FA 1:2.8 100mm Macro from Ffordes yesterday.

[quote="malcolmk"]I have no idea if it will fit the later DSLRs. quote]

I haven't actually tried fitting my bellows to my istD, but I did fit it to my istDS some time back and I think I had to take the bellows to body mount off of the bellows first , then reassemble the bellows after fitting that part to the camera. Whilst it wasn't as easy as it might have been with an older camera, I don't remember it being too difficult.

I'm rather thinking that not too many people use the bellows attachments any more perhaps because tubes and/or reversed and/or stacked lenses or any combination thereof produce similar results. Thinking about it, a dedicated macro prime lens is probably a lot simpler to use.

Thanks for the info Malcolm.

One forum member has suggested fitting a short extension tube between bellows and camera, which I thought was a good idea and I'll try it when I'm reunited with my bellows unit next week. I can't think of a reason why it shouldn't work, except the magnification scales would probably be inaccurate but that's a minor issue for me.

Its actually impossible to fit the bellows (I think mines a K) without an extension tube to my MZ-S which peeved me a bit. The bellows fouls the body below the lens mount. One product, it seems, where backward compatibility went out of the window. I think we can forgive Pentax for that 'though.

John,

With your knowledge of the various 'K' mounts, if we suppose that the 'A' variant of the bellows does not have the electrical contacts (and I can't imagine that it has), can you take a guess (I won't hold you to it ) at what the differences in the 3 bellows might be, purely from a mount perspective. I'm beginning to think that all 3 bellows are actually the same, and they each acquired a new name as the various bodies/lenses were introduced.

I haven't any K Lenses to look at but am I right in thinking that if you were to look at the body mount of the lens, ignoring the electrical contacts of the 'A' series, they all look pretty much the same mechanically ?

Short of having all three to look at at the same time, I'm not hopeful of anyone answering this query. The only difference as far as I can see is that the K is for K series cameras/lenses, M for M, and A for A series. But the Bellows A surely doesn't have the electrical contacts and can only be used as an M lens anyway, aperture needs to be stopped down for a meter reading. I'm not sure there is much difference in respect of lens mount and operation between K and M cameras/lenses anyway.

Moderator: I wasn't sure where to put this question, you may need to move it.

Could anybody please tell me the principle differences between the K, M, and A variants of the Pentax bellows/slide copier systems. They all look very similar to me and I don't think the letters correspond with the three lens variations having the same lettering (No A or M implies K).

Thanks in advance.

Strewth, now I know why P&S cameras are so popular. You don't need a degree in quantum physics to work out how to use 'em.

I bet you guys that have been taking macro images of your pencil tips never realised how difficult it actually is. You are to be applauded for your prowess in working in what seems to be . . . a completely different universe.

Am I correct in assuming that the magnification is 85/50 = 1.7 ?