All Forum Comments
Comment by petrochemist posted on Lack of infinity focus with m42 adapter at 03/10/2015 - 08:26
johnha wrote:
What the 5D'ers see in SMC-Takumars is a mystery to me - they're awkward enough to use on a Spotmatic.
Perhaps it's down to the quality of the Canon lenses What the 5D'ers see in SMC-Takumars is a mystery to me - they're awkward enough to use on a Spotmatic.
Switching to old Takumars gives them great build quality & the optics we're used to getting on all our lenses!
Comment by petrochemist posted on Full Frame Lenses at 02/10/2015 - 08:27
Any flange at all will loose infinity for wide angles, as you say it wouldn't be practical to make a flange much thinner, but you need to get about 100 times thinner before you're getting the sort of tolerances required. Longer focal length lenses get to be more tolerant needing more extension to affect focus.
All the adapters are designed to stay on the camera. Is is cheaper but I just find that a pain! - Adapting them to stay on the lenses makes it quicker to change between two M42 lenses and makes even more difference going between M42 & PK mount lenses. I don't think I payed much more than £5 for my more recent adapters so not too expensive.
All the adapters are designed to stay on the camera. Is is cheaper but I just find that a pain! - Adapting them to stay on the lenses makes it quicker to change between two M42 lenses and makes even more difference going between M42 & PK mount lenses. I don't think I payed much more than £5 for my more recent adapters so not too expensive.
Comment by petrochemist posted on Lack of infinity focus with m42 adapter at 02/10/2015 - 08:24
johnha wrote:
As someone who's been shooting Pentax for decades I'd spin the question round. Apart from my DA10-17FE & DA17-70/4 (bought because I needed something wider than 24mm on APS-C) all of my lenses cover the 135 format. As a mechanical film shooter, over the years I've bought Tak/K/M/A/F & FA lenses for their coverage & aperture rings.
Given that the 5D MkII/III brigade have been snapping up Super/SMC Takumars (40+ year old lenses with no automation) and paying more for them than equivalent new EF lenses, I'm convinced that most prime lenses will produce more than acceptable results on the Pentax FF body. Zooms are likely to be much more variable.
John.
Very wide film lenses will probably cause issues as digital is more affected by the angle the light arrives at.As someone who's been shooting Pentax for decades I'd spin the question round. Apart from my DA10-17FE & DA17-70/4 (bought because I needed something wider than 24mm on APS-C) all of my lenses cover the 135 format. As a mechanical film shooter, over the years I've bought Tak/K/M/A/F & FA lenses for their coverage & aperture rings.
Given that the 5D MkII/III brigade have been snapping up Super/SMC Takumars (40+ year old lenses with no automation) and paying more for them than equivalent new EF lenses, I'm convinced that most prime lenses will produce more than acceptable results on the Pentax FF body. Zooms are likely to be much more variable.
John.
I have a couple more crop lenses than you, having a 50-200 & 55-300 on top of the 2 you list. Yet I still have most of the way from 35mm - 500mm covered with FF compatible AF zoom lenses with 28mm, 90mm & 600mm manual primes added in (as well as others duplicating zoom views) . Off the top of my head the region I'm not sure of is 80-100mm but that's not really a big enough gap to matter even without the 90 in the middle of it.
Despite that I'm not sure if I'd be tempted by a FF Pentax even if my salary was suddenly doubled!
I'd expect the IQ with my lenses to be reasonable rather than good, but it's the weight that would be the main issue. (The DA55-300 is significantly lighter than the F100-300 & makes the DA50-200 redundant as well which lightened my bag significantly)
Comment by petrochemist posted on Full Frame Lenses at 01/10/2015 - 03:45
I'd be surprised if it doesn't work fine with any FF lens, and I'd expect it to be acceptable with many crop lenses too. Most DA lenses cover sufficiently beyond the crop sensor that the expanded image should cover FF (The portion of image normally getting to a crop sensor would cover 93% of FF after the TC). The 1.7x should be OK with all DA lenses (1.7/1.5 crop = 1.13)
McGregNi wrote:
That could produce an interesting effect then ... Only the central aps-c part of the FF image would be magnified . But then suddenly the outer parts would be so much further away ! Like two focal lengths, one inside the other ..... ?
No that's just plain wrong. I suppose it would be possible to build a TC that only enlarged the inner part of the image & passed the rest through unchanged. If that was done you'd have a significant zone getting both enlarged image & unaltered image (like a double exposure). In reality anything outside the enlarged portion will be blocked by the metal of the TC.That could produce an interesting effect then ... Only the central aps-c part of the FF image would be magnified . But then suddenly the outer parts would be so much further away ! Like two focal lengths, one inside the other ..... ?
Comment by petrochemist posted on HD Pentax-DA AF Rear Converter 1.4x AW on FF at 01/10/2015 - 03:09
50mpCMOS wrote:
Full-frame bellow would not be a bad idea
Novoflex makes bellows for current (and future) PK, although they are quite pricey.
As I'm sure John knew, There's a large range of bellows usable on PK mount, I've got 3 different types, with different advantages costing under £50 per set used. A large range of replacement parts are available for the BPM model (including mounts for pretty much any SLR).Full-frame bellow would not be a bad idea
Novoflex makes bellows for current (and future) PK, although they are quite pricey.
AFAIK none allow electronic communication between lens & camera, but all are fully FF compliant.
IIRC the Novoflex set allows lens tilt.
Comment by petrochemist posted on HD Pentax-DA AF Rear Converter 1.4x AW on FF at 01/10/2015 - 02:50
I'd be very surprised if it is the lens.
To reach infinity you need an adapter that sits right within the K mount. Some cheaper models have a flange that moves the lens further out, loosing infinity focus.
There are cheap adapters without the flange. I tend to remove the spring from one of these & use some thread lock to keep the modified adapter permanently on the lens. Don't stick it one unless the springs been removed or you'll never get the lens off the camera
To reach infinity you need an adapter that sits right within the K mount. Some cheaper models have a flange that moves the lens further out, loosing infinity focus.
There are cheap adapters without the flange. I tend to remove the spring from one of these & use some thread lock to keep the modified adapter permanently on the lens. Don't stick it one unless the springs been removed or you'll never get the lens off the camera
Comment by petrochemist posted on Lack of infinity focus with m42 adapter at 30/09/2015 - 08:16
ilovesaabs wrote:
all the clicks yes....basically on both Nikons you get a second at high speed continuous with RAW + JPEG...
with the K-3 you could track the spits across the sky
Do they both have the same sort of memory card? This sort of difference could easily be down to thewrite spead of the card rather than the camera...all the clicks yes....basically on both Nikons you get a second at high speed continuous with RAW + JPEG...
with the K-3 you could track the spits across the sky
Comment by petrochemist posted on Pentax vs nikon at 16/09/2015 - 14:04
A wonderfull set, widely varied subjects and all looking good!
Plane, boat, bike, car & parachutes, any chance of a train to complete the set?
Plane, boat, bike, car & parachutes, any chance of a train to complete the set?
Comment by petrochemist posted on Getting used to the 150-450 at 07/09/2015 - 15:29
Mike-P wrote:
Nice set, Sally B is especially impressive, especially the amount of prop blur you have on her.
Not sure if it's the tablet I am viewing on but a couple of them look a tad warm here.
Thanks Mike,Nice set, Sally B is especially impressive, especially the amount of prop blur you have on her.
Not sure if it's the tablet I am viewing on but a couple of them look a tad warm here.
It's not your tablet at all but just my bad processing - hopefully now improved. The lighting where I have my PC now is not as stable as it's old location - but my daughter needed her own room, so I had to move out
Updating the images on Flickr has broken the links (even though it was set to replace ) as I can't edit the original post anymore here are the updated links:
IMGP5402small by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr
IMGP5612small by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr
Tigers Parachute display team by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr
Red Arrows split by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr
Comment by petrochemist posted on A few from the Clacton Airshow: at 01/09/2015 - 20:10
Thanks for the helpful comments everyone. I've learned a lot. And it seems my troubles may not be quite over, as I've also bought a couple of wides, 35/3.5 and 28/3.5, both Super Takumars. If infinity focus is more critical for wides, I might run into more trouble. However there are no problems like this that can't be solved, so I'll see what happens with them. At the moment I'm torn between the internal adapters like the Adapter K, and those that stay on the lens. As Mike said, it's easier when using both PK and m42 lenses.
I' did get one of the flanged type but only to give a cheap PK bayonet for a DIY project.