SMC Pentax-F * 300mm f4.5 tripod collar

henryk · 03-29-2009, 05:35 PM

I have just been given (as in free gift) by a retired guy now out of photography a pristine example of the lens in the title. Not a mark, not a scratch, on it. Early tests indicate terrific IQ.

It did not come with a tripod mount. There are no scuff marks of any kind on the collar to which the mount fits, suggesting to me that perhaps the tripod mount was an optional add-on to this lens and that it was originally sold without one. Anyone know if that is true?

xjjohnno · 03-29-2009, 05:43 PM

Is this what you are chasing?
Support Collar for SMC Pentax 300 mm 1:4 ,FA 300 1:4.5 - eBay Film Camera Lenses, Lenses, Photographic Accessories, Cameras. (end time 02-Apr-09 19:43:56 AEDST)

Dan · 03-29-2009, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by xjjohnno

Is this what you are chasing?
Support Collar for SMC Pentax 300 mm 1:4 ,FA 300 1:4.5 - eBay Film Camera Lenses, Lenses, Photographic Accessories, Cameras. (end time 02-Apr-09 19:43:56 AEDST)

I have a couple of tripod mounts for the F*300mm f/4.5, and no, that's not it.

The tripod mount came standard with the lens. I ended up with an extra when my lens was stolen while the mount was off the lens. I replaced the lens, and now have an extra mount.

Send me a PM with an offer if you are interested in purchasing my spare.

Dan

*fwcetus* · 03-29-2009, 09:15 PM

The tripod mount for an A* 200/4 Macro fits perfectly on the F* 300/4.5, if you have one "kicking around" - <g>...

[But, the reverse is not true, interestingly enough...]

Dan · 03-30-2009, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by fwcetus

The tripod mount for an A* 200/4 Macro fits perfectly on the F* 300/4.5, if you have one "kicking around" - <g>...

[But, the reverse is not true, interestingly enough...]

Fred,

Thanks for that very interesting bit of trivia. Here's another (somewhat less interesting) bit of trivia: The very first piece of Pentax gear I ever purchased--quite a few years ago--was a K 30/2.8 that I purchased from you! It was stolen at the same time as the F*300 that I mentioned above. It all turned out well in the end, as I managed to find a replacement for the K 30. While I was very happy with the one I purchased from you, the "new" one is a bit sharper. I may be the only person on the planet whose first piece of Pentax gear was the K 30/2.8. Of course I eventually purchased a camera to go with it.

Dan

*fwcetus* · 03-30-2009, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by Dan

Fred,

Thanks for that very interesting bit of trivia. Here's another (somewhat less interesting) bit of trivia: The very first piece of Pentax gear I ever purchased--quite a few years ago--was a K 30/2.8 that I purchased from you! It was stolen at the same time as the F*300 that I mentioned above. It all turned out well in the end, as I managed to find a replacement for the K 30. While I was very happy with the one I purchased from you, the "new" one is a bit sharper. I may be the only person on the planet whose first piece of Pentax gear was the K 30/2.8. Of course I eventually purchased a camera to go with it. Dan

Hi, Dan.

Interesting story - <g>.

As I recall, that K 30/2.8 (which I had only a short while) was in like new condition, and complete with its proper Pentax dedicated case (also like new, I think) and its original box (in at least good condition, as I recall).

The reason I sold it (the only copy of a K 30/2.8 I've ever tried) was that I was just not impressed with the 30/2.8 - it was OK (there certainly did not seem to be anything wrong with it), but (to me) it was not different enough (or special enough), compared to the several 28mm and 35mm lenses that I already had, to justify keeping it - it was OK, but it just didn't seem unique enough to me (being more of a telephoto guy than a wide-angle guy, anyway).

So, I guess I am "pleased" to hear that your K 30/2.8 was stolen - <VBG> - since, after all, you ended up with one that is "a bit sharper" than the one you and I "shared" - <g>. Furthermore, if it's any consolation to you at all, the thief ended up with a perhaps "not quite up to snuff" 30/2.8 - <g>.

Carry on then ...

Cambo · 03-30-2009, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by henryk

I have just been given (as in free gift) by a retired guy now out of photography a pristine example of the lens in the title. Not a mark, not a scratch, on it. Early tests indicate terrific IQ.

It did not come with a tripod mount. There are no scuff marks of any kind on the collar to which the mount fits, suggesting to me that perhaps the tripod mount was an optional add-on to this lens and that it was originally sold without one. Anyone know if that is true?

They all came with this ridiculously HUGE mount, which is probably why it's missing now - somebody took it off. I own one of these, and it is truly a magnificent lens, sharp sharp sharp, but the mount is the same one for a number of FA* teles, and this was the smallest lens of the bunch, so it IS clumsily large on this optic.

There are aftermarket ones that will probably fit hat would be MUCH more convenient than the original mount - not to mention probably a dang site cheaper - look for one of those. Fabulous lens, and much sought after because it DOES have a place for a tripod mount, unlike the FA* version, which is optically identical, but I sure wouldn't want to hang that off the front of my camera on a tripod (with no mount) - although it's small for a 300, it ain't THAT small.

Another silly Pentax design quirk - one of the few in the lens world. Either a HUGE tripod mount on the F*, or none at all on the FA*.

Congrats, that's quite a score.

Cheers,
Cameron

Dan · 03-30-2009, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by Cambo

They all came with this ridiculously HUGE mount, which is probably why it's missing now - somebody took it off. I own one of these, and it is truly a magnificent lens, sharp sharp sharp, but the mount is the same one for a number of FA* teles, and this was the smallest lens of the bunch, so it IS clumsily large on this optic.
...

Say wha? The original mount for the F*300 is not "the same one for a number of FA* teles". The mount is specific to the F*300, and doesn't fit any other lens. If your lens came with a tripod mount that was the same as some other FA* (or F*) tele, then it wasn't the original. (Or, more likely, you don't own any of the other FA* or F* teles to which you are referring.)

The lens is often used without the mount because it is light enough to be handheld. I suspect that most people use the lens handheld, which is probably why they left it off the FA*.

Dan

*arpaagent* · 03-30-2009, 11:05 PM

I'm looking for one of these (F* 300/4.5) so if any of you in the post has one that needs a new home please send me a PM.

henryk · 03-31-2009, 08:06 AM

As long as we're on this subject ... what exactly is the difference between F and FA lenses? I know the F is first-generation autofocus and FA second-generation, but what distinguishes them?

cooldude14es · 03-31-2009, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by henryk

As long as we're on this subject ... what exactly is the difference between F and FA lenses? I know the F is first-generation autofocus and FA second-generation, but what distinguishes them?

There are no optical differences between F*300mm and FA*300mm, just mechanical. Please, see below, one of the best sites for Pentax info:

F* 300/4.5 ED [IF]

It seems there are only external differences (design, etc).

Cambo · 03-31-2009, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by Dan

Say wha? The original mount for the F*300 is not "the same one for a number of FA* teles". The mount is specific to the F*300, and doesn't fit any other lens. If your lens came with a tripod mount that was the same as some other FA* (or F*) tele, then it wasn't the original. (Or, more likely, you don't own any of the other FA* or F* teles to which you are referring.)

The lens is often used without the mount because it is light enough to be handheld. I suspect that most people use the lens handheld, which is probably why they left it off the FA*.

Dan

that THAT mount was used on several lenses. The one I have is the original mount, as I have seen several copies of this lens over the years.

And a handheld 300 = serious blur unless your shutter speed is WAY up there (500+). Less on the stabilized bodies, of course, but this lens was designed in the late 80's, I believe.

And I'll send in a picture of my FA*'s, or you can just check the exif data in my shots in the gallery.

And BTW, I was rude to you in what way?

Cameron

Cambo · 03-31-2009, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by henryk

As long as we're on this subject ... what exactly is the difference between F and FA lenses? I know the F is first-generation autofocus and FA second-generation, but what distinguishes them?

Originally Posted by cooldude14es

There are no optical differences between F*300mm and FA*300mm, just mechanical. Please, see below, one of the best sites for Pentax info:

F* 300/4.5 ED [IF]

It seems there are only external differences (design, etc).

apparently, in addition to the physical and mechanical differences, there is a different chip in the FA* that includes the MTF data that better communicates with the bodies.

Cheers,
Cameron

Dan · 03-31-2009, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by Cambo

I was told by a guy that worked at Pentax Canada...that THAT mount was used on several lenses. ...

Well then it must be true.

Do you have any specific examples? I have never seen another lens with the same mount, and looking through Boz's site I do not see any listed FA* or F* with the same mount.

Originally Posted by Cambo

And a handheld 300 = serious blur unless your shutter speed is WAY up there (500+). Less on the stabilized bodies, of course, but this lens was designed in the late 80's, I believe.

True, but there are many circumstances where one can handhold a 300mm lens. With ASA100 film in sunlight the proper exposure at f/8 is 1/500 second. If you open up a bit, or use faster film (or a higher sensitivity on your DSLR), then you can shoot in somewhat dimmer light at 1/500. Moreover, if you brace against a log or bench you can shoot at well below 1/500. Many people use 300mm lenses handheld, including slower zooms.

Originally Posted by Cambo

...And I'll send in a picture of my FA*'s, or you can just check the exif data in my shots in the gallery.

OK, I believe that you have FA*s. I apologize for doubting it. Do any of these use the same mount as the F*300? Which ones?

Originally Posted by Cambo

And BTW, I was rude to you in what way?

Cameron

Well of course you weren't rude to me. And I apologize for questioning the scope of your lens collection. I should not have speculated about the source of the incorrect information you were providing.

Dan

cooldude14es · 03-31-2009, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by Cambo

And a handheld 300 = serious blur unless your shutter speed is WAY up there (500+). Less on the stabilized bodies, of course, but this lens was designed in the late 80's, I believe.

Is it that hard to handheld a 300mm and get sharp images? On another post people were talking about the DA*300mm as a street lens and I can not imagine carrying the tripod and lens and trying to go unnoticed for street candid shots.