Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-10-2012, 05:17 PM   #61
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
ramseybuckeye's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hampstead, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 17,276
QuoteOriginally posted by Col Quote
Super-Takumar 55mm f/1.8 Doesn't disappoint at all optically.

However, the one property that wasn't specified in the ebay description of my copy was that it stinks, literally.

I would guess at least 30 years accumulating exhaust fumes on a garage shelf. Any suggestions as to how to "clean" it up, gratefully received.
Years ago a friend of mine said he worked for a used car dealer. When they had a car that had a smell, they would put coffee grounds under the carpet and it absorbed the odor. Don't know if something like that would work for a lens, but if I were to try it, I would wrap the lens in a cloth or something first, and check it frequently in case the lens drew moisture from the beans.

04-11-2012, 12:47 AM   #62
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,182
QuoteOriginally posted by GibbyTheMole Quote
Wow! A mirror zoom, eh? First time I've heard of one of those. Sounds like a rare bird.
I don't know of another maker having done this, although I've a nagging feeling there was at least one other but I can't confirm that. No doubt someone here will know. In principle, there's no reason why a mirror zoom should be any different to a refractor zoom, except that a catadioptric mirror tele has a spherical aberration corrector lens as the front element, which may compromise the design to some extent. My knowledge of the optics is very rusty.

You can occasionally find these on eBay, but they are comparatively rare. With modern CNC machinery, you'd think someone would be making parabaloidal mirrors to dispense with the corrector lens, but it's possibly still in the too hard or too expensive basket.
04-11-2012, 12:55 AM   #63
Senior Member
okitoki's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 150
QuoteOriginally posted by RickyFromVegas Quote
My biggest disappointment was FA50mm 1.4
why do you say so? currently using it for my single challenge, and havent found anything wrong with it yet?
04-11-2012, 01:02 AM   #64
Veteran Member
RickyFromVegas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Las Vegas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 366
There is nothing wrong with the lens. It's quite good.
But between da40 and da70, the performance wasn't...all that great.

Also, I have a501.7 and sears 551.4, helios 44-2, and they produced much better results than FA1.4
Af would have been the positive point, but it wasn't as reliable as MF with katzeye screen. So, a disappointment. I just expected a lot more from that lens, is all.

04-11-2012, 01:17 AM   #65
Senior Member
okitoki's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 150
ah I see... I do find it struggle to focus in low light (maybe its my K200) and sometimes the autofocus is slightly off with back focus, but after a slight adjustment in MF, it gave me results im pretty happy with... I have an old M42 50 f1.4 which I originally struggled without AF, but I'm slowly getting the hang of MF now using a AF lens

Also, I guess without trying the 40 or 70, I might not know what Im missing, but after this month I will be using the DA 35, so would be interesting to see what are the differences...
04-11-2012, 04:10 AM   #66
Veteran Member
causey's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Arlington, VA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,757
QuoteOriginally posted by RickyFromVegas Quote
There is nothing wrong with the lens. It's quite good.
But between da40 and da70, the performance wasn't...all that great.

Also, I have a501.7 and sears 551.4, helios 44-2, and they produced much better results than FA1.4
Af would have been the positive point, but it wasn't as reliable as MF with katzeye screen. So, a disappointment. I just expected a lot more from that lens, is all.
Had the same feeling. Good lens, but other fifties are better: the Sears 55mm, the 50/1.7 series (I especially like the M's rendering), the Helios, the Takumars (50mm and 55mm), even a plastic Chinon 50mm 1.8...
04-11-2012, 08:57 AM   #67
Veteran Member
kent's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lithuania
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 344
Sigma 50mm f/2.8 macro (older version) - not what you call sharp macro lens at 2.8, nor the aberrations look great (do not expect from dedicated macro lens). Sold it as fast as i could.

practicar 50mm 1.8 (remade for pentax) - gives yellow cast and confuses AWB, not that sharp at 1.8 as I'd like (Helios 44M-7 was much much sharper). Gonna sell it and buy M42 lens

04-12-2012, 08:53 AM   #68
Pentaxian
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,611
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
This gave me yet another wicked idea.

PROBLEM: Fast wide lenses are hard to find.
SOLUTION: Stack 0.25x FE adapter onto K50/1.2 giving 12/1.2 optic.
RESULT: Umm, well, the images are rather, umm, impressionistic...

OK, let's rethink that. Maybe a longer lens...

RETRY; Stack 0.25x FE adapter onto Nikkor 85/2 giving 21/2 optic.
RESULT: Shall I lie, and say that the results look better? Whatever...

OK, where's that 20/1.4 we've been waiting for?
i know what that .25xFE adapter is and have a good idea how the results look, yuck!
i do like your problem solving attitude on the other hand.
04-12-2012, 10:00 AM   #69
Forum Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Southeast USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 91
I just bought a 55-300mm DA L and I just can't get a sharp image from it. I'm using it on a K-5 and have put it on a tripod, used remote release, tested through the whole range of focus adjustments, with adjustments turned off and even tried manual focus. It seems to me that it is back focusing so bad that a +10 adjustment is not enough to compensate for it. I'm sure I have a bad copy of the lens as I know this lens has a better reputation than this, but the lens I have is very soft. I bought it from Adorama as a grey market lens and will be returning for refund instead of exchanging. I'm sure a good copy is a fine lens for the money but the AF likes to cycle all the way from one end to the other which is slow, annoying and loud.Thought about trying the older Pentax FA 100-300mm 4.7-5.8 or maybe Sigma or Tamron 70-300mm. I'll get something better later but just need something decent to get me by for now since this is the focal length I use the most and I just can't get along without it.

Last edited by dvest; 04-12-2012 at 10:27 AM.
04-12-2012, 11:10 AM   #70
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,263
QuoteOriginally posted by mikeSF Quote
i know what that .25xFE adapter is and have a good idea how the results look, yuck!
I prefer "impressionistic", heh heh.

QuoteQuote:
i do like your problem solving attitude on the other hand.
Thanks. I think it derives from my pre-adolescent infatuation with slot-cars. I had little money. Fancy frames and motors were out-of-budget. So I soldered together paper-clips to make frames (with little brass bushings for the stock axles) and I tore apart junked electric toys for the motors, reducing the windings for speed, epoxying the armatures to keep them from exploding. Why buy fancy bodies? Just mold some wet tissue paper into a metal toy-car body, let it dry, remove and lacquer it, and voila!

Too bad lenses aren't so easy to jury-rig. The closest I can come is shoving any optical materials onto bellows or tubes. I have some iris+body assemblies into which I'll stick whatever optics will fit. I'll try hanging various adapters or whatever onto lenses, to see what happens. Sometimes the results are good, sometimes 'interesting', sometimes impressionistic...
04-12-2012, 11:34 AM   #71
Senior Member
Kaufeetime's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Kansas City,Mo.
Photos: Albums
Posts: 206
Vivitar 28-80mm Zoom f3.5-5.6 Macro1:4x PK-A/R mount.

I paid 112.99 new in 1994. Purple fringing and soft focus makes it a dust collector.
The one thing I like is the light weight and that is the only good thing I can say positive about the lens.
04-12-2012, 11:00 PM   #72
Banned




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,055
QuoteOriginally posted by Nick Siebers Quote
I found the FA 31 to be a bit too big for me, and not quite as "good" as I imagined it would be.
QuoteOriginally posted by RickyFromVegas Quote
My biggest disappointment was FA50mm 1.4
QuoteOriginally posted by Verglace Quote
I was disappointed with my DA70 Ltd.
I guess everything can disappoint, but then what can we learn from an enumeration of everything? I think it is more useful to only list lenses that are unusable, or unreliable, or just unremarkable. The above mentioned lenses don't fit such description.

FA 31 may not feel like a great value but it is one of the best lenses that Pentax still has in production. If that is disappointing, what Pentax optics are satisfying?

FA 50 may not be a top lens, but it's not a bottom one either.

As for the DA 70, I have no direct experience with it, but as far as I can tell from the samples I've seen, it is one of the better DA Limiteds.
04-12-2012, 11:25 PM   #73
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,395
DA 40. I know, this is actually a fantastic lens. However I found that it just didn't have enough DOF control. The IQ was excellent (better than the 50 1.4), but it was either too slow (for a K20D) or not shallow enough, which we could fix by extending the focal length a bit. It was ALMOST perfect, which is hugely disappointing considering there is no actual alternative (the FAs just don't look the same...). I've owned much worse lenses, but they were all cheap. This one was so close to being perfect, but it was just... non-optimal for my needs.

Also the DA 21. Just make it 2.8. Honestly. Great lens, though. Just not worth the cash to me. Close but missed disappoints me so....
04-13-2012, 03:03 AM   #74
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,263
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
Also the DA 21. Just make it 2.8. Honestly. Great lens, though. Just not worth the cash to me.
I recall an old rule-of-thumb of designing-engineering-building lenses: each additional 1/2 f-stop about doubles the cost. Is going from f/3.2 to f/2.8 worth that much to you?
04-13-2012, 05:00 AM   #75
Veteran Member
causey's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Arlington, VA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,757
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
It was ALMOST perfect, which is hugely disappointing
Almost perfect lenses can't disappoint me. I wish there were many more lenses like the DA 40. I can always complement them with some f1.4 old fifties and new Samyangs.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do m42 lenses measure up to todays lenses? Vantage-Point Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 25 05-14-2011 07:51 AM
Huge test on the influence of fungus in lenses (on 9 lenses) CarbonR Photographic Technique 18 03-14-2011 10:34 PM
For Sale - Sold: (3) Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm lenses + 3 Pentax lenses JP_Seattle Sold Items 13 04-23-2010 03:10 PM
For Sale - Sold: Yard sale: M lenses, K 300mm, DA 14mm, ME film body, Nikkor lenses and more Nachodog Sold Items 24 12-26-2009 12:03 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:30 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top