[visert]

Hi to all
I have Pentax K-1000 with three lens (see below my list) and a Nikon D-40 F Mount.
I would like to buy an adapter to use them on Nikon D40. Which is the best adapter?

And more... in future I would like to buy another body camera (semi-pro FF) but now I don't still know if will be Canon or Nikon... but I would like to use those three lens also on a new FF body (maybe a Nikon D610 or Canon 6D).

Do you know if these lens have some evident/well-known problems with Canon or Nikon FF bodies?

50mm
SMC Pentax-M 50mm F2 Reviews - M Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

28mm
SMC Pentax-M 28mm F3.5 Reviews - M Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

80-210
Tamron Adaptall-2 80-210mm f/3.8-4 (103A) Lens Reviews - Tamron Adaptall Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database
Tamron Adaptall-2 80-210mm F/3.8-4 Model 103A


Thank you in advance.

[JohnX]

The Pentax FF will be along later this year. Worth waiting for? No need for adapters

[marcusBMG]

Nikons are no good for adapting to other lenses because they have the longest registration distance - 47mm as opposed to 45.45mm for PK. What this means is that even if you could park the lens on the camera (and in practice the f mount throat is too small) you won't be able to focus to infinity. It's just like having a small macro extension tube with the lens.
To use those PK lenses (and why not those are very decent lenses):
1. get a pentax!
2. get a mirrorless CSC, due to short registration distances these cameras have revitalised the usage of all sorts of lenses
3. Get a (whisper) Canon - shortest reg distance of all the dslr's, adapters readily available for most other mounts inc PK

For the 103A you're fine - you just need a nikon adaptall mount see here.

[sterretje]

You need an adapter with glass for the Nikon; this will act like a teleconverter but I'm not sure what magnification it gives. It will more than likely affect image quality. For the adaptall you might be able to find an adaptall adapter for Nikon (if I understand the adaptall system correctly) on the second hand market.

From that perspective you might be better of with a mirrorless camera or a Canon.

Also, cameras with APSc sensor will give a narrower field of view than FF cameras (like your K1000). Your 50mm on APSc will more or less give you the same field of view as 80mm on the K1000.

Personally, I would either get a Pentax or a mirrorless if you want to keep on using your old glass.

Note: I have no experience with adapters to convert from one mount to another (except for M42 to K-mount).

[Mazhe]

3. Get a (whisper) Canon - shortest reg distance of all the dslr's, adapters readily available for most other mounts inc PK

Canon registration distance is so short the aperture lever hits the mirror on many FF canon bodies. You have to permanently damage the lens or the body.

[visert]

The Pentax FF will be along later this year. Worth waiting for? No need for adapters

it will be a professional (5D MK III or D800) or more like a semi-pro (D610, 6D,...) ? .... just to understand a hipotetical price range

thank you.

[jatrax]

it will be a professional (5D MK III or D800) or more like a semi-pro (D610, 6D,...) ? .... just to understand a hipotetical price range

No one really knows at this point. But current rumor is D800 class with 36mp sensor.

You could also get a current Pentax APS-C camera such as the k-5IIs or the k-3 which would be an enormous step up from the D-40 and still use all your Pentax glass. If you really need FF, (why?) then either get a Sony mirrorless and Pentax adapter, wait for the Pentax FF digital or just get the Nikon or Canon that you like.

Honestly, those lenses are nice but should have NO impact on your camera decision. You are looking at maybe $200 worth of old film era lenses. Use those as a deciding point on a $1,500 FF body decision? That makes no sense, if you have the budget for D610 or Canon 6D then the lenses are immaterial. And you will be better off with the native kit glass than an adapted Pentax.

The first thing you should think about is why you want a FF semi-pro body? If you cannot answer that question with complete confidence, you are much better off with a good APS-C body at half the price. Or even 1/3 the price considering k-5IIs prices right now. And except in certain specific circumstances that FF body is not going to give you images any better than the APS-C body.

[visert]

Honestly, those lenses are nice but should have NO impact on your camera decision. You are looking at maybe $200 worth of old film era lenses. Use those as a deciding point on a $1,500 FF body decision? That makes no sense if you have the budget for D610 or Canon 6D then the lenses are immaterial.

those lenses did pass the reflected light from my eyes about 35 years ago when I was a child.
In the decision there is not only $ but also emotions.

The first thing you should think about is why you want a FF semi-pro body? If you cannot answer that question with complete confidence, you are much better off with a good APS-C body at half the price.

Usually I made portrait, urban, "events" in low light contests and to in motion subjetcs... and I'm seeing that FF give much more power and quality yet in camera or in post processing... (I dont like flash).
I would like FF mainly to improve those situations and use at best some prime lens of well-known quality.

thank you

[osv]

Usually I made portrait, urban, "events" in low light contests.

trying to do that with those slow primes is not logical.

and that adaptall-2 zoom is not the best lens that tamron made, why not look for a 19ah? Tamron SP Adaptall-2 70-210mm F/3.5 Model 19AH

[jatrax]

those lenses did pass the reflected light from my eyes about 35 years ago when I was a child. In the decision there is not only $ but also emotions.

Good point. And I don't mean to imply they are bad lenses or that you should not use them. I just want to note that emotion is the only reason to use them, they will not be any better than a modern zoom. And basing a major purchase on that alone seems risky if the intended purpose is better pictures. If the purpose is to use those lenses because of the attachment, then by all means go ahead.

Usually I made portrait, urban, "events" in low light contests and to in motion subjetcs... and I'm seeing that FF give much more power and quality yet in camera or in post processing... (I dont like flash). I would like FF mainly to improve those situations and use at best some prime lens of well-known quality.

Only you know what you need, but don't believe all the FF hype. Modern APS-C cameras like the k-5IIs or k-3 are BETTER by far than FF cameras of just a few years ago. Why don't you try out a modern APS-C camera, Pentax or other wise? Take an SD card to the shop and ask to take some pictures with their demo unit. Take a look at what at a modern camera can do compared to your D-40. The D-40 came out in 2006, I think you will be amazed at how much improvement has been made since then.

If you want FF that is fine. Just don't spend all that money believing that FF will be that much better than APS-C. It won't be, except in specific circumstances and even then the difference will be marginal.

[aleonx3]

The flange distance between Pentax k-mount and Nikon are very close, you can probably mount the k-mount lens on Nikon camera without problem. OTOH, the modern day Canon mount, the flange distance is much shorter, so you can buy a cheap adaptor to use k-mount lenses. As others have suggested, why do you need a FF camera and why not just buy a modern day entry level Pentax DSLR camera?

[Ontarian50]

Agreed that Nikons are the poor cousin in the DSLR world when it comes to mixing and matching lenses. The lens flange distance is 46.5mm on a Nikon, which is just a tad longer than the 45.46mm used on both the M42 and K-mount. The Nikon mount distance is also longer than just about everything else out there.
That tiny bit of extension stops you from focusing to infinity, even if you could theoretically get an adapter with zero thickness.
I do have an M42 to Nikon adapter handy. It's super thin, but with a 50mm Super Takumar at infinity, the furthest I can get away is about 1.5m. Of course, if you're doing close up work, or ideally using a Macro Takumar, it would suffice.
But they do offer lens adapters that promise infinity focus. Trouble is they use a small negative lens element to correct the focus issue. In reality it works like a tiny teleconverter. Effective focal length increases a small bit, but optical gremlins come into play. In short, you lose some sharpness, and often gain some distortion.
So trying to gain some special optical magic from a vintage lens on a modern body kind of goes out the window, which is why those focus correcting adapters are avoided.

[aleonx3]

As others have pointed out, there are some compromises in using k-mount lenses on Nikon camera. Experiences tells me that you will get some satisfaction initially (ability to use those lenses on other mounts) but the fun factor wears out quickly as you may not get the 'best' result in terms of quality as you have expected or envisioned. Those lenses are not the type of lenses like FA limited.... may be getting a new or used modern day entry level DSLR camera can bring more joy to use... just saying..

[boriscleto]

Canon FF cameras have an issue with K-mount lenses, the mirror will hit the aperture shield and aperture lever. This is why you see a lot of castrated K-mount lenses on eBay. I guess you can judge the quality of Canon lenses by the fact that so many Canon users will mutilate a lens with a different mount.

Why not pick up a K100D or K100D Super? For $100 or even less you could have a K-mount much like the D40, but with SR.

[biz-engineer]

The Pentax FF will be along later this year. Worth waiting for? No need for adapters

Shall we be realistic, wait one year for the new FF to be available, wait another year for the bugs to be fixed, wait another year for FF lenses available (except using old FA, A or M lenses), that's 3 years.