[AnttiV]

Hi. First of, sorry if I sound surly/angry/etc. Because I definitely am, but most of all I'm really, REALLY tired of what keeps happening to me with cameras and lenses..

Anyway, short story short: Are the various (old) 28 to 100+mm lenses available for Pentax (Ricoh, Vivitar, etc) somehow different from all other lenses?

I had a "Pentax K/AR Super Paragon PMCII 28-135mm f3.8-5.2" lens that I bought for my Lumix DMC-G3. It behaved really oddly, as in the focus point changed according to zoom amount. If I zoomed it to 100mm, the scale was correct and I could focus to 6m distance by turning the focus to 6m. If I zoomed to 45mm, I could focus to 6m distance by turning the focus to... 2m. (yeah not a typo). If I zoomed it to 28mm, I couldn't focus to *anything*. I sent it back as faulty (Didn't have my K-m back then so couldn't test) and the guy tested it with his Nikon and came to the same conclusion. But afterwards tried with a K-x and it apparently worked well? (I saw the shots and the guy refunded me anyway, so I'm not calling BS on him).

Anyway, I bought a "Vivitar 28-200mm/3.5-5.3 P/K-A R-P/K" to replace it and it arrived today. Guess what? Yeah, it doesn't focus at 28mm to anything and the focus point changes when I zoom. On top of that, I can't (and trust me I TRIED) for the life of me get it to fit my K-m. I can take pictures if anyone wants to see/help.

The focusing I could blame on my PK-m43 adapter if and only IF I didn't already have a bunch of PK-mount glass in 28, 50, 55, 135, 70-150, 35-80, 200... focal lengths that *work as they should* I have had ZERO problems with focusing my old lenses on both of my PK-m43 (or any Yashica, M42, etc) adapters in any focal lengths. EXCEPT for these two 28-to-100+mm lenses.

I dare not contact the seller of this lens before I'm 101% sure it's the lens and not any of my equipment since the returning postage from here is ridiculously expensive.

But, does anyone know what is the deal with these? Why do these two 28-> zooms work differently than ANY other PK (or M42) mount lens I have ever used?

And why doesn't the Vivitar fit my K-m? (it does fit my PK-m43 adapter and all the lens rear caps I have for PK fit it perfectly well. If just doesn't fit my K-m?)

I just want a cheap (long) "walkaround" lens for my DMC-G3, and a 28-135 or 28-200 would be perfect. But I'm scared to try to purchase any more since both of these that I have are unusable with my G3 (and this latest even unusable for my Pentax?).. I'm just really tired because this is "everyday" luck for me considering photography equipment. Things break during nights for no effing reason, other things just don't work at all even if they should and people keep asking really stupid sums for used equipment so I'm not even able to buy more recent gear. This is starting to "get" to me really soon now.

Sorry. /rant over.

EDIT: I can't find the first lens in allphotolenses.com but here's a few pictures: http://imgur.com/a/tMqbX
The second lens is this: http://allphotolenses.com/lenses/item/c_1097.html

---

Last edited by AnttiV; 09-27-2016 at 06:43 AM. Reason: Adding lens info

[aurele]

Anyway, I bought a "Vivitar 28-200mm/3.5-5.3 P/K-A R-P/K" to replace it and it arrived today. Guess what? Yeah, it doesn't focus at 28mm to anything and the focus point changes when I zoom. On top of that, I can't (and trust me I TRIED) for the life of me get it to fit my K-m. I can take pictures if anyone wants to see/help.

Many zooms are not "Parfocal" meaning the focusing distance remain the same when you zoom in or out. Your zoom are not parfocal, hence the change in the focusing when you zoom.

The focusing I could blame on my PK-m43 adapter if and only IF I didn't already have a bunch of PK-mount glass in 28, 50, 55, 135, 70-150, 35-80, 200... focal lengths that *work as they should* I have had ZERO problems with focusing my old lenses on both of my PK-m43 (or any Yashica, M42, etc) adapters in any focal lengths. EXCEPT for these two 28-to-100+mm lenses.

I still thing your problem lies in the adapter : if the adapter is shorter or longer than it should, even about 1mm, it will quite screw up the focusing. It's just more obvious with zoom.

And i think that the adapter is to blame, because on Pentax body everything is fine.

Make sure your adapter has no wobble or screw that need to be tighten.

[AnttiV]

Many zooms are not "Parfocal" meaning the focusing distance remain the same when you zoom in or out. Your zoom are not parfocal, hence the change in the focusing when you zoom.

What's the point of the distance scale on the lens then? I mean if it doesn't matter at all, why print it to the lens in the first place?

EDIT: This is what I'm talking about: http://imgur.com/a/IVi8e
Why print this onto the lens if it doesn't matter?

I still thing your problem lies in the adapter : if the adapter is shorter or longer than it should, even about 1mm, it will quite screw up the focusing. It's just more obvious with zoom.

And i think that the adapter is to blame, because on Pentax body everything is fine.

Make sure your adapter has no wobble or screw that need to be tighten.

If it is the adapter, why does it work with EVERY OTHER LENS I have ever used with it? It does work with a 28mm prime, it does work with a 50mm prime, it does work with a 135mm prime and it does work with a 70-150mm zoom and it works with a 35-80mm zoom. Literally the only two lenses that do not have been these two 28-135mm and 28-200mm. And this is with two adapters. The chances of having two adapters (not bought at the same time, the other is ~5-years newer) that work with ALL other lenses and not these two..

Also with this other lens everything is not fine with a Pentax body, or at least I can't test that because I can't get it to fit?

[Bewatek]

What's the point of the distance scale on the lens then? I mean if it doesn't matter at all, why print it to the lens in the first place?

Its just for orientation, just a help. It isnt accurate in all situations and it did not need to be for a 35mm film zoom lens like this.
Btw, why are you complaining about some old obscure third party zoom lenses? They were crap even when they were new. Get some decent pentax glas if you want good results.

[AnttiV]

Its just for orientation, just a help. It isnt accurate in all situations and it did not need to be for a 35mm film zoom lens like this.

Oh, I did not know that. I assumed that it was there to help in focusing and thus should be at least "sort of" accurate. Like it is on any other lens. But I never shot with film (except crappy point-n-shoots), so I have no experience with that.

Btw, why are you complaining about some old obscure third party zoom lenses? They were crap even when they were new. Get some decent pentax glas if you want good results.

Why am I complaining..? I thought that was particularly clear - I can't get them to work. Like at all. And why do you assume I want "good results" if I use cheapo legacy glass? Do you think I wouldn't buy a new Pentax AF lens or two if it was in any way possible for me to do so? Why do you think my "new" Pentax is a K-m and not a K-3 II or K-70?

Let's clear that one out.
A single, used, Pentax 18-135mm WR lens costs more than my entire camera bag including the contents. A K-70 kit (ANY kit) would cost more than the entirety of photography gear I currently own, including my "main" Lumix DMC-G3. This is also more than my month's grocery budget for my entire family, which is incidentally the reason why I CAN'T get a new body or "some decent pentax glass".

I don't *need* AF or automatic aperture, which is why I can make do with legacy glass. And because I can, I choose to purchase it and have some gear rather than not and have no gear at all. For reference my "priced" 50mm/1.4 Minolta MD lens was 35€ (including shipping). And it's a perfectly good lens. And works perfectly well with a 6€ adapter for my Lumix G3.

So if you can point me to a decent zoom with a wide end somewhere around 18 to 28mm and tele end over 100mm that costs less than 100€ (including shipping & customs), I'm more than happy to invest in it. However I really, REALLY doubt you can come up with one so I will continue to "complain" about "old obscure tihd party zooms" when they do not work like they should.

ps. I couldn't give a rat's bottom about Image Quality. I don't need more MPix or any extra sharp glass. I care about equipment functioning. And right now both of the lenses I have owned did not focus AT ALL @28mm and this latest one doesn't even fit my K-m body.

Sorry. /rant over again.

[Nass]

Just for the record, whilst we very much understand and appreciate why you're angry, please bear in mind that the folk here don't work for Pentax or for lens manufacturers. They're trying to help; snapping at them probably won't get results. I wish you the best of luck, my own experience with old zooms is pretty good but I've had a few stinkers too. I hate to say it and it's not ideal but that's just how it goes.

[AnttiV]

Just for the record, whilst we very much understand and appreciate why you're angry, please bear in mind that the folk here don't work for Pentax or for lens manufacturers. They're trying to help; snapping at them probably won't get results. I wish you the best of luck, my own experience with old zooms is pretty good but I've had a few stinkers too. I hate to say it and it's not ideal but that's just how it goes.

No I apologize. I'm just really tired because this seems to happen again and again and again with my photography equipment. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to snap at anyone. It's just that my pet peeve is "you need tons of money for photography" and apparently that "dump that old crap buy some decent Pentax glass" got to me more than I meant to. Sorry.

And it's exactly because I have had *stellar* luck with old lenses before. Most of them work way, WAY better than I had ever expected. Thus my irritation with these two specifics because they are so similar - in their problems and focal lengths and all so I begun to wonder if there's something different in that kind of glass compared to what I already own.

ps. Just got info from the seller.. does anyone here know about this: Apparently a PK-mount is not a PK-mount? Vivitar apparently has made a specific "PK-mount for Ricoh Cameras" -lens that is compatible with Ricoh bodies, but not Pentax bodies even though they both use PK-mounts... I had no idea. (Neither did he, but, eh.)

[Wild Mark]

OP

I am really reluctant to say much in response to your posts (Nass sums it up nicely), but, can I second an earlier comment re: inferior third party glass.

I am equally reluctant to make a suggestion for you, but, perhaps you might consider this old glass

SMC Pentax-A 35-105mm F3.5 Reviews - A Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

or consider the following zoom lens together with a 28mm and 50mm prime

Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm F2.8-4 Version 3 (komine) Lens Reviews - Vivitar Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

Please also bear in mind that buying second hand lenses is fraught with mixed outcomes. I have lost count of the second hand lenses I have had to fix.

Al the best

[Skodadriver]

Hi. First of, sorry if I sound surly/angry/pissed/etc. Because I definitely am, but most of all I'm really, REALLY tired of what keeps happening to me with cameras and lenses..



Anyway, I bought a "Vivitar 28-200mm/3.5-5.3 P/K-A R-P/K" to replace it and it arrived today. Guess what? Yeah, it doesn't focus at 28mm to anything and the focus point changes when I zoom. On top of that, I can't (and trust me I TRIED) for the life of me get it to fit my K-m. I can take pictures if anyone wants to see/help.




But, does anyone know what is the deal with these? Why do these two 28-> zooms work differently than ANY other PK (or M42) mount lens I have ever used?

And why doesn't the Vivitar fit my K-m? (it does fit my PK-m43 adapter and all the lens rear caps I have for PK fit it perfectly well. If just doesn't fit my K-m?)



EDIT: I can't find the first lens in allphotolenses.com but here's a few pictures: Super Paragon PMC II 28-135mm - Album on Imgur
The second lens is this: The Vivitar 28-200 mm f/ 3.5-5.3 (Kobori) Lens. Specs. MTF Charts. User Reviews.

Just a thought, on the 28-200mm Vivitar, look at the mounting end of the lens, does it have a guard for the aperture lever? is it a lot longer than your other Pentax K mount lenses? On the Vivitar 28-200mm I bought, I had to file that guard back to a more "regular" shape to get it to fit. There are posts about non-fitting lenses in various posts on the forum.

[AnttiV]

OP

I am really reluctant to say much in response to your posts (Nass sums it up nicely), but, can I second an earlier comment re: inferior third party glass.

Yeah he did. And I can understand inferior glass - but I don't really mind it. I'm not after perfect image quality or anything close. What I'm talking is about "soft/non-clear" images versus "blurred beyond use".

Like this (these are with the aforementioned 28-135mm):
Dropbox - 100mm_at_2m.JPG
This is image quality I was expecting from the glass and one that I would be happy (or at least OK) with. I could work with this quality and it doesn't bother me that much. This is just a hobby for me and I don't earn money with it.
But what I got was this:
Dropbox - 28mm_at_2m.JPG
This is unusable. It's not just "slightly bad focus" or "soft lens" or even a dirt one. It is just plain broken, non-functioning, non-usable image.

(For reference, these are also with a ~$20 lens and I'm more than happy with this level of image quality: Mushrooms - Album on Imgur )

I am equally reluctant to make a suggestion for you, but, perhaps you might consider this old glass

SMC Pentax-A 35-105mm F3.5 Reviews - A Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

That is actually a quite good suggestion, it's a bit long at wide and wide at long (that sounded stupid) for what I'm looking for, but I could do with that. I wish I could find that for a decent price. But the cheapest I could quickly find (from ebay) was 80€ + shipping + customs that would bring it up to at least 100+€.

or consider the following zoom lens together with a 28mm and 50mm prime

Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm F2.8-4 Version 3 (komine) Lens Reviews - Vivitar Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

Please also bear in mind that buying second hand lenses is fraught with mixed outcomes. I have lost count of the second hand lenses I have had to fix.

Al the best

I do own a (quite similar) lens like that one. a 75-200mm/3.5 to be specific. And I do own primes in various focal lengths, including those two. It's not the focal lengths that I'm after, only that I'd want them to be on one lens that I could "take for a walk" and not worry about bringing multiple lenses or needing to change lenses constantly. (If I had money, I'd buy the new 18-135mm WR in a heartbeat, that focal length is made for me

Yeah I'm aware of mixed results, but you can avoid most of them by being careful and asking the right questions / being in contact with sellers before purchasing. I've never had any real problems with second hand lenses, if you don't count these two in question.

---------- Post added 09-27-16 at 03:01 PM ----------

Just a thought, on the 28-200mm Vivitar, look at the mounting end of the lens, does it have a guard for the aperture lever? is it a lot longer than your other Pentax K mount lenses? On the Vivitar 28-200mm I bought I had to file that guard back to a more "regular" shape to get it to fit. There are posts about non-itting lenses in various posts on the forum.

You know what? It is. It's a LOT longer than it "should" be. Wonder if this is the "PK-mount for Ricoh" difference? (At which point I do wonder why go for the trouble?). Anyways, thanks for pointing that out. I'll see if I can either remove it completely or at least file it to length.
EDIT: Here's a picture of the Vivitar beside Pentax DAL 50-200mm. http://imgur.com/a/jzBfK

[RAART]

What's the point of the distance scale on the lens then? I mean if it doesn't matter at all, why print it to the lens in the first place?

EDIT: This is what I'm talking about: Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet
Why print this onto the lens if it doesn't matter?

Just to clarify this... It is not just for orientation and it is very useful back then, in the 35mm film days. In order to be accurate you have to mount those lenses at least on digital full frame cameras. It is measured and designed for film 35mm SLR's and not for APS-C or m4/3 sensors. If you do not believe me ask someone you trust and it is very knowledgeable about using SLR's as well as DSLR's and have experience on both systems.

Think just about regular car tires... Put the wrong size (height) and your speedometer is off...

[UncleVanya]

The Ricoh mount included a separate pin on it that can get the lens stuck on a Pentax DSLR but otherwise has no real impact.

The extra long guard on the mount may work just fine on older film cameras - some additional space has been taken over the years by extra contacts in the mount area. Typically that shield can be removed and or trimmed down to allow lenses to fit without causing problems.

The only 28mm-200mm I have ever seen in person is the FA version (Sigma made a version also). This lens is autofocus but inexpensive and of moderate quality. However on the mirrorless camera it may be less satisfactory to focus due to the limited amount the focus ring turns, the limited damening, and the relatively narrow aperture.

Prime lenses may focus with less problems than a large range zoom. The focus shift you mention is more than I would expect and seems likely related to the accuracy of the mount distance. I'm sorry but what you are asking for may need more precision which may be too much money. I would suggest perhaps splitting the zoom range and grabbing a 28-70 or 28-80 to pair with a 70-200 or 70-150.

Generally the wider the range the more compromised the design on a zoom.

One other option to consider is to specifically look for a parfocal lens. This will at least eliminate the focus shift you're seeing. It isn't clear if then it will focus across the board correctly, but it should be easier to see if it works.

[Skodadriver]

Yeah he did. And I can understand inferior glass - but I don't really mind it. I'm not after perfect image quality or anything close. What I'm talking is about "soft/non-clear" images versus "blurred beyond use".

Like this (these are with the aforementioned 28-135mm):
Dropbox - 100mm_at_2m.JPG
This is image quality I was expecting from the glass and one that I would be happy (or at least OK) with. I could work with this quality and it doesn't bother me that much. This is just a hobby for me and I don't earn money with it.
But what I got was this:
Dropbox - 28mm_at_2m.JPG
This is unusable. It's not just "slightly bad focus" or "soft lens" or even a dirt one. It is just plain broken, non-functioning, non-usable image.

(For reference, these are also with a ~$20 lens and I'm more than happy with this level of image quality: Mushrooms - Album on Imgu








That is actually a quite good suggestion, it's a bit long at wide and wide at long (that sounded stupid) for what I'm looking for, but I could do with that. I wish I could find that for a decent price. But the cheapest I could quickly find (from ebay) was 80€ + shipping + customs that would bring it up to at least 100+€.



I do own a (quite similar) lens like that one. a 75-200mm/3.5 to be specific. And I do own primes in various focal lengths, including those two. It's not the focal lengths that I'm after, only that I'd want them to be on one lens that I could "take for a walk" and not worry about bringing multiple lenses or needing to change lenses constantly. (If I had money, I'd buy the new 18-135mm WR in a heartbeat, that focal length is made for me

Yeah I'm aware of mixed results, but you can avoid most of them by being careful and asking the right questions / being in contact with sellers before purchasing. I've never had any real problems with second hand lenses, if you don't count these two in question.

---------- Post added 09-27-16 at 03:01 PM ----------


You know what? It is. It's a LOT longer than it "should" be. Wonder if this is the "PK-mount for Ricoh" difference? (At which point I do wonder why go for the trouble?). Anyways, thanks for pointing that out. I'll see if I can either remove it completely or at least file it to length.
EDIT: Here's a picture of the Vivitar beside Pentax DAL 50-200mm. "Ricoh PK" vs. "Pentax PK" - Album on Imgur

I sold both a
TAMRON AF 28-105mm F4-5.6 Model 179D Not too heavy and auto-focus,
for £21 earlier this year as I preferred the Pentax-A 35-105mm I subsequently bought.
and a Vivitar 35-105mm Constant F3.5, heavy larger than the Pentax,
for £12.50 as it was replaced by that Pentax-A 35-105mm
I had been happy with both lenses until I found my preferred walk around lens (though it is not light!)
There are bargains out there, I did not lose any money...well very little.


One thing to remember about using lenses with Ricoh pins on your K-M, some of the Ricoh are rounded, some are not and will catch in your camera's screw drive aperture. Lots of posts about this on the Forum too.
Enjoy your legacy lenses on your K-M.

[Giklab]

You know what? It is. It's a LOT longer than it "should" be. Wonder if this is the "PK-mount for Ricoh" difference? (At which point I do wonder why go for the trouble?). Anyways, thanks for pointing that out. I'll see if I can either remove it completely or at least file it to length.
EDIT: Here's a picture of the Vivitar beside Pentax DAL 50-200mm. "Ricoh PK" vs. "Pentax PK" - Album on Imgur

This isn's a "Ricoh" difference, like mentioned before, it's just the way lenses used to be made. You can either unscrew it or file it down. I removed the one on my Vivitar 70-210 and it works just fine.
This is one compromise you have to make with older lenses - you need to do research.

[marcusBMG]

Anyway, I bought a "Vivitar 28-200mm/3.5-5.3 P/K-A R-P/K" to replace it and it arrived today. Guess what? Yeah, it doesn't focus at 28mm to anything and the focus point changes when I zoom. .... I can take pictures if anyone wants to see/help.

You're not alone in encountering this problem. I have the same lens and yeah, on my lumix G1 with PK adapter the lens only focuses to about 3m distance! And the similar 28-210mm (cosina made as opposed to kobori for the 28-200mm) is the same! I was just looking for some posts and pics I made on mflenses but can't find them. I attribute this problem to these lenses being particularly sensitive to the adapter matching the registration distance of the lens. On pentax the RD is 45.54mm. It is typical of basic made in china adapters to err on the small side to make sure the lens focuses to infinity. But i am not sure why TBH..

Zoom lenses that only match the distance scale at the long focal length end are common - tends to be the cheaper lenses. For example the cheap tamron adaptalls 58A and 59A I have reviewed are the same:

Tamron Adaptall-2 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 (59A and 159A) Lens Reviews - Tamron Adaptall Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

By way of example, the change in focus from 70mm to 28mm using a wall poster approx 10m away was from midway between 6m and infinity on the distance scale at 70mm to between 1.2m and 1.5m on the distance scale at 28mm.

If you had checked the review here on PF

https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/vivitar-28-200mm-f3-5-5-3.html

You would already have found the answer to the lens mounting problem - large aperture lever guard



FWIW these early viv superzooms are really optically quite good - I did some comparison pics against a DA 18-135mm and from 35mm up they held their own well.

Update - I decided to edit the 28-200mm review page.