[audiobomber]

this is a P mount, right?

how easy is to remove the rear flange and the ball?

Removing the ball is dead simple. Modifying the flange is scary because it takes some force (e.g. a hacksaw) and there are lots of electrically conductive chips generated from cutting the aluminum.

[stevebrot]

Winning bid at US $180.50. Not bad...

Steve

[Rykoh]

Removing the ball is dead simple. Modifying the flange is scary because it takes some force (e.g. a hacksaw) and there are lots of electrically conductive chips generated from cutting the aluminum.

Yeah, it is always advisable to do the surgery with the mount removed....

[troyz]

Yeah, it is always advisable to do the surgery with the mount removed....

It may be possible to remove the flange entirely and avoid the hacksaw. Link to Hin's post on this:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/126565-post3.html

[clm]

Well it's the same as a Pentax A lens. It locks in the P position.

Ricoh P is not the same as Pentax A. I know this from experience.

[Mike.P®]

Ricoh P is not the same as Pentax A. I know this from experience.

Indeed, I have a couple of Ricoh mount lenses with the P setting and the contacts are different to the A lenses.
This means the lens is fully manual.

[jamesk8752]

This is slightly irritating. I've been watching this lens all week. Now it's probably going to go for more than it would have before. C'est la vie, I suppose. Guess I'll see what happens.

It's been said before, and I'll say it again as a reminder - it is BAD FORM to post here about a "live" eBay auction, for the reason you have stated. Such actions penalize those who do the digging to identify auction items of interest by increasing the number of bidders.

My 2 cents worth, anyway...

Regards, Jim

[Fl_Gulfer]

Don't worry I won't say chit about anything on fleabay again. Just trying to help people like me that forget to look at the auctions now and then. Even though someone wasn't smart enough to bid 200 on a great lens worth double that, congrats to the person who got it.

[stevebrot]

Don't worry I won't say chit about anything on fleabay again. Just trying to help people like me that forget to look at the auctions now and then. Even though someone wasn't smart enough to bid 200 on a great lens worth double that, congrats to the person who got it.

The fellow that got it likely bought it for resale (based on his current list of items for sale). A private message to the buyer may result in some quick money for him and a good lens for the person closing the deal.

Steve

[stevebrot]

It's been said before, and I'll say it again as a reminder - it is BAD FORM to post here about a "live" eBay auction, for the reason you have stated. Such actions penalize those who do the digging to identify auction items of interest by increasing the number of bidders.

My 2 cents worth, anyway...

Regards, Jim

Good point Jim. No sense initiating a feeding frenzy. This forum is frequently indexed by Google (almost instantaneously when a post is made courtesy of Google analytics) and even a passing reference to an active eBay auction can bring in bidders from all over.

Steve

[frank]

Sometimes I just don't get it. How come these old MF macro lenses sold for more than our AF 100 macro lenses made by Pentax? Are they really that good or just hyped prices? To me it's more like the latter. I've used many macro lenses including all Pentax AF/MF macro 50 and 100s, and some good MF macros like Vivitar 105, Voigtlander 125 and etc. I don't see any benefit of having an old heavy MF macro over our DFA100. And the DFA100 is such a wonderful lens when used between F8 to F16 (the most used apertures for macros by my experience), don't think it's any inferior to any of the other macro lenses within this range. Besides, it got AF (easier for portrait or even some macro works).

My suggestion is to go w/ one of those AF ones made by Pentax, Tamron, or Sigma. They are quite cheaper than those much hyped Tokina/Vivitar/Voigtlander/or whatever MF 90~125mm macro lenses, and they are easily available new or used.

And I still remember those old days when Vivitar 105 macro sold new for less than $200USD while the Voigtlander 125 macro sold for less than $650USD ...

I myself still have the A50/2.8 macro and A100/2.8 macro, but mostly for collector purpose, not because they are far better than those AF ones, especially the A100/2.8 macro.

[jsherman999]

Sometimes I just don't get it. How come these old MF macro lenses sold for more than our AF 100 macro lenses made by Pentax? Are they really that good or just hyped prices? To me it's more like the latter. I've used many macro lenses including all Pentax AF/MF macro 50 and 100s, and some good MF macros like Vivitar 105, Voigtlander 125 and etc. I don't see any benefit of having an old heavy MF macro over our DFA100. And the DFA100 is such a wonderful lens when used between F8 to F16 (the most used apertures for macros by my experience), don't think it's any inferior to any of the other macro lenses within this range. Besides, it got AF (easier for portrait or even some macro works).

My suggestion is to go w/ one of those AF ones made by Pentax, Tamron, or Sigma. They are quite cheaper than those much hyped Tokina/Vivitar/Voigtlander/or whatever MF 90~125mm macro lenses, and they are easily available new or used.

And I still remember those old days when Vivitar 105 macro sold new for less than $200USD while the Voigtlander 125 macro sold for less than $650USD ...

I myself still have the A50/2.8 macro and A100/2.8 macro, but mostly for collector purpose, not because they are far better than those AF ones, especially the A100/2.8 macro.

The Viv 105 2.5 is the only lens capable of taking the following
testament to macro:













Well..... Maybe not. But it is the only macro lens certified to take shots of
cheesy travelling Jewish high-school singing acts:






Bet you didn't know that.


By the way, here's my little guy's reaction to that group:




.

[frank]

The Viv 105 2.5 is the only lens capable of taking the following
testament to macro:


.

That's a very cool shot

But I bet you can take that photo w/ a DFA100 or a Tamron 90 AF macro too

[creampuff]

Sometimes I just don't get it. How come these old MF macro lenses sold for more than our AF 100 macro lenses made by Pentax? Are they really that good or just hyped prices? To me it's more like the latter. I've used many macro lenses including all Pentax AF/MF macro 50 and 100s, and some good MF macros like Vivitar 105, Voigtlander 125 and etc. I don't see any benefit of having an old heavy MF macro over our DFA100. And the DFA100 is such a wonderful lens when used between F8 to F16 (the most used apertures for macros by my experience), don't think it's any inferior to any of the other macro lenses within this range. Besides, it got AF (easier for portrait or even some macro works).

My suggestion is to go w/ one of those AF ones made by Pentax, Tamron, or Sigma. They are quite cheaper than those much hyped Tokina/Vivitar/Voigtlander/or whatever MF 90~125mm macro lenses, and they are easily available new or used.

And I still remember those old days when Vivitar 105 macro sold new for less than $200USD while the Voigtlander 125 macro sold for less than $650USD ...

I myself still have the A50/2.8 macro and A100/2.8 macro, but mostly for collector purpose, not because they are far better than those AF ones, especially the A100/2.8 macro.

Agree with you 100% on this.

Like frank, I've gone thru quite a number of macro lenses and there is simply too much hype over the old macro lenses imo. For me, shooting with aperture priority is almost second nature and I tend to shoot quickly. The old lenses that only allow manual is too limiting and a trade-off I won't consider, no matter the supposed optical performance.

There is a place for AF in macro lenses because macro lenses are very versatile and can do double duty as a conventional lens at non macro subjects and shooting distances.

I'm not saying the old lenses aren't good optically but I feel the newer macro lenses exhibit much better contrast. However good a lens is reputation wise, is the price realistic? For such an old lens, it is a lttle too much to pay imo.

Here's a trivia question, what macro lens took this uncropped shot (no peeking the exif)?
1) a 50mm macro
2) a 100mm macro
3) a consumer zoom lens (17-70mm)

[Mike Cash]

By the way, here's my little guy's reaction to that group:




.

Everybody's a critic......