Originally posted by stevebrot The Laowa 15/4 has a non-coupled K-mount (crippled two ways) similar to that used by K-mount bellows and other perspective control lenses where a physical linkage is not possible. As such, the only points for conflict would be physical interference between the lens rear and/or failure to engage the aperture ring position coupler on the non-crippled mount of the two incompatible bodies. (This is probably accomplished with at cutout or slot on the lens base at about 8:00 with the red dot at 12:00.) I was unable to find any photos online showing the rear of the lens in Pentax-K, but the Nikon F version (similar flange depth) shows no obvious points of potential conflict. That and MightyMike's extensive review of the lens on the K-3 should be an indicator of general compatibility with at least crippled K
AF2 having power contacts.
I doubt this problem is with the lens.
A few questions:
- What is the condition of the coupler on the the MZ-S and MZ-6? (metal tab just inside the mount opening of the camera at about 2:00)
- Do other crippled-mount lenses mount on those two cameras without issue?
- Are you able to use the aperture ring on K, A, F, and FA lenses for Av and M modes with those two cameras?
Steve
Hello Steve, thanks for answering.
I have all the cameras on the table, an MZS, KM (film), MZ6 and a (new) Super A.
From what I can see they all look physically the same (ignoring contacts). They are in good condition all 4.
I don't have the Irix 11mm with me now but it is a crippled mount too, it also couldn't be mounted on the MZ6.
I can use the aperture rings on these cameras. (the ones with contacts show aperture correctly).
I see nothing on the Laowa mount that could obstruct mounting, I confess that I may have been able to mount it on the KM because I forced it on (I was like a K-mount is a K-mount, therefore it should fit on and it did, with considerable effort) but the KM cost me €20 vs €250 for the MZS so that's why I ask the question for future reference.