[dadipentak]

Great! And I can report that I've been consulted by another PF member who's looking into the acquisition of an SMC f8 1000mm. It's good to see these big ol' lenses continue to have a following.

[monochrome]

So, I guess, you'll have a lot of fun and good opportunities with this lens. I like my own copy. It's sharp and has good contrast an the purple fringing can be controlled by stepping dows and tyring to avoid the bright sky as a background.
It works well with the Pentax L tcs. If you have the Pentax 1.7x AF adapter it might be worth a try – I am simply curious on hearing your experience. My own trials with the AF adapter lead to extreme PF and unuseable images.

Ben

I'll need some practice. Unfortunately all the eagle shots I have seen are on branches against a bright blue winter sky. Maybe I can set up far enough away from my resident ground squirrel (chipmunks) colony to avoid scaring them back into their burrows

Great! And I can report that I've been consulted by another PF member who's looking into the acquisition of an SMC f8 1000mm. It's good to see these big ol' lenses continue to have a following.

Yes, I look forward to using and building some skill with this "long glass." This was totally unexpected and not in my long-term plans, but sometimes you just have to alter your plans. Since I had such low expectations (meaning I have none) the altered mount won't bother me much. Perhaps someday I'll run across an orphaned F-mount (I realize that is highly unlikely).

In any event, I believe this will reduce some of the pressure to create outstanding photos and just post something ibnteresting. I will no doubt consult your collective expertise on the "over 300mm" thread

[tvfd911]

Well, the lens (and fabled rear section) is on its way.

Here is a link to some test shots with comparative shots at 55mm. Unfortunately it was misting over lunch when I took it out for testing so the shots are a bit rushed and not very sharp. Monochrome jumped on this thing so fast, I barely had a chance to fully check it out completely and wait for ideal weather.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/4099125...7623001149554/


Also included are some shots of the proper hack job and the long glass collection I temporarilly owned. Figured I better capture it while I had 2000mm worth of vintage Takumar in one spot.

Monochrome- I don't believe that rear section is referred to as the F-mount unless F stands for the general thoughts most people have of how the rear section mounts to the main lens. I may have confused you when I mentioned the T to Nikon mount was included because I think Nikon calls their bayonet "F"

[monochrome]

Monochrome- I don't believe that rear section is referred to as the F-mount unless F stands for the general thoughts most people have of how the rear section mounts to the main lens. I may have confused you when I mentioned the T to Nikon mount was included because I think Nikon calls their bayonet "F"

I'm sure Ben Edict of dadipentak canstraighten me out. I know that detachable rear component has a name. Whenever I figure it out I'm going to get that Japanese search company to look for one. I read on MF Forum that another user bought one NEW from Pentax as recently as May, 1999.

[dadipentak]

I'm sure Ben Edict or dadipentak can straighten me out.

I'm afraid I can't help but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Ben can clarify.

[Ben_Edict]

I'm sure Ben Edict of dadipentak canstraighten me out. I know that detachable rear component has a name. Whenever I figure it out I'm going to get that Japanese search company to look for one. I read on MF Forum that another user bought one NEW from Pentax as recently as May, 1999.

Sorry, whenever I read or posted on that lens, we simply referred to it as the "rear section". My old Pentax catalogues do not even mention it, only referring to the built-in "filter holder"..

In an old discussion I found, that the interchangeable rear section was around 50USD in 1975 for the 67 version. Today, the last price I have seen was around 200USD on ebay...

Ben

[gofour3]

I'm sure Ben Edict of dadipentak canstraighten me out. I know that detachable rear component has a name. Whenever I figure it out I'm going to get that Japanese search company to look for one. I read on MF Forum that another user bought one NEW from Pentax as recently as May, 1999.

The Pentax manual for the super telephoto K series lenses calls it a "mount".

Here is a copy of the manual:

http://www.pentax.ca/pdf/o_manuals/om_SMC500MM1000MMREFLEX_e.pdf

Phil.

[monochrome]

Heh Heh! This was just meant to be.

I have my T-Mount back, and DWB's molested exchangeable 1000mm lens mount [EDIT: rear section], both now attached to a Battleship Takumar 500/4.5 I got from a member here.

Now that I HAVE the lens (DWB's molested mount now fixed to permit infinity focus), I found an entry on DPReview that might explain why the mount on DWB's 1000mm was converted to Nikon. Follows is a text paste, then a link to the OP with images.

Follow the Reply for the response:

"A bit of history. Up until about 1970 AP reporters used Pentax Spotmatic cameras and lenses in the field, including this lens. When they decided to switch to Nikon they had a camera technician in NYC convert all of their 500/4.5 lenses to Nikon AI mount (or whatever version was used then) because Nikon did not have a lens of this length and quality. Eventually they were phased out and these in Nikon mount sometimes come up at camera swap meets (I've seen 2 over the years)."
. . .
Kent Gittings

Can anyone tell me if this is a K mount? (24 August, 2008)

The weather is horrible here tonight (apparently, everything East of the Mississippi River is bad to worse) so I might not get any pictures WITH the lens but I'll try to post some pictures Of the lens

[dadipentak]

A marvelous find, monochrome! I'm looking forward to shots of both kinds ;~)

[Quicksand]

You know, I don't own one of these monsters, and I probably never will, but I have followed this thread from the beginning and have found it fascinating every step of the way. The messed-up eBay listing, the Nikon-modified mount, T-mounts, interchangeable mounts, and various missing mount pieces, the repair odyssey, gimbals...

I can't wait for the movie!

[deadwolfbones]

Heh Heh! This was just meant to be.

I have my T-Mount back, and DWB's molested exchangeable 1000mm lens mount, both now attached to a Battleship Takumar 500/4.5.

Now that I HAVE the lens (DWB's molested mount now fixed to permit infinity focus), I found an entry on DPReview that might explain why the mount on DWB's 1000mm was converted to Nikon. Follows is a text paste, then a link to the OP with images.

Follow the Reply for the response:

"A bit of history. Up until about 1970 AP reporters used Pentax Spotmatic cameras and lenses in the field, including this lens. When they decided to switch to Nikon they had a camera technician in NYC convert all of their 500/4.5 lenses to Nikon AI mount (or whatever version was used then) because Nikon did not have a lens of this length and quality. Eventually they were phased out and these in Nikon mount sometimes come up at camera swap meets (I've seen 2 over the years)."
. . .
Kent Gittings

Can anyone tell me if this is a K mount? (24 August, 2008)

The weather is horrible here tonight (apparently, everything East of the Mississippi River is bad to worse) so I might not get any pictures WITH the lens but I'll try to post some pictures Of the lens

Verrrrry interesting!

[monochrome]

Here are the promised (quick and dirty) beauty shots of the new lens. These were taken in a brief spare moment before setting up "The Tree," using on board flash and the FA35/2 that is my normal lens on my K10D.







This is a well-used lens, not to say that it is abused, and I think suitable for my first foray into long glass. The aperture ring clicks nicely and firmly stays in position. The focus ring is smooth and well damped, if just a bit dry and stiff, just like my A35~105/3.5. As I understand is common with these lenses, the moving part of the barrel has a bit of lateral play. I don't know if this will affect images, but the upper portion of the image appears OOF [EDIT: It is not determined whether the image is even distorted - User Focusing Error and Camera Shake are readily apparent!].

The mount and rear section have been described extensively earlier in this thread, having been transferred to this lens by the Forum buyer of DWB's 1000/8. For the price (about half what these lenses normally sell for on auction sites) I am quite pleased with the condition.

My tripod with pan/tilt head is really more suited to a larger video camera, but has been sufficient for my use up to now. I will need to get some kind of gimball head (drat) for more stability and because the tripod ring adjustment knob interferes with the plate release levers. As you can see, the pan levers are backward - I had to mount the rig backward to seat the plate in the head. That's OK for play but will quickly get old out shooting wildlife. That being said, the set up is rock-solid. I had no fear of losing the camera or the lens, so in that way this is much preferable to a ballhead.

The following images are what I was able to produce in about 30 minutes of shooting (not nearly enough practice with such a long lens) with a K10D - a total of 30 images. Generally I had trouble getting exposure correct in M mode and getting decent focus (Focus Confirmation had trouble unless focusing wide open, then stopping down to meter). I attribute this to User Error. Switching to RAW, Av and setting max ISO at 800, then 400, extending the hood, and focusing by eye rather than using the electronics I was pleased with the 2nd image, especially since I shoot left-eye and use a +2 SMC Correction Lens attachment on the viewfinder frame rather than using my glasses. #1 is straight out of the camera, in camera jpeg. #2 is straight out of the camera, RAW, extracted in PPE. #3 is PP'ed in ACDSee, for exposure, color temp, SLIGHT Unsharp Mask and resized.

This was shot through my dining room window (and storm window) - and probably not a clean window, either - across the yards behind my house. Conditions were by no means good - any lens would be challenged by the gray, overcast light and mist in the air. The chimney is three houses down from mine, approximately 100 yards away. The furnace flue topper that appears out of focus was a surprise - it is about 1 1/2 feet beyond the face of the bricks [EDIT: On closer inspection of the actual pixels, this is actually visible camera shake, not an OOF area]. Unfortunately I blew the snow highlights, but I didn't use any filter so that also is User Error. These lenses obviously require practice and experience to nail focus - and a VERY stable platform. When I ahve decent images I'll start a new thread.

Av f/22 1/10 -1.0 EV MF ISO800 WB CLoudy Sharp +2



Av f/16 0.3s ISO400 Center-weighted -1.0 EV SR Off MLU 2s delay. I believe there was still some vibration.

[monochrome]

The Pentax manual for the super telephoto K series lenses calls it a "mount".

Here is a copy of the manual:

http://www.pentax.ca/pdf/o_manuals/om_SMC500MM1000MMREFLEX_e.pdf

Phil.

Somehow I missed this - thanks Phil.

[wallyb]

Are you shooting through your window in those pictures? That's going to account for a lot of optical degradation...

[Ben_Edict]

So, some comments on your lens:
1. if you have lateral play in the tubes, that would by all probabilty account for the different OOF in different parts of the images. You could call it a severe case of astigmatism and test for it easily: Just look out out for a point-like light source (a very distant street light at night for instance) and than go through the focus and look, whether the light point has a slightly different shape in front or after the focal plane. Astiugmatism usually shows off like making a round point source (in focus) into an ellipsoidical shape which has different orientiations in front or behind the focal plane. This orientation is easily spoted. Ofcourse the best point source would be a bright star.

2. This kind of play seems to be quite common in these lenses. There are several tiny screws inside, which often come loose and account for that play. Have a look at the manual focus forum:
Manual Focus Forum / Pentax Super Takumar 500mm F4.5
which you may find helpful. Please read through the whole thread, as there have been some dead-ends in the repair quest!

3. the optical performance of your particular performance is hard to judge from these photos. First the deteriotian by the window glas should not be underestimated! Secondly you have very visible camera shake in these images.

4. focusing needs quite a lot of trial and error - but rest assured, it improves over time. I needed really a couple of weeks, before I finally got acceptablöy sharp images.

5. the best further investment to get good images with that lens was a cheap gimbal mount, the Manfrotto MA393. It may not be up to the standard of a Wimberley, Jobu or Eki, but it works wonders with such a lens. I have it attached permamanelty on an otherwise obsolete MA 055.

Ben