[miniman82]

My my, what a big "fisheye" you have

Sigma 14 is a non-fish rectalinear, actually. I'm still searchin for a good fisheye to add to the collection.

[Nesster]

wirrah, DANG!!!

[Duh_Vinci]

Sigma 14 is a non-fish rectalinear, actually. I'm still searchin for a good fisheye to add to the collection.

You are more than welcome to buy my 15mm in that picture, I'll give you good price on it

Regards,
D

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

Some A lens fetish.









Go look here for more on these lenses and the shoot out between the DA*50-135 and the A50 A*85 A100 and A*135!

[Miserere]

SMC Pentax K 200mm f 2.5[/IMG]

I'd never seen one of these. It doesn't look that big; do you use it often? Is it handholdable?

[jamesk8752]

Here's a rare one: the K28/3.5 Shift lens:


Another rare one: the K85/2.2 Soft lens


A long one (I have two copies): the K135-600/6.3 zoom:


You want big? I've got big: the A*400/2.8 lens, shown with the 50/1.4 for comparison


And the Three Amigos: A*300/2.8, A*400/2.8, and A*600/5.6


Just a few from my collection...

[8540tomg]

Miserere,

I use it all the time. It's stubby, about 7 in length and takes 77mm filters. It is quite rare and at f2.5 it is the fastest 200mm Pentax ever made. It is easily hand held and I use it for sports, in gyms and auditoriums. World class K series build and it is (you can see I'm a fan boy) my favourite lens. Check link to Lens Database for further details:

Pentax Lens Review Database - 200mm F2.5

Cheers,

Tom G

---

Last edited by 8540tomg; 08-25-2009 at 04:48 AM. Reason: typo

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

SMC Pentax K 200mm f 2.5

I'd never seen one of these. It doesn't look that big; do you use it often? Is it handholdable?

K200/2.5, the grandfather of the A*200/2.8, right? 6 by 6 lenses, 77mm diameter and close enough in weight and dimensions. A really impressive beast. Would certainly have been a star lens if there had been such a mark back with the original K lenses. Probably you should start body building if you plan to get one. Almost a kilogram.

I've seen one for sale recently, just can't figure our where.

[8540tomg]

K200/2.5, the grandfather of the A*200/2.8, right? 6 by 6 lenses, 77mm diameter and close enough in weight and dimensions. A really impressive beast. Would certainly have been a star lens if there had been such a mark back with the original K lenses. Probably you should start body building if you plan to get one. Almost a kilogram.

I've seen one for sale recently, just can't figure our where.

It might be the father rather than the grandfather of the A* 200mm. There was no M series equivalent of this lens. Actually I do weight lift and don't find it a problem to hand hold. It think it is shake reductuion and the 2.5 speed that makes the difference however. This is a well-balanced package on the K10D with battery grip.

Tom G

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

Here's a rare one: the K28/3.5 Shift lens:
IMGP4373 K28-3.5 Shift - top view fully shifted.jpg photo - Jim King photos at pbase.com

Another rare one: the K85/2.2 Soft lens
Front View.jpg photo - Jim King photos at pbase.com

A long one (I have two copies): the K135-600/6.3 zoom:
IMGP4342 K135-600 Zoom - side view.jpg photo - Jim King photos at pbase.com

You want big? I've got big: the A*400/2.8 lens
IMGP0546 FA50-1.4 and A*4002.8.jpg photo - Jim King photos at pbase.com

And the Three Amigos: A*300/2.8, A*400/2.8, and A*600/5.6
IMGP0673a.jpg photo - Jim King photos at pbase.com

Nice shot Jim/James of the A*400, very funny, makes me think of a big fish swallowing a much smaller one My compliments. Proves lens-fetish photos can also be creative.

Hope you don't mind me linking your photos. Some of them were to good to risk anyone missing. That's some extraordinary lenses you have there. Especially the zoom...I suppose the ruler are in inches not cm?


Why don't you add some review of them to the lens review data base? I bet a lot of people would appreciate the effort. The shift lens has only one entry and the 135-600 haven't got any. I don't think I've even seen it on picture before. Certainly not "handholdable"! Is it true that it has got constant aperture?! This with lens-reviews goes for a lot of the other fantastic lenses posted here. OK, I'm not so good at lens-reviews on the data base either, but I made an effort on the only lens I have that is fairly rare, and I'll promise to improve and hope others will as well.

If you don't mind, some questions on the shift lens. I understand they put the aperture rings in the front part of the lens like in some really old Takumar lenses, right? Supposedly to keep them out of the way of the shift mechanism? Is there any lenses behind the shift mechanism?

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

It might be the father rather than the grandfather of the A* 200mm. There was no M series equivalent of this lens.

You are right of course!

Actually I do weight lift and don't find it a problem to hand hold. It think it is shake reductuion and the 2.5 speed that makes the difference however. This is a well-balanced package on the K10D with battery grip.

Tom G

I've heard someone saying that before about this lens or if it was the slightly lighter A*200. It might have been you elsewhere. And balance is maybe even more important than the actual weight. Like I find the A*135, which is only about 100g lighter, to balance better on the K20D than it ever have done on any of my lighter film bodies.

[jamesk8752]

(snip)
Why don't you add some review of them to the lens review data base? I bet a lot of people would appreciate the effort. The shift lens has only one entry and the 135-600 haven't got any. I don't think I've even seen it on picture before. Certainly not "handholdable"! Is it true that it has got constant aperture?! This with lens-reviews goes for a lot of the other fantastic lenses posted here. OK, I'm not so good at lens-reviews on the data base either, but I made an effort on the only lens I have that is fairly rare, and I'll promise to improve and hope others will as well.

I keep promising myself that I'll do some reviews but somehow I never seem to get around to it. Maybe someday...

If you don't mind, some questions on the shift lens. I understand they put the aperture rings in the front part of the lens like in some really old Takumar lenses, right? Supposedly to keep them out of the way of the shift mechanism? Is there any lenses behind the shift mechanism?

According to Boz's site (Welcome to Bojidar Dimitrov's Pentax K-Mount Page), the K28/3.5 shift lens has its iris positioned between element groups like most other lenses:


My experience with this lens is mixed. There is lot of light falloff in the corners and TTL exposure metering is way off at high shift settings. Of course, no lens could be less telecentric...

Regards, Jim

[8540tomg]

You are right of course!



I've heard someone saying that before about this lens or if it was the slightly lighter A*200. It might have been you elsewhere. And balance is maybe even more important than the actual weight. Like I find the A*135, which is only about 100g lighter, to balance better on the K20D than it ever have done on any of my lighter film bodies.

In terms of weight Boz Dimitrov's site lists the K 200 f2.5 at 950 grams and the A* 200 f 2.8 at 850 grams. This is not a big deal but you make a good point on the balance issue Doug. I've never held the A* 200mm but the K 200mm "feels" fine on my larger camera bodies such as the K2 and the K10D. It just seems to fit the hand better and "feels" right if you will. On my diminuative MX, even with the winder, it just "feels" wrong. I'm sure this is the difference you noted on your smaller camera bodies with your A* 135mm. I've never held the A* 135mm 1.8 but it is yet another lens I covet and would like to try some day.

Cheers,

Tom G

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

According to Boz's site (Welcome to Bojidar Dimitrov's Pentax K-Mount Page), the K28/3.5 shift lens has its iris positioned between element groups like most other lenses:


My experience with this lens is mixed. There is lot of light falloff in the corners and TTL exposure metering is way off at high shift settings. Of course, no lens could be less telecentric...

Regards, Jim

Mmmh, I was just guessing that from that the aperture ring was up front. But then the aperture setting must just be transferred to the iris in the center. Maybe this is the case also with the older lenses with the aperture ring in the front? Have forgot most of what I learned on optics long ago: maybe the iris has to be at the focal point to work? I think so. So I made a stupid assumption, should go to bed instead.
It looks on the lens diagram as thought there is one lens behind the shift mechanism, doesn't it?

[frank]

Here's a rare one: the K28/3.5 Shift lens:

...

Just a few from my collection...

Hey Jim, that's unfair

If I knew you'd come and show off some of your glass, I probably wouldn't even post