[vonBaloney]

I have not had any problems using the Pentax M42 to K adapter on my fotodiox K adapter??? might be because I removed the spring in the 42mm adapter back in the 70's and keep it permanently on my 42mm mount lens.

Hans

I had one m42 that has a springless adapter in it, and it just kept spinning around in the fotodiox -- round and round with no stopping point. So then I put in the genuine one -- which does have a spring (and works fine in a camera body), and that seemed to mount ok at first, but when I screwed in a lens, again it moved to some weird position and wouldn't lock down. And then I spent half an hour trying to get it out...

[hnikesch]

I had one m42 that has a springless adapter in it, and it just kept spinning around in the fotodiox -- round and round with no stopping point. So then I put in the genuine one -- which does have a spring (and works fine in a camera body), and that seemed to mount ok at first, but when I screwed in a lens, again it moved to some weird position and wouldn't lock down. And then I spent half an hour trying to get it out...

The other thing I did was to drill a small hole in the lens base for the lens locking pin in the camera body (or adapter) to protrude into.

Hans

[VisualDarkness]

I had one m42 that has a springless adapter in it, and it just kept spinning around in the fotodiox -- round and round with no stopping point. So then I put in the genuine one -- which does have a spring (and works fine in a camera body), and that seemed to mount ok at first, but when I screwed in a lens, again it moved to some weird position and wouldn't lock down. And then I spent half an hour trying to get it out...

Same here with the original K to M42 and the KIWI K to Q adapter and also my brother's NX to K. The M42 adapter never locks.

[snostorm]

Just FYI

I'd always assumed that the Fotodiox and Kiwi adapters were essentially rebranded RJ adapters since they are cosmetically similar, but now I'm beginning to think that though the body seems to be the same, the K mount plate may very well be different. My RJ adapter works correctly with an assortment of M42 infinity focus flangeless K mount adapters -- original Pentax, Bower, and RJ -- they all achieve a friction lock with the lenses indexed correctly (focus scale to the top). My guess is that Fotodiox and Kiwi sourced the main adapter body from the same place, then added a different (less expensive) K mount plate to meet their cheaper price point. Apparently there is no free lunch.

Scott

[vonBaloney]

Hey -- why does the "input focal length" on the Q have a decimal point?

[drougge]

Hey -- why does the "input focal length" on the Q have a decimal point?

Why wouldn't it? Would you consider 20mm and 24mm on FF to be close enough not to matter? (3.6mm and 4.3mm on the Q. Or 4mm and 4mm without decimals.)

[VisualDarkness]

Hey -- why does the "input focal length" on the Q have a decimal point?

Its for my 11,5mm.

[pearsaab]

Wow those are looking good. What aperture setting?
The red dot looks like it is blocked by the hood?

larry i typically try to set apeture around 1-1.5 but i might have screwed up and set it to zero (when i don't have alot of light i may turn it dowm and forget to change later)...plus these were shot through the glass window...didn't want to scare the birds away by opening it

[pearsaab]

none of these pictures are steller in any way but may give you a feel of the differences between the lens by themselves and on the q


setup-- the heron is to the left of the white marker, apeture set about 1.5 for the q shots


_IGP9510
by pearsaab, on Flickr_IGP9510 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!



da300 with k5


300-2
by pearsaab, on Flickr300-2 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!



sigma 500 with k5


500-3
by pearsaab, on Flickr500-3 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!



da300 with q


Q300-2
by pearsaab, on FlickrQ300-2 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!




sigma 500 with q








Q500-1

Q500-1 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[pearsaab]

Wow those are looking good. What aperture setting?
The red dot looks like it is blocked by the hood?

larry i forgot to mention that when i had the scope on i usually have a piece of foli to raise scope up and i just didn't put it there when i took the picture...it does line up well whe i put it on right

[vonBaloney]

Why wouldn't it? Would you consider 20mm and 24mm on FF to be close enough not to matter? (3.6mm and 4.3mm on the Q. Or 4mm and 4mm without decimals.)

Didn't know there were such lenses -- never seen one that wasn't an even number of mm...

[stormtech]

none of these pictures are steller in any way but may give you a feel of the differences between the lens by themselves and on the q
setup-- the heron is to the left of the white marker, apeture set about 1.5 for the q shots

This is great Amy - thanks for taking the time to share this. I really like to see the comparison of view from the different gear.

[crewl1]

none of these pictures are steller in any way but may give you a feel of the differences between the lens by themselves and on the q


setup-- the heron is to the left of the white marker, apeture set about 1.5 for the q shots


_IGP9510
by pearsaab, on Flickr_IGP9510 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!



da300 with k5


300-2
by pearsaab, on Flickr300-2 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!



sigma 500 with k5


500-3
by pearsaab, on Flickr500-3 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!



da300 with q


Q300-2
by pearsaab, on FlickrQ300-2 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!




sigma 500 with q








Q500-1

Q500-1 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Wow that is far away - thanks for the shots, good work.

[bonfire]

Tried the M*300/4 on the Pentax Q.The first one was captured by Samsung Phone (cropped) for comparison. The family was near the circle in the photo but moved away when I took the comparison photo.

[pearsaab]

cool shot!!