K-Q Adapter (again...)

paranoia23 · 08-24-2013, 12:08 AM

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

with "oem" adapter you mean the fotodiox ?!

steve1307 · 08-24-2013, 04:38 AM

Originally posted by paranoia23

with "oem" adapter you mean the fotodiox ?!

OEM = Original Equipment Manufacturer - the one sold with the PENTAX brandname on it.
(whether it is made wholly in Pentax's own plant in Philippines or Vietnam or buy a 3rd party doesn't matter)

The Fotodiox is just an adaptor to the 2 flanges with the aperture control but no shutter. Is the shutter worth the extra $160 - $200?

**monochrome** · 08-24-2013, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by steve1307

OEM = Original Equipment Manufacturer - the one sold with the PENTAX brandname on it.
(whether it is made wholly in Pentax's own plant in Philippines or Vietnam or buy a 3rd party doesn't matter)

The Fotodiox is just an adaptor to the 2 flanges with the aperture control but no shutter. Is the shutter worth the extra $160 - $200?

There is also the higher quality of the construction, the materials and the engineering. The Pentax adapter is massively over-engineered. Maybe it isn't worth it to some buyers to pay for those features but the adapter is a fair value to those who want them.

ScooterMaxi Jim · 08-25-2013, 09:22 PM

Hey, if you have a boatload of long lenses and will be using the Q system extensively with those lenses, and the cost is within your budget - the Pentax unit with electronic shutter is the way to go.

If you plan to adapt lenses occasionally, plan to primarily shoot lenses handheld at 100mm or less, are on a limited budget, and are willing to spend 10 minutes painting the inside of the Fotodiox with $4 worth of matte model paint, then the cheaper alternative will work just fine. Certainly at the minimal cost (under $40) it is worth investigating, even if you might ultimately go with the OEM unit.

Personally, I have little need for extreme telephoto (my 85mm yields about 475 equivalence and I'm not going for more reach than that - and rarely encounter any rolling shutter effect with that length).

Overall, I think c-mount options are even more interesting - as many varieties are available, the small package remains tidy, the sensor match is better, and results can be optically excellent even at a minimum investment if you spend judiciously.

For under $30 you can get a good, new, all-metal lens that looks like a proper fit on a Q, and high quality adjustable metal adapter - yielding results like this:

Attached Images

paranoia23 · 08-26-2013, 01:58 AM

hm ... my goal is to use the 300mm TAIR lens ...

ScooterMaxi Jim · 08-26-2013, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by paranoia23

hm ... my goal is to use the 300mm TAIR lens ...

Which puts you over 1600mm equivalence. I would say hand holding that setup is not really an option, but it depends on how serious you are about the sharpness of the resulting image.

As crewl1 notes below, the market has changed so my next two sentences in the original posting are not applicable to the newest version of the adapter.

The Fotodiox has a foot that most folks here say should never be used due to the rather slight build of the attaching screws. I check tightness when using it - but only try it on relatively light lenses - under a pound and then take care with the handling and cradle the lens in my hand. Not sure how the TAIR can mount properly, given the unusual style.

Once you get beyond about 200mm, shooting the Q is a real challenge. Even on a tripod, very minor vibrations or wind will play a role. The magnifications are just so great, and the center portion of the optics have to excellent.

**crewl1** · 08-26-2013, 09:35 AM

Sorry for the delay in getting back.

Fotodiox has released a new K-Q adapter that is completely different from the previous funnel shaped one, which did include a tripod foot.
AFAIK the old ones are no longer available from Fotodiox, but there are similar designs from jinfinance and cirrus on eBay.

The new design is shown in this thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/233319-new-fotodiox-k-q-adapter.html

It does not have a built in tripod foot or mounting facility.
The most obvious location to place a tripod ring style mount is behind the aperture ring.
This section is 58mm in diameter, and 7mm in width.

The third party tripod ring I have is for a Canon 70-200 and is too large and too thick to fit on this section.
It may be possible to add layers of some material so that the size will work, but the placement of the specific section is close to the front dial on the Q, so a narrower ring wold be needed.

There may be other options for a ring out there.
Check the thread linked above for images of the new Fotodiox.

paranoia23 · 08-26-2013, 01:10 PM

the tair can be mounted so for thats its not a problem ... but there are more lenses to NSA things up

hoffo · 08-26-2013, 03:06 PM

ScooterMaxi Jim what lens and adapter did you use for that shot above?

ScooterMaxi Jim · 08-26-2013, 04:40 PM

I'm giving you an exact link to the 35mm lens - as few of the Fujian branded lenses have a proper 12-blade diaphragm.
35mm F1 7 C Mount CCTV Lens FR GH3 G5 GF5 GX1 GF3 G3 GH2 GF2 NEX 3 NEX 5 NEX 7 | eBay

And the adapter is generic - but an especially precision fit:
Focus Infinity 16mm C Mount Movie Lens TO Pentax Q PQ Q10 Camera Adapter | eBay

hoffo · 08-26-2013, 06:38 PM

Thanks for the links! What is the minimum focus distance using that lens on the Q? Is it suitable for macro or would you need an additional macro ring to space it further from the mount? Any purple fringing problems with that lens? Would that 35mm lens be better than this 25mm lens? see link: http://www.ebay.com/itm/330775616275?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

ScooterMaxi Jim · 08-27-2013, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by hoffo

Thanks for the links! What is the minimum focus distance using that lens on the Q? Is it suitable for macro or would you need an additional macro ring to space it further from the mount? Any purple fringing problems with that lens? Would that 35mm lens be better than this 25mm lens? see link: 25mm F 1 4 C Mount 1 2" CCTV Lens FOR Pentax Q Mount P Q Interchangeable Camera | eBay

The stated minimum focusing distance is 0.3m - about one foot. Given that the lens as mounted with this particular adapter overshoots infinitely modestly, I would guess that minimum focus is closer to 15 inches on a 195mm equivalence lens. So, certainly not an extreme macro, but better than your typical zoom that yields 3:1 or so. I certainly would not buy it primarily for macro, but it performs nicely at close focus.

I haven't tested for PF specifically (shooting leaves against a bright sky), but the near total lack of CA and loCA (I don't even need to correct for it any shots so far) is one of its main strengths. From all the reading I have done, the 35mm is a stronger lens - the main reason I tried this length first. I doubt the 25mm is available with the fine, 12-blade aperture - which is unusual to find even in the 35mm version.

All of these shots taken on the Q with the 35mm (obviously not referring to the shot of the lens on the camera) were enhanced for contrast, but not touched for CA:
Flickr: jamesnrobins' Photostream

drougge · 08-27-2013, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim

I doubt the 25mm is available with the fine, 12-blade aperture - which is unusual to find even in the 35mm version.

Unless they upgraded it it's also missing everything else the 35mm has to offer. No focus scale, just "near" to "far", and the focus ring is the worst I've ever used (except on broken lenses). And terrible IQ. Others have had better luck with the IQ, so my copy is probably busted there, but I've heard no praise for the focus ring. And I don't think anyone is claiming it's as good as the 35mm for IQ either.

GibbyTheMole · 08-28-2013, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim

I'm giving you an exact link to the 35mm lens - as few of the Fujian branded lenses have a proper 12-blade diaphragm.

Originally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim

And the adapter is generic - but an especially precision fit:

Yep... I use the same combo. That Fujian 35mm is a surprisingly good lens, especially for the money. And the adapter is quite nice as well. They look & work like they belong on the Q.

The only thing I don't like about that lens is the stepless aperture ring. Otherwise, it's all good.

Travis Butler · 08-29-2013, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by GibbyTheMole

Yep... I use the same combo. That Fujian 35mm is a surprisingly good lens, especially for the money. And the adapter is quite nice as well. They look & work like they belong on the Q.

The only thing I don't like about that lens is the stepless aperture ring. Otherwise, it's all good.

I admit, I was never that fond of the 35mm Fujian when I tried it; I thought several D-mount cine lenses beat it, like the Kern-Paillard 36mm and any of the Elgeet 38mm f/1.8s.

08-25-2013, 09:22 PM	#19
ScooterMaxi Jim Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,520	Either route is right - depends on your needs Hey, if you have a boatload of long lenses and will be using the Q system extensively with those lenses, and the cost is within your budget - the Pentax unit with electronic shutter is the way to go. If you plan to adapt lenses occasionally, plan to primarily shoot lenses handheld at 100mm or less, are on a limited budget, and are willing to spend 10 minutes painting the inside of the Fotodiox with $4 worth of matte model paint, then the cheaper alternative will work just fine. Certainly at the minimal cost (under $40) it is worth investigating, even if you might ultimately go with the OEM unit. Personally, I have little need for extreme telephoto (my 85mm yields about 475 equivalence and I'm not going for more reach than that - and rarely encounter any rolling shutter effect with that length). Overall, I think c-mount options are even more interesting - as many varieties are available, the small package remains tidy, the sensor match is better, and results can be optically excellent even at a minimum investment if you spend judiciously. For under $30 you can get a good, new, all-metal lens that looks like a proper fit on a Q, and high quality adjustable metal adapter - yielding results like this: Attached Images

08-26-2013, 07:56 AM	#21
ScooterMaxi Jim Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,520	Originally posted by paranoia23 hm ... my goal is to use the 300mm TAIR lens ... Which puts you over 1600mm equivalence. I would say hand holding that setup is not really an option, but it depends on how serious you are about the sharpness of the resulting image. As crewl1 notes below, the market has changed so my next two sentences in the original posting are not applicable to the newest version of the adapter. The Fotodiox has a foot that most folks here say should never be used due to the rather slight build of the attaching screws. I check tightness when using it - but only try it on relatively light lenses - under a pound and then take care with the handling and cradle the lens in my hand. Not sure how the TAIR can mount properly, given the unusual style. Once you get beyond about 200mm, shooting the Q is a real challenge. Even on a tripod, very minor vibrations or wind will play a role. The magnifications are just so great, and the center portion of the optics have to excellent. Last edited by ScooterMaxi Jim; 08-26-2013 at 10:23 AM. Reason: Updated info as indicated below.

08-26-2013, 06:38 PM	#26
hoffo Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 89	Thanks for the links! What is the minimum focus distance using that lens on the Q? Is it suitable for macro or would you need an additional macro ring to space it further from the mount? Any purple fringing problems with that lens? Would that 35mm lens be better than this 25mm lens? see link: http://www.ebay.com/itm/330775616275?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649 Last edited by hoffo; 08-26-2013 at 06:49 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax Q-to-K Adapter	Docrwm	Pentax Mirrorless Cameras	33	05-15-2013 09:40 PM
Pentax Q / adapter K to Q / DA 35mm f2.4 AL	wax	Pentax Q	4	11-06-2012 02:55 AM
Pentax Q-K Adapter	ElJamoquio	Pentax News and Rumors	7	09-14-2012 12:00 AM
K to Q adapter news!	snostorm	Pentax Q	24	07-23-2012 05:58 AM
Pentax Q - K-mount adapter !	jogiba	Pentax Q	98	09-13-2011 07:24 AM

08-24-2013, 12:08 AM	#16
paranoia23 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 188 Original Poster	Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here. with "oem" adapter you mean the fotodiox ?!

08-24-2013, 04:38 AM	#17
steve1307 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Sydney Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,130	Originally posted by paranoia23 with "oem" adapter you mean the fotodiox ?! OEM = Original Equipment Manufacturer - the one sold with the PENTAX brandname on it. (whether it is made wholly in Pentax's own plant in Philippines or Vietnam or buy a 3rd party doesn't matter) The Fotodiox is just an adaptor to the 2 flanges with the aperture control but no shutter. Is the shutter worth the extra $160 - $200?

08-24-2013, 07:30 AM	#18
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by steve1307 OEM = Original Equipment Manufacturer - the one sold with the PENTAX brandname on it. (whether it is made wholly in Pentax's own plant in Philippines or Vietnam or buy a 3rd party doesn't matter) The Fotodiox is just an adaptor to the 2 flanges with the aperture control but no shutter. Is the shutter worth the extra $160 - $200? There is also the higher quality of the construction, the materials and the engineering. The Pentax adapter is massively over-engineered. Maybe it isn't worth it to some buyers to pay for those features but the adapter is a fair value to those who want them.

08-26-2013, 01:58 AM	#20
paranoia23 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 188 Original Poster	hm ... my goal is to use the 300mm TAIR lens ...

08-26-2013, 09:35 AM	#22
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Sorry for the delay in getting back. Fotodiox has released a new K-Q adapter that is completely different from the previous funnel shaped one, which did include a tripod foot. AFAIK the old ones are no longer available from Fotodiox, but there are similar designs from jinfinance and cirrus on eBay. The new design is shown in this thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/233319-new-fotodiox-k-q-adapter.html It does not have a built in tripod foot or mounting facility. The most obvious location to place a tripod ring style mount is behind the aperture ring. This section is 58mm in diameter, and 7mm in width. The third party tripod ring I have is for a Canon 70-200 and is too large and too thick to fit on this section. It may be possible to add layers of some material so that the size will work, but the placement of the specific section is close to the front dial on the Q, so a narrower ring wold be needed. There may be other options for a ring out there. Check the thread linked above for images of the new Fotodiox.

08-26-2013, 01:10 PM	#23
paranoia23 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 188 Original Poster	the tair can be mounted so for thats its not a problem ... but there are more lenses to NSA things up

08-26-2013, 03:06 PM	#24
hoffo Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 89	ScooterMaxi Jim what lens and adapter did you use for that shot above?

08-26-2013, 04:40 PM	#25
ScooterMaxi Jim Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,520	I'm giving you an exact link to the 35mm lens - as few of the Fujian branded lenses have a proper 12-blade diaphragm. 35mm F1 7 C Mount CCTV Lens FR GH3 G5 GF5 GX1 GF3 G3 GH2 GF2 NEX 3 NEX 5 NEX 7 \| eBay And the adapter is generic - but an especially precision fit: Focus Infinity 16mm C Mount Movie Lens TO Pentax Q PQ Q10 Camera Adapter \| eBay

08-27-2013, 05:52 AM	#27
ScooterMaxi Jim Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,520	Originally posted by hoffo Thanks for the links! What is the minimum focus distance using that lens on the Q? Is it suitable for macro or would you need an additional macro ring to space it further from the mount? Any purple fringing problems with that lens? Would that 35mm lens be better than this 25mm lens? see link: 25mm F 1 4 C Mount 1 2" CCTV Lens FOR Pentax Q Mount P Q Interchangeable Camera \| eBay The stated minimum focusing distance is 0.3m - about one foot. Given that the lens as mounted with this particular adapter overshoots infinitely modestly, I would guess that minimum focus is closer to 15 inches on a 195mm equivalence lens. So, certainly not an extreme macro, but better than your typical zoom that yields 3:1 or so. I certainly would not buy it primarily for macro, but it performs nicely at close focus. I haven't tested for PF specifically (shooting leaves against a bright sky), but the near total lack of CA and loCA (I don't even need to correct for it any shots so far) is one of its main strengths. From all the reading I have done, the 35mm is a stronger lens - the main reason I tried this length first. I doubt the 25mm is available with the fine, 12-blade aperture - which is unusual to find even in the 35mm version. All of these shots taken on the Q with the 35mm (obviously not referring to the shot of the lens on the camera) were enhanced for contrast, but not touched for CA: Flickr: jamesnrobins' Photostream

08-27-2013, 11:37 PM	#28
drougge Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Malmö Photos: Gallery Posts: 787	Originally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim I doubt the 25mm is available with the fine, 12-blade aperture - which is unusual to find even in the 35mm version. Unless they upgraded it it's also missing everything else the 35mm has to offer. No focus scale, just "near" to "far", and the focus ring is the worst I've ever used (except on broken lenses). And terrible IQ. Others have had better luck with the IQ, so my copy is probably busted there, but I've heard no praise for the focus ring. And I don't think anyone is claiming it's as good as the 35mm for IQ either.

08-28-2013, 06:40 AM	#29
GibbyTheMole Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Iowa Photos: Albums Posts: 2,275	Originally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim I'm giving you an exact link to the 35mm lens - as few of the Fujian branded lenses have a proper 12-blade diaphragm. Originally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim And the adapter is generic - but an especially precision fit: Yep... I use the same combo. That Fujian 35mm is a surprisingly good lens, especially for the money. And the adapter is quite nice as well. They look & work like they belong on the Q. The only thing I don't like about that lens is the stepless aperture ring. Otherwise, it's all good.

08-29-2013, 11:28 AM	#30
Travis Butler Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Kansas City Posts: 55	Originally posted by GibbyTheMole Yep... I use the same combo. That Fujian 35mm is a surprisingly good lens, especially for the money. And the adapter is quite nice as well. They look & work like they belong on the Q. The only thing I don't like about that lens is the stepless aperture ring. Otherwise, it's all good. I admit, I was never that fond of the 35mm Fujian when I tried it; I thought several D-mount cine lenses beat it, like the Kern-Paillard 36mm and any of the Elgeet 38mm f/1.8s.