Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-24-2014, 08:17 PM   #76
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 5,002
The 1.7x "aborbs" so much light because it has its own fixed aperture, not because of the elements. Probably quality is poor if it was left "wide open"...

04-24-2014, 09:22 PM   #77
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,327
Yes, I knew the converter had a reducing aperture in it. Without taking the time to meter/test on the Q, I didn't know how much light this cost us. The 2 element converter surprised me because of the decent optical quality using so few lens elements.

maybe someone will make a teleconverter for the Q. If it had the electrical contacts an great optical quality it would be super.
thanks
barondla
04-25-2014, 12:52 AM   #78
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 147
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by barondla Quote
My Soligor was purchased in the original Pentax Auto 110 days. There was no fleabay. Nor internet. Thanks to cahudson42 for linking to the original instructions. Think I bought my converter used, because I don't remember ever seeing a box or instructions.

Totally amazed that a 2 element converter can even work. Cheap DSLR converters are 4 element, with better quality ones having more elements. Neat to know the amount of light "absorbed" by the converter. My converter says Japan on it in big white letters. Need to use it and the 110 50mm more.

Makes me think a 1.5X multi element Q teleconverter would be a possibility!
interesting discussion
thanks
barondla
Thanks Barondla,

Like Vivitar, Allied Impex (Soligor) often sourced the same item from different suppliers (There were apparently 21 versions of the 28mm f2.8. with the M42 Komine tested earlier in the thread being one of the better).

Apparently, they also sourced the TC from multiple manufacturers as well. Meaning we really need to test the Hong Kong one to see if we get anywhere near your 'Fisherman' results.

Hopefully, its no Lada. (Been in one of those driving around Ukraine many years ago.. The trunk held an extra battery, carb, starter, fuel pump, water pump and generator (yes - not an alternator), jack stands, and a bunch of tools and other misc. parts.. An experience).

A good 1.5x or so TC for the Q would sure be neat...
04-25-2014, 02:29 AM   #79
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,551
QuoteOriginally posted by cahudson42 Quote
Hopefully, its no Lada. (Been in one of those driving around Ukraine many years ago.. The trunk held an extra battery, carb, starter, fuel pump, water pump and generator (yes - not an alternator), jack stands, and a bunch of tools and other misc. parts.. An experience)
They were imported into NZ in big numbers back in the 80s and were the subject of many jokes.
Q : Why do Ladas have rear window heaters?
A : To keep your hands warm while you push them.

---------- Post added 04-25-14 at 09:33 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by cahudson42 Quote
Meaning we really need to test the Hong Kong one to see if we get anywhere near your 'Fisherman' results
And if it is no good then remove the glass to gain a good extension tube. The 70mm won't focus closer than 1.5 metres.

04-26-2014, 01:39 PM   #80
Pentaxian
Transit's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Whanganui NZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,077
QuoteOriginally posted by GUB Quote
They were imported into NZ in big numbers back in the 80s and were the subject of many jokes.
...
I took one for a test drive, possibly mistaking it for a Fiat
The pedals were too close together resulting in some interesting multitasking

reminds me of the time my Dad took Aunties new Triumph Herald for a spin, with Aunty onboard...
he made it over the bridge, but his number 9s hit brake and gas together at the end...
In a stunning display of quick thinking he went over the middle of the roundabout with flowerbed.
The heralds indomitable ground clearance was sufficient but Aunty was white as a sheet.
She didn't like Dad anyway
04-26-2014, 03:30 PM   #81
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 147
Original Poster
Did the Herald have the same 2.0-liter four-cylinder Ferguson tractor motor we had here in the States in the TR3? At least it was more durable than the MGA twin cam...

Q - How do you know its a British Sports Car?
A - By the trail of parts you run over by following one...

A2 - By the Lucas Lights as they blink out Morse Code...
04-26-2014, 07:35 PM   #82
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,327
As a US teenager I looked at a MG sports car. Entered the car and the driver door wouldn't open to allow my exit. The car was very cramped inside, and I didn't think crawling across the gear shift/center console, to leave by passenger door, would work. Finally climbed out of the drivers side window. Didn't buy an MG.

If theTR3 was the wedge shaped car, I dearly wanted one of those. No one had one in my area. So I went to check out the Fiat x19 at our new dealership. Was ready to buy the x19 and entered the owner's office with my dad. Owner was sitting at his desk, looked up to see my dad (old friends) and said "I won't sell you a Fiat". He then motioned to a foot tall stack of papers on his desk and said" these are all the new car warranty claims they won't honor. Didn't get a Fiat either. Loved the looks of that car.

Here is a pic of the Soligor 1.7X teleconverter showing the country of origin.
Might be neat to compare to the HK branded one.
thanks
barondla
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-7  Photo 

Last edited by barondla; 04-26-2014 at 07:46 PM.
04-27-2014, 05:14 AM   #83
Pentaxian
Transit's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Whanganui NZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,077
QuoteOriginally posted by cahudson42 Quote
Did the Herald have the same 2.0-liter four-cylinder Ferguson tractor motor we had here in the States in the TR3? At least it was more durable than the MGA twin cam...
....
nah it was a 1200cc all the poke Aunty needed

04-27-2014, 09:32 AM   #84
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 147
Original Poster
Soligor HK 1.7 TC

QuoteOriginally posted by barondla Quote
As a US teenager I looked at a MG sports car. Entered the car and the driver door wouldn't open to allow my exit. The car was very cramped inside, and I didn't think crawling across the gear shift/center console, to leave by passenger door, would work. Finally climbed out of the drivers side window. Didn't buy an MG.

If theTR3 was the wedge shaped car, I dearly wanted one of those. No one had one in my area. So I went to check out the Fiat x19 at our new dealership. Was ready to buy the x19 and entered the owner's office with my dad. Owner was sitting at his desk, looked up to see my dad (old friends) and said "I won't sell you a Fiat". He then motioned to a foot tall stack of papers on his desk and said" these are all the new car warranty claims they won't honor. Didn't get a Fiat either. Loved the looks of that car.

Here is a pic of the Soligor 1.7X teleconverter showing the country of origin.
Might be neat to compare to the HK branded one.
thanks
barondla
Here is the Hong Kong version, with some test shots at 50X. You will see that some of the chrome plating is off - this happened during shipment - the Seller put the thing in a bag that got crushed. Lens seems OK though.

Here are the following shots:

HK1.7 (taken with 110 24mm w/f11 lensbaby disc - MF of course, 'minimum focus distance')
110_50_f11Ctr (110 50 only with f11 lensbaby disk, Center)
110_50_f11Edge
110_50_1.7TCCtr (110 50, no lensbaby disc, 1.7 TC mounted)
110_50_1.7TCEdge

Note EXIF the shutter speed drops to 1/40 (a loss of 3 stops! ugh..) with the TC. SR was off, and I did use the 3 second remote release. But of course with this effective focal length, there 'could' be a vibration effect in the results. (With SR off, I also did not bother to change the focal length to 85mm with the TC..)

Interested in any and all comments/analysis of results

(I do have additional refocused shots with the TC. I think I'll go back and look at the additionals to see if the degradation is the same.)
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q10  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q10  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q10  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q10  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q10  Photo 

Last edited by cahudson42; 04-27-2014 at 11:11 AM.
04-27-2014, 09:43 AM   #85
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 147
Original Poster
additional HK 1.7TC

Second set:
110_50_1.7TC2Ctr
110_50_1.7TC2Edge

Looks the same to me..

With the 3-stop loss over the f11 lensbaby disc (which is maybe f4?) perhaps we are looking at an effective f11 and diffraction limiting?

FYI - here is the fleabay link where I got this thing:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-1-7X-TELECONVERTER-EXTENDER-LENS-for-PENTAX-A110...item27dcb43674

Supposedly 5 left. Took my $45 offer. Rejected my $30 one.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q10  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q10  Photo 

Last edited by cahudson42; 04-27-2014 at 12:56 PM.
04-28-2014, 04:03 PM   #86
Pentaxian
fgaudet's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Ontario
Posts: 726
I finally got my K to Q adapter and went on shooting with it this afternoon. The first thing I noticed is how hard it is to focus when it's bright out. I had to go a bit MacGyver and use a t-shirt to shade the LCD. I tried every lens I have with an aperture ring (china adapter, no aperture control on it) so I tested a Vivitar 200mm f/3.5 M42, a Takumar 70-200mm f/4.5 K and a Deitz 135mm f/2.8 K. The first two aren't very sharp to begin with so my expectations were low. The Deitz on the other hand is pretty darn sharp on APS-C and I had high hopes for it. Asides from some very heavy purple fringing and some CA, the results weren't bad at all. Pretty good but not great.

So I setup my tripod and took 10 shots with my Q and the Deitz (f/8, ISO125, 1/2500, -1EV). I then swapped the camera for my K5 and mounted the Deitz on it (f/8, ISO125, 1/1000, -1EV). This is more of a real life test and it was far from ideal conditions but the conditions were the same for both cameras. The subject was about 30ft away. To me, this is more representative of how I will be using my camera than test charts in a lab environment.

I selected the best shot of each groups and proceeded to PP. I cropped the K5 shots to match the Q and resized them to 12MP. I needed to adjust exposure on the Q shots because the camera underexposed by about a stop. The angle is a bit different since the Q was mounted low and centered on the tripod (using the adapter mount) and the K5 was mounted higher, using the grip mount, which on my grip is offset from center a bit.

And even if they're not too far off, I had better, sharper pictures with the K5, even after cropping and resizing. I also had 9 shots out of 10 in acceptable focus with the K5, where I only had 6 with the Q. I used liveview with both camera to even the playing field. Also, even if it's not visible as much on those shots, the adapted Deitz generated a lot more CA and fringing than it did when mounted on the K5.

So, in my case, after a full day of shooting, even if it's funnier to use, I won't be using my Q as a super-ultra-mega telephoto camera. I get similar and most of the time better results cropping with the K5. And if I'm lucky my K3 will be here this week, allowing me even more liberty for cropping (third K3, first one was a dud, second one had a crap sensor, hopefully third time is the charm... it was my Christmas gift, we're almost in May now... but that's a whole other story).

The K5 is also much easier to focus when outside. However, I do have another K to Q adapter on the way but this time with aperture control, I'll see then if I get better results using my DA*.

This is my two cents of the day
Attached Images
   
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-5  Photo 
04-28-2014, 07:31 PM   #87
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 147
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by fgaudet Quote

......third K3, first one was a dud, second one had a crap sensor, hopefully third time is the charm...
Interesting comparison. Curious... how did you decide you got a 'dud' and 'crap sensor' on your first K3s?

Stuck/dead pixels? Or what?

Would really like to know how you determined, as we could all benefit

from knowing how to similarly evaluate when we get a new camera...
04-28-2014, 08:13 PM   #88
Pentaxian
fgaudet's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Ontario
Posts: 726
QuoteOriginally posted by cahudson42 Quote
nteresting comparison. Curious... how did you decide you got a 'dud' and 'crap sensor' on your first K3s?
I was planning on writing a post in the K3 forum whenever the issue got resolved and track down my serial numbers. But just to clear things up, here's a quick rundown.

My first K3: Took it out of the box, stuck one of my K5 batteries in it ... and ... nothing. So I charged the battery that came with it (the same as the K5 btw) ... and ... still nothing. Camera wouldn't power on at all, never, ever, dead, kapout. Shipped back to the store, took about 2 months to get a refund and bought another one from another store.

Second K3: How can I explain this... well to me, it looked like the ISO was stuck at 51200 or something but without the "gain" in exposure. Bright day light, f/1.4, 1/6000 shutter ISO 100 and wham, a big blob of noise. Kinda like every other pixel was getting the color wrong. I might be exaggerating a bit but it wasn't nice at all, like camera phone in the dark noisy. That was with both FW 1.00 and 1.02 (i believe). Shipped back to the store. I just got an update saying it shipped on Friday. From sending it to back in my hands, it'll be about 2 months. I'll check in my Aperture Vault to see if I still have photos, it's really worth seeing.

Third K3: still waiting for it... Went with a kit this time (with 18-135). This one is the last try. If it doesn't work, I'll just give up and get a fancy lens instead and stick with my trusty K5 and my new (to me) K7.

Usually I'm the lucky guy... Probably karma evening things out. Anyway, it'll be like christmas again... around here it still kinda looks like it.
04-30-2014, 10:48 PM   #89
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,551
50-200 vs 55-300

My 55-300 DAL is a shocker wide open and definitely performing worse than my newly acquired 50-200 DA.
I think the 50-200 is going well. F5.6 is its magic number
Attached Images
       
05-01-2014, 05:17 AM   #90
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 147
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by GUB Quote
My 55-300 DAL is a shocker wide open and definitely performing worse than my newly acquired 50-200 DA.
I think the 50-200 is going well. F5.6 is its magic number
Baz, to compare with others - are these at 50x (4.0 = 200lpm) or 100x? (2.0 = 200 lpm)
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, canon, crop, f1.7, f1.8, f5.6, frame, freebie, length, lens, lenses, mirrorless, pentax, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, pp, q10, q7, resolution, sensor, smc, test
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Adapted lenses tested on the Q : the reference thread crewl1 Pentax Q 1080 09-11-2017 08:09 AM
Do M39 adapted lenses focus to infinity on the Q? GibbyTheMole Pentax Q 14 10-16-2013 07:49 AM
Help with adapted lens on my Q stormtech Pentax Q 39 05-10-2013 09:25 AM
Autofocus on adapted Pentax lenses that have an SDM motor colonel00 Pentax Q 8 02-19-2013 05:20 PM
Comparing bokeh on 50's manual focus lenses. Voe Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 07-12-2008 06:13 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:01 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top