Pentax Adapter Q for K-mount Lenses - is really worth it? ($200)

Fenwoodian · 07-16-2018, 04:19 PM - **1 Like**

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.

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

I agree the image quality with adapted telephotos on the Q is lower than that achievable with a high quality super telephoto on a larger format, but sometimes the latter option is simply not available.

Case in point: you're not allowed to take "real" cameras into Adelaide Oval. With the Q7 and 01 lens proudly hung over my shoulder and the DFA100WR and adaptor stashed discretely in a small bag I was able to get shots like this from halfway up in the grandstand.

Ashes day 3

Sure, it won't make the cover of Sports Illustrated, but you won't do much better without a press pass.

Good point, and even better photo!

normhead · 07-16-2018, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by reh321

I find my Hoodman clone to be essential - only with it can I see well enough to focus.

I find the 60-250 to be essential. I can find my subject then keep them in the frame when zooming in. With a lens that long it's just impossible to even find birds if I start at full reach.

Sandy Hancock · 07-16-2018, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by normhead

I find the 60-250 to be essential. I can find my subject then keep them in the frame when zooming in. With a lens that long it's just impossible to even find birds if I start at full reach.

You've just made another compelling case for the DFA150-450.

Curse you

**barondla** · 07-16-2018, 08:12 PM - **1 Like**

The Q w/adapted tele is much better with still wildlife than moving, no argument. This bothers some people. Doesn't bother me. I'm getting nonmoving wildlife images that I couldn't with my bigger cameras.

The greater working distance allows capturing animals without affecting their natural behavior. I have seen animals become unnerved looking at the front element of the 350 f2.8. They must interpret it as a giant eye. Camouflaging the lens barrel doesn't solve this problem. The Q w/Pentax DA*300 never has the same affect on animals.

I rarely use a lcd screen magnifier, find the 4x screen magnify plenty good. Always, always use a red dot finder.

The Q can get you some great wildlife photos. It just takes practice. It is fun.
Thanks,
barondla

normhead · 07-17-2018, 05:01 AM

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

You've just made another compelling case for the DFA150-450.

Curse you

For use with a Q? My guess is it would be pretty good, but ƒ5.6 is in pretty good diffraction territory for a small sensor. ƒ4 can be good.

Sandy Hancock · 07-17-2018, 05:46 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by normhead

For use with a Q?

No. The DA*300 is perfect on the Q - anything longer would be ridiculous, and as you say, f/4.0 with a sharp centre is the sweet spot.

I meant the idea of a super telephoto zoom to aid framing from the short end rather than struggling to find your subject with a prime.

**barondla** · 07-17-2018, 07:25 AM - **1 Like**

Even with the extra diffraction, the original Q and DA*300 are sharper at f5.6. The combo is very good at f4.
Thanks,
barondla

**clickclick** · 07-17-2018, 08:07 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

Case in point: you're not allowed to take "real" cameras into Adelaide Oval. With the Q7 and 01 lens proudly hung over my shoulder and the DFA100WR and adaptor stashed discretely in a small bag I was able to get shots like this from halfway up in the grandstand.

Well, I'd say this is what might be called "the money shot". Given that my LBA has also resulted in a copy of the DFA 100 WR in my kit, the thought of having an effective focal length of 460mm in something as small as that lens performing as well as you have shown was too much to resist. I ordered an adapter from B&H last night.

Thanks again for all the feedback.

**clickclick** · 07-17-2018, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by barondla

Even with the extra diffraction, the original Q and DA*300 are sharper at f5.6. The combo is very good at f4.
Thanks,
barondla

I've often eyeballed the DA*300, but since I already have the DFA 150-450, I haven't gone for it. I'm now wondering if this might be a worthy addition to the collection. I see a lot of great shots with this lens and people seem to love it. I'll have to play with my DA* 60-250 and 150-450 first, but this sounds like if I get into using the Q-S1 as you describe, it might be hard to resist.

**clickclick** · 07-17-2018, 08:12 AM - **1 Like**

Just wanted to extend a thanks again to everyone who has provided feedback on this thread. I feel like everyone has posted something that has helped me muddle through this. Appreciate it!

I'd say keep any more thoughts on this adapter and cool things to do with it coming. All good stuff.

And yes, I know I could combine posts, but what would be the point in that with a count we need to hit for the next giveaway?

**monochrome** · 07-17-2018, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by boriscleto

Don't buy the tripod foot from a US seller. They'll charge you like $90...Get it from eBay...

Camera Genuine Pentax Tripod Mount For K-Mount & Adapter Q 38100 MA 4549212218385 | eBay

List price At Pentax Parts Dept. (when they had one) was $45 shipped.

.:

**barondla** · 07-17-2018, 09:30 AM - **1 Like**

Clickclick, congrats on getting the oem adapter. With your lenses it is silly not to own a Q and Pentax adapter. Both cost about what a good Pentax teleconverter does.

Someone tested the 60-250 vs 300 on the Q. The 300 was only very slightly better. Doubt I would buy the 300 if I already owned the zoom. Unless the slightly greater reach is important. Haven't heard about the longer Pentax zoom with Q.

On my tablet, posting too soon automatically combines posts without my approval.

Thanks,
barondla

**kwb** · 07-17-2018, 10:23 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by monochrome

List price At Pentax Parts Dept. (when they had one) was $45 shipped.
.:

Price at Japanese Pentax online store is JPY3066 including tax, which is like $27, and it's just a bit lower than free-shipping threshold so you pay shipping (probably 5 bucks or so if you live in Tokyo or surrounding area).
?????K?????????????Q?????: ???????? | RICOH IMAGING
So $90 would be outrageous, maybe $45 isn't (though still expensive) considering little demand in US.

But I'm planning to buy one when I go to Japan next week

, Bic Camera sells it at about $19 including tax though they say they only have small number in stock.

**monochrome** · 07-17-2018, 11:34 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by kwb

Price at Japanese Pentax online store is JPY3066 including tax, which is like $27, and it's just a bit lower than free-shipping threshold so you pay shipping (probably 5 bucks or so if you live in Tokyo or surrounding area).
?????K?????????????Q?????: ???????? | RICOH IMAGING
So $90 would be outrageous, maybe $45 isn't (though still expensive) considering little demand in US.

But I'm planning to buy one when I go to Japan next week

, Bic Camera sells it at about $19 including tax though they say they only have small number in stock.

I bought mine in 2013 I think from Pentax here. Dealing direct by telephone with a real person employed by Pentax was certainly different than eBay which was not so commonly available then. I think the markup covered the costs of supporting the North America distributor.

.:

**Mikesul** · 07-17-2018, 11:36 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by monochrome

I bought mine in 2013 I think from Pentax here. Dealing direct by telephone with a real person employed by Pentax was certainly different than eBay which was not so commonly available then. I think the markup covered the costs of supporting the North America distributor.

.:

I hope I am not the only one who would gladly pay a little more to have a NA distributor.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax SDM lenses, how much they are really worth or are they worth it?	Pentaxor	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	01-17-2015 11:32 PM
Whats a Pentax A20mm F2.8 really worth?	PPPPPP42	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	08-24-2012 03:11 AM
Pentax Mount Adapter K vs Chinese Mount Adapter	Vylen	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	01-23-2009 01:03 AM
Pentax 6x7 Lenses w/ adapter - Worth it? Experiences?	cputeq	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	07-26-2008 01:36 PM

07-16-2018, 04:19 PM - 1 Like	#31
Fenwoodian Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,874	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. Originally posted by Sandy Hancock I agree the image quality with adapted telephotos on the Q is lower than that achievable with a high quality super telephoto on a larger format, but sometimes the latter option is simply not available. Case in point: you're not allowed to take "real" cameras into Adelaide Oval. With the Q7 and 01 lens proudly hung over my shoulder and the DFA100WR and adaptor stashed discretely in a small bag I was able to get shots like this from halfway up in the grandstand. Ashes day 3 Sure, it won't make the cover of Sports Illustrated, but you won't do much better without a press pass. Good point, and even better photo!

07-16-2018, 06:07 PM	#32
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by reh321 I find my Hoodman clone to be essential - only with it can I see well enough to focus. I find the 60-250 to be essential. I can find my subject then keep them in the frame when zooming in. With a lens that long it's just impossible to even find birds if I start at full reach.

07-16-2018, 06:19 PM	#33
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	Originally posted by normhead I find the 60-250 to be essential. I can find my subject then keep them in the frame when zooming in. With a lens that long it's just impossible to even find birds if I start at full reach. You've just made another compelling case for the DFA150-450. Curse you

07-16-2018, 08:12 PM - 1 Like	#34
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,714	The Q w/adapted tele is much better with still wildlife than moving, no argument. This bothers some people. Doesn't bother me. I'm getting nonmoving wildlife images that I couldn't with my bigger cameras. The greater working distance allows capturing animals without affecting their natural behavior. I have seen animals become unnerved looking at the front element of the 350 f2.8. They must interpret it as a giant eye. Camouflaging the lens barrel doesn't solve this problem. The Q w/Pentax DA*300 never has the same affect on animals. I rarely use a lcd screen magnifier, find the 4x screen magnify plenty good. Always, always use a red dot finder. The Q can get you some great wildlife photos. It just takes practice. It is fun. Thanks, barondla

07-17-2018, 05:01 AM	#35
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock You've just made another compelling case for the DFA150-450. Curse you For use with a Q? My guess is it would be pretty good, but ƒ5.6 is in pretty good diffraction territory for a small sensor. ƒ4 can be good.

07-17-2018, 05:46 AM - 2 Likes	#36
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	Originally posted by normhead For use with a Q? No. The DA*300 is perfect on the Q - anything longer would be ridiculous, and as you say, f/4.0 with a sharp centre is the sweet spot. I meant the idea of a super telephoto zoom to aid framing from the short end rather than struggling to find your subject with a prime.

07-17-2018, 07:25 AM - 1 Like	#37
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,714	Even with the extra diffraction, the original Q and DA*300 are sharper at f5.6. The combo is very good at f4. Thanks, barondla

07-17-2018, 08:07 AM - 2 Likes	#38
clickclick Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2016 Location: East Coast Posts: 2,903 Original Poster	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock Case in point: you're not allowed to take "real" cameras into Adelaide Oval. With the Q7 and 01 lens proudly hung over my shoulder and the DFA100WR and adaptor stashed discretely in a small bag I was able to get shots like this from halfway up in the grandstand. Well, I'd say this is what might be called "the money shot". Given that my LBA has also resulted in a copy of the DFA 100 WR in my kit, the thought of having an effective focal length of 460mm in something as small as that lens performing as well as you have shown was too much to resist. I ordered an adapter from B&H last night. Thanks again for all the feedback.

07-17-2018, 08:09 AM	#39
clickclick Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2016 Location: East Coast Posts: 2,903 Original Poster	Originally posted by barondla Even with the extra diffraction, the original Q and DA300 are sharper at f5.6. The combo is very good at f4. Thanks, barondla I've often eyeballed the DA300, but since I already have the DFA 150-450, I haven't gone for it. I'm now wondering if this might be a worthy addition to the collection. I see a lot of great shots with this lens and people seem to love it. I'll have to play with my DA* 60-250 and 150-450 first, but this sounds like if I get into using the Q-S1 as you describe, it might be hard to resist.

07-17-2018, 08:12 AM - 1 Like	#40
clickclick Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2016 Location: East Coast Posts: 2,903 Original Poster	Just wanted to extend a thanks again to everyone who has provided feedback on this thread. I feel like everyone has posted something that has helped me muddle through this. Appreciate it! I'd say keep any more thoughts on this adapter and cool things to do with it coming. All good stuff. And yes, I know I could combine posts, but what would be the point in that with a count we need to hit for the next giveaway?

07-17-2018, 09:15 AM	#41
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by boriscleto Don't buy the tripod foot from a US seller. They'll charge you like $90...Get it from eBay... Camera Genuine Pentax Tripod Mount For K-Mount & Adapter Q 38100 MA 4549212218385 \| eBay List price At Pentax Parts Dept. (when they had one) was $45 shipped. .:

07-17-2018, 09:30 AM - 1 Like	#42
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,714	Clickclick, congrats on getting the oem adapter. With your lenses it is silly not to own a Q and Pentax adapter. Both cost about what a good Pentax teleconverter does. Someone tested the 60-250 vs 300 on the Q. The 300 was only very slightly better. Doubt I would buy the 300 if I already owned the zoom. Unless the slightly greater reach is important. Haven't heard about the longer Pentax zoom with Q. On my tablet, posting too soon automatically combines posts without my approval. Thanks, barondla

07-17-2018, 10:23 AM - 1 Like	#43
kwb Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2015 Location: Pacific North West Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,223	Originally posted by monochrome List price At Pentax Parts Dept. (when they had one) was $45 shipped. .: Price at Japanese Pentax online store is JPY3066 including tax, which is like $27, and it's just a bit lower than free-shipping threshold so you pay shipping (probably 5 bucks or so if you live in Tokyo or surrounding area). ?????K?????????????Q?????: ???????? \| RICOH IMAGING So $90 would be outrageous, maybe $45 isn't (though still expensive) considering little demand in US. But I'm planning to buy one when I go to Japan next week , Bic Camera sells it at about $19 including tax though they say they only have small number in stock.

07-17-2018, 11:34 AM - 1 Like	#44
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by kwb Price at Japanese Pentax online store is JPY3066 including tax, which is like $27, and it's just a bit lower than free-shipping threshold so you pay shipping (probably 5 bucks or so if you live in Tokyo or surrounding area). ?????K?????????????Q?????: ???????? \| RICOH IMAGING So $90 would be outrageous, maybe $45 isn't (though still expensive) considering little demand in US. But I'm planning to buy one when I go to Japan next week , Bic Camera sells it at about $19 including tax though they say they only have small number in stock. I bought mine in 2013 I think from Pentax here. Dealing direct by telephone with a real person employed by Pentax was certainly different than eBay which was not so commonly available then. I think the markup covered the costs of supporting the North America distributor. .:

07-17-2018, 11:36 AM - 1 Like	#45
Mikesul Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 7,594	Originally posted by monochrome I bought mine in 2013 I think from Pentax here. Dealing direct by telephone with a real person employed by Pentax was certainly different than eBay which was not so commonly available then. I think the markup covered the costs of supporting the North America distributor. .: I hope I am not the only one who would gladly pay a little more to have a NA distributor.