[Vantage-Point]

Hello everyone,
Has anyone used M42 lenses (Taks) on the K-01 to shoot video? How difficult is it ? Good results or bad?

[zach_manchester]

I made this with a SMC Super Takumar 50mm 1.4. I'm quite new to making video, but was happy how this came out.

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[Vantage-Point]

Zach_manchester, cool video. I like the way you used depth of focus in the video and the creepy music. Did you change the aperture during the video? I can't quite put my finger on it, but something about your video is still bugging me!

[LeRolls]

I made this with a SMC Super Takumar 50mm 1.4. I'm quite new to making video, but was happy how this came out.

Insects - YouTube

I actually rather liked your video. Interesting mood and atmosphere. Music really sells it too. Gotta go out and do some vids with my K-01 one of these days.

[harioharima]

I made this with a SMC Super Takumar 50mm 1.4. I'm quite new to making video, but was happy how this came out.

Insects - YouTube

A q abt your lens. Are all Super Takumar's m42 mounts? If so, what's a good mount type for a 50mm f1.4 or 55mm f1.8 m42 lens? From what I read, there appear to be two types - one that permits infinity focus, and one that does not. If I am correct, the latter is much easier to remove from the camera and can be treated as part of the lens.

If the lens is mainly for inside/portrait use, would it be reasonable to assume that it's better to get the non-infinity m42 mount? Also will AF work with these cheapish adapters?

[THoog]

A q abt your lens. Are all Super Takumar's m42 mounts?

Yes. Pentax did reuse the 'Takumar' name for a few bargain K-mount lenses that lacked the coatings (an insult to a great name!), but the "Super Takumars" were all M42. There are also older Auto-Takumars and later "Super-Multi-Coat" or "SMC Takumars".

If so, what's a good mount type for a 50mm f1.4 or 55mm f1.8 m42 lens? From what I read, there appear to be two types - one that permits infinity focus, and one that does not. If I am correct, the latter is much easier to remove from the camera and can be treated as part of the lens. If the lens is mainly for inside/portrait use, would it be reasonable to assume that it's better to get the non-infinity m42 mount?

The genuine Pentax adapter is the one to get if you are getting only one. It's more expensive, but you don't have problems getting it out of the camera. For the more experienced, the cheap 'infinity' adapters work fine with some mods (remove locking spring, maybe clean up bayonet tabs), but it's best to start with the Real Deal. The non-infinity adapters with the flange aren't really worth it, IMHO. They are useful raw materials for hacking other lens mounts, but that's for those with advanced cases of Lens Buying Addiction.

Also will AF work with these cheapish adapters?

All of these old lenses are manual-focus only.

[zach_manchester]

Thank you for the comments - to be honest, the reason why I bought the lens and adaptor is because I heard and read so many good things about its use for video, especially in low light. But I really haven't had much chance to experiment. As for the m42 adaptor, I bought the official Pentax one from a used camera store - it's also where I bought the lens. Thankfully, we still have a shop like that in Manchester UK!

It's my only m42 lens and I doubt I will buy anymore, so the adaptor stays on it.

Happy experimenting and snapping to you all

[harioharima]

Yes. Pentax did reuse the 'Takumar' name for a few bargain K-mount lenses that lacked the coatings (an insult to a great name!), but the "Super Takumars" were all M42. There are also older Auto-Takumars and later "Super-Multi-Coat" or "SMC Takumars".



The genuine Pentax adapter is the one to get if you are getting only one. It's more expensive, but you don't have problems getting it out of the camera. For the more experienced, the cheap 'infinity' adapters work fine with some mods (remove locking spring, maybe clean up bayonet tabs), but it's best to start with the Real Deal. The non-infinity adapters with the flange aren't really worth it, IMHO. They are useful raw materials for hacking other lens mounts, but that's for those with advanced cases of Lens Buying Addiction.



All of these old lenses are manual-focus only.

Thanks for the input. I was under the impression (based on an auction listing with apparently erroneous description) that the Super-Takumar 55mm had AF.

As for adapter, the "genuine" one appears to run $50-60 at least. Is a Super-takumar (in my case a super-tak 55 f1.8) worth investing $90 compared to just buying a smc-a 50 f1.4 (no adapter needed)?

OP- apologies for the digression...:-)

[THoog]

Thanks for the input. I was under the impression (based on an auction listing with apparently erroneous description) that the Super-Takumar 55mm had AF.

As for adapter, the "genuine" one appears to run $50-60 at least. Is a Super-takumar (in my case a super-tak 55 f1.8) worth investing $90 compared to just buying a smc-a 50 f1.4 (no adapter needed)?

OP- apologies for the digression...:-)

The M42 Taks were made in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, long before AF.

I thought the going price on the Pentax adapter was about US$30, less if you are patient and a little lucky.

The Tak 55/1.8 might be sharper than the A 50/1.4, but so are the K/M/A 50/1.7s. The A lens also gives you all the modes on the camera, instead of just M-Manual.

[LeRolls]

Just started looking for the official Pentax adapter and I can't find them anywhere. Haven't checked eBay yet but I prefer not to go that route.