[cyberjunkie]

...... who really knows without having the lens in hand? I'm no expert on used equipment, but there's no way I would consider purchasing that lens except as a shelf-piece, but I generally keep only lenses I actually use, plus a few that I cannot sell (nobody will purchase at anything near a reasonable price) and do not indulge in collecting antiques.

I decided to pull the trigger, fully aware that a good diagnosis is impossible without having the lens in my hands.
It's about 170 euros shipped. The lens goes on Ebay for around 300 euros (for a decent M42 version), but it can reach 450 euros for a spotless example.
Considering that the camera is a collectible, and seems to be in better condition than the lens, I have the option of selling it recovering part of the expense.
The Praktica FX comes with the original case and accessory pentaprism viewfinder, it could appeal to a Praktica collector...
Regarding CLA expense, I guess it will come for free. If I can take care of it in person, it would be a pleasure rather than an inconvenience. If I need help, a friend of mine would step in and do what's physically possible to do.
He is a stereo camera collector, and a very good vintage camera's repairman. He's quite good with lenses too, and converted a few of my objectives to P67 and PK mount.

I'd never buy a small format lens to keep it as a shelf piece.
I like to actually use my vintage optics, at least those which make some sense on a DSLR.
If the Primagon can't be restored to fully working conditions, I would take it as a loss, even it would be re-sellable.

cheers

Paolo

[WPRESTO]

If it's your hobby and you have the knowledge, skill and equipment to repair the lens, more power to you. I'm not exactly envious, as that is not what I would do for a hobby, but I certainly have respect for and I'm impressed by someone who can do such repairs. For repairs, I can tighten a loose doorknob or dripping faucet, well, at least the doorknob. I'm always afraid that when cleaning dust from a lens, somehow I'll manage to leave scratches.

[cyberjunkie]

I'm always afraid that when cleaning dust from a lens, somehow I'll manage to leave scratches.

If you only use recent optics, I'd go (relatively) easy.
Though some vintage glasses have a very soft coating, that can be easily damaged.
Even earlier, uncoated lenses are often found with many cleaning wisps. I have seen many valuable large format objectives, used only by professionals, badly affected by improper cleaning.
Personally I never wipe a lens before blowing the dust away, and I clean only fingerprints and smudges, never if it's just a little dust...

Cheers

Paolo

[BigMackCam]

I'm always afraid that when cleaning dust from a lens, somehow I'll manage to leave scratches.

Unless the lens is dirty, Walt, then (1) blow as much surface dust away as possible with a rocket blower, (2) use a soft-bristled brush (like a cosmetics brush) to remove any further dust, and finally (3) if the lens is smeared or dirty, us a little optical cleaning fluid on a fresh, non-abrasive wipe or lens paper. I do this on everything from my most recent production lenses to 1950s Soviet rangefinder lenses, and I've yet to scratch any optical surfaces this way

[WPRESTO]

Unless the lens is dirty, Walt, then (1) blow as much surface dust away as possible with a rocket blower, (2) use a soft-bristled brush (like a cosmetics brush) to remove any further dust, and finally (3) if the lens is smeared or dirty, us a little optical cleaning fluid on a fresh, non-abrasive wipe or lens paper. I do this on everything from my most recent production lenses to 1950s Soviet rangefinder lenses, and I've yet to scratch any optical surfaces this way

That pretty much describes the way I've cleaned camera lenses, going back to about 1958. Purpose-designed soft brushes were not very common then. Standard for removing dust that adheres after blowing: take a piece of lens-cleaning tissue, roll it up, tear it in half, use the torn end to gently brush the lens. Kodak made good soft lens tissues. Came in 2 X 3 inch (approximately) sheets, inside a folded Kodak-yellow piece of heavy paper which in turn slipped into a open-end envelope, also Kodak-yellow, with printing on the outside that included instructions as described. I might still have one of packets somewhere, but purchased much later than 1958.

[Canada_Rockies]

Kodak made good soft lens tissues. Came in 2 X 3 inch (approximately) sheets, inside a folded Kodak-yellow piece of heavy paper which in turn slipped into a open-end envelope, also Kodak-yellow, with printing on the outside that included instructions as described. I might still have one of packets somewhere, but purchased much later than 1958.

I have a packet in my camera bag, used occasionally.

[Marcus Rowland]

Today's charity shop find - a Ricoh KR-10 body with an M42 adapter (sadly it's no-name crap, not Pentax) and a Helios 44-M lens for £14.99. Didn't want to work at first, but once I cleaned up the battery contacts it's fine, just testing it with a PK zoom. And the Helios lens is very good. Should make some money.

[WPRESTO]

I have a packet in my camera bag, used occasionally.

It's a very good tissue for cleaning lenses, even if you rub a bit to remove spots & smudges.

[BigMackCam]

Quite a story on my acquisition! I had started a thread here, asking for opinions for a 300 or 400 lens. I had wanted one for quite some time. A member read the thread & contacted me, that he had a Sigma 300 F4 APO tele Macro AF. Found out he lives about 10 miles from me!!! We met & I came home with this lens, in mint condition, box and case included.
...
Anyway, I'm a pretty thrilled gal to get out & try this gem out.

Congratulations on that Sigma, Carol!

The first couple of photos you posted in that thread are lovely. It seems to be a very well-regarded lens, and what a nice way to find one

[csa]

Thanks Mike! Yes, the story behind the acquisition makes it even more special!

[cyberjunkie]

I have a packet in my camera bag, used occasionally.

I guess I belong to the club I must have one packet left, tucked somewhere...
I also received for free, buying an old lens, a similar set of paper sheets, but they are in a block, tear-off type.
I also break them in two and use the torn end.

cheers

Paolo

[gaweidert]

Quite a story on my acquisition! I had started a thread here, asking for opinions for a 300 or 400 lens. I had wanted one for quite some time. A member read the thread & contacted me, that he had a Sigma 300 F4 APO tele Macro AF. Found out he lives about 10 miles from me!!! We met & I came home with this lens, in mint condition, box and case included. Another funny thing, in my thread another member had just suggested this lens, but said it was more rare than hen's teeth in the Pentax mount! So talk about coincidence! Then as I met the member, the UPS driver shows up where we met, and he knows both of by name!

Anyway, I'm a pretty thrilled gal to get out & try this gem out.

Great story Carol. Only 10 miles away? Must be the house across the street from the end of your driveway. Enjoy the lens.

[csa]

Great story Carol. Only 10 miles away? Must be the house across the street from the end of your driveway. Enjoy the lens.

Just about.

[luftfluss]

On the opposite end of the spectrum in comparison to Carol's great acquisition, at least in terms of size...

[Marcus Rowland]

Today's charity shop find - a Ricoh KR-10 body with an M42 adapter (sadly it's no-name crap, not Pentax) and a Helios 44-M lens for £14.99. Didn't want to work at first, but once I cleaned up the battery contacts it's fine, just testing it with a PK zoom. And the Helios lens is very good. Should make some money.

Sorry, KR-10 Super, not KR-10. It's all-electronic, I think the KR-10 was less so.

So far as I can see this is the basic Pentax K mount and stopdown system, no electronics in the lens at all. Are there any differences I should be aware of?