[K-9]

I really think Ricoh warrants it's own thread and not just under miscellaneous. They probably made more K-mount lenses than any other manufacturer listed. I mean, if Quantaray gets one, c'mon. :ugh: I count a good 7 Ricoh lenses in Misc. and Quantaray only has 4 but they have their own link. Also, I think Cosina should get it's own.

[Adam]

I'll flag this suggestion for the near future. Remind me if I don't have the category added within the next few weeks.

[Matthew]

I'll flag this suggestion for the near future. Remind me if I don't have the category added within the next few weeks.

Is it OK to remind you?

Some other ideas for categories.
Would it be possible to have multiple user defined categories for lenses? Say, categories based on focal length, mount type, focus type or current user rating.

Given that this is probably not possible in the short term, in the miscellaneous group, could we have a separate category for non K-mount lenses. These operate very differently when adapted to K mount compared with most K-mount lenses which usually have an auto aperture (even if they don't have an A setting).

Also, I would be tempted to remove the Quantaray and Zenitar and include Ricoh and Cosina as already suggested. Perhaps Zenitar could be replaced with a Russian or European category.

[Adam]

Is it OK to remind you?Some other ideas for categories.
Would it be possible to have multiple user defined categories for lenses? Say, categories based on focal length, mount type, focus type or current user rating.

God no, that would just lead to a mess. The search feature in the database is quite good and can be used to sort by focal length.

Given that this is probably not possible in the short term, in the miscellaneous group, could we have a separate category for non K-mount lenses. These operate very differently when adapted to K mount compared with most K-mount lenses which usually have an auto aperture (even if they don't have an A setting).

I'd have to hear from more people to add such a category. To me this sounds like something that is requested and then never used (like the pro/business forum!)

Also, I would be tempted to remove the Quantaray and Zenitar and include Ricoh and Cosina as already suggested. Perhaps Zenitar could be replaced with a Russian or European category.

I've now removed the prime subcategory from Quantaray and the zoom subcategory from Voigtlander, as such lenses didn't seem to exist. The Zenitar section has been renamed to "Russian Lenses" and a "Zoom lenses" subcategory has ben added.

I've also added the Ricoh and Cosina categories as requested, and moved the lenses that I could find in the Misc section over to them. If I missed any, please post any direct links here and I will move them as well.

Thanks for all the suggestions!

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[Matthew]

I've now removed the prime subcategory from Quantaray and the zoom subcategory from Voigtlander, as such lenses didn't seem to exist. The Zenitar section has been renamed to "Russian Lenses" and a "Zoom lenses" subcategory has ben added.

I've also added the Ricoh and Cosina categories as requested, and moved the lenses that I could find in the Misc section over to them. If I missed any, please post any direct links here and I will move them as well.

Thanks for all the suggestions!

Thank you!

Items to remove.
I can't see any use for this item. Picture looks like the same lens as next entry and there is no description to indicate it is any different. Also has no reviews.
PentaxForums.com Third-Party Pentax Lens Review Database - 50mm 1:2

For moving to Russian. I am reasonably confident that these five are Russian made. They certainly have Russian history. Possibly my Bavarian friends will get upset with me including the Jupiter-9.
PentaxForums.com Third-Party Pentax Lens Review Database - MC 85mm f/2 M-42
PentaxForums.com Third-Party Pentax Lens Review Database - 50mm F/2.8 L/Z
PentaxForums.com Third-Party Pentax Lens Review Database - 58mm F/2
PentaxForums.com Third-Party Pentax Lens Review Database - 50mm, f2.8, M42 lens
PentaxForums.com Third-Party Pentax Lens Review Database - 50mm F1.8

I notice that there are now reasonable numbers of Carl Zeiss (3) and Leica/Leitz (4) lenses listed. These might be suitable as categories if they get a few more listings, particularly Zeiss who still make K mount lenses. What do members think?

The Cosina crowd have been a bit slack. There should be a few more of these to come, now that they have there own category. Same goes for Ricoh.

I have been resisting adding any Nikkor reviews (can be mounted with similar functionality to m42), partly because I don't want to be blamed for anyone damaging their mounts but mostly because it would be a bit messy if people started listing all their Nikkors.

[Adam]

I got rid of the Ricoh duplicate, and attempted to move some of the Russian lenses, though I encountered an error doing that. I'll have a better look at everything later today.

[WheresWaldo]

Adam,

Could we group the Samyang 85mm f1.4 together as the Vivitar/Bower/Polar/Rokinon/Opteka/... are all exactly the same with the exception of branding. It would certainly make it easier for someone to post a review since not everyone wants to pay the premium just for the Vivitar or Bower name.

[K-9]

Sometimes lenses are not the same when they switch branding. They can yield slightly different results from brand to brand, even though the body is nearly the same. I wouldn't combine them.

[WheresWaldo]

Sometimes lenses are not the same when they switch branding. They can yield slightly different results from brand to brand, even though the body is nearly the same. I wouldn't combine them.

Except in this case this particular lens is identical, except in the Vivitar livery where some of the cosmetics are different (red stripe instead of gold, red paint-fill instead of orange, no gold nameplate versus nameplate). That is why I asked specifically for this lens combination.

[Adam]

For technical reasons, I reverted to the 'Russian' category back to 'Zenitar'. There's some sort of corruption the category that's preventing me from moving the other lenses, and I really don't have the nerve to mess with it right now.

Also, I won't be intervening on specific lens entries in the third-party database. My actions in the section are limited to deletions, moves, and image uploads.

[stevebrot]

...Also, I won't be intervening on specific lens entries in the third-party database. My actions in the section are limited to deletions, moves, and image uploads.

Well, that sucks!

There are entries for several lenses where the initial article/description is sadly incomplete and in some cases, just plain wrong. I was hoping at some point to work with you to correct some of the errors. So much for that idea

Steve

[stevebrot]

Adam,

Could we group the Samyang 85mm f1.4 together as the Vivitar/Bower/Polar/Rokinon/Opteka/... are all exactly the same with the exception of branding. It would certainly make it easier for someone to post a review since not everyone wants to pay the premium just for the Vivitar or Bower name.

I second the notion that these are all just the same Samyang in different livery. A person should be able to go to a single place to get all reviews on this lens.

Steve

[Adam]

Well, that sucks!

There are entries for several lenses where the initial article/description is sadly incomplete and in some cases, just plain wrong. I was hoping at some point to work with you to correct some of the errors. So much for that idea

Steve

....And edits! If you see any improper info, I can edit that out if you let me know what to replace it with. I've also seen some lenses with sample photos and thumbnails instead of photos of the actual lens. I'd like to get that fixed if possible as well.

[K-9]

Except in this case this particular lens is identical, except in the Vivitar livery where some of the cosmetics are different (red stripe instead of gold, red paint-fill instead of orange, no gold nameplate versus nameplate). That is why I asked specifically for this lens combination.

I second the notion that these are all just the same Samyang in different livery. A person should be able to go to a single place to get all reviews on this lens.

Steve

The Bower/Polar/Rokinon/Opteka should go together as one then, but the Vivitar should be separate, as it's the one different one. Let's not forget the Phoenix/Tokina/Vivitar/Cosina lenses that came out in the past decade (i.e. the 19-35mm, the 100-300mm, the 100mm f3.5 macro). They are all identical lenses, except for outer cosmetic tweaks, yet different test results can be found from brand to brand. For instance, photodo gave the Cosina 19-35mm a 3.1 rating while the Vivitar only scored a 2.9. The Cosina 100mm macro got a 2.8 score, yet the Vivitar scored 3.2. The Cosina 100-300 scored a 2 while the Vivitar version scored a 1.8. All these versions are closer to being identical than the Vivitar 85mm is with the 4 other brandings.

Outer tweakings, badgings, and possibly different glass sources can clearly affect lens performance. I know with the 85mm, it's a bit different because they are just about 100% identical except for the name on the gold nameplate, but I wouldn't start a trend of grouping lenses together because as in the situation I referenced, different brands can mean different results.

I will agree that the Bower/Polar/Rokinon/Opteka can remain as one under miscellaneous brands, but the Vivitar version should definitely be separate under Vivitar.

[WheresWaldo]

The Bower/Polar/Rokinon/Opteka should go together as one then, but the Vivitar should be separate, as it's the one different one. Let's not forget the Phoenix/Tokina/Vivitar/Cosina lenses that came out in the past decade (i.e. the 19-35mm, the 100-300mm, the 100mm f3.5 macro). They are all identical lenses, except for outer cosmetic tweaks, yet different test results can be found from brand to brand. For instance, photodo gave the Cosina 19-35mm a 3.1 rating while the Vivitar only scored a 2.9. The Cosina 100mm macro got a 2.8 score, yet the Vivitar scored 3.2. The Cosina 100-300 scored a 2 while the Vivitar version scored a 1.8. All these versions are closer to being identical than the Vivitar 85mm is with the 4 other brandings.

Outer tweakings, badgings, and possibly different glass sources can clearly affect lens performance. I know with the 85mm, it's a bit different because they are just about 100% identical except for the name on the gold nameplate, but I wouldn't start a trend of grouping lenses together because as in the situation I referenced, different brands can mean different results.

I will agree that the Bower/Polar/Rokinon/Opteka can remain as one under miscellaneous brands, but the Vivitar version should definitely be separate under Vivitar.

Just let it go, Adam already said he wouldn't combine them, even though as you mentioned this is a special case of all being identical. For the record I only suggested this one lens, not all the other Vivitar lens that came from somewhere else.