Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-15-2011, 08:59 PM   #16
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,424
QuoteOriginally posted by Erickcgm Quote
rear element goes about the same level with the edge of the shroud...
Interesting. I just took a look at my Helios 44M and sure enough the rear element is pretty deep. The shroud would be a typical German response to the extra protrusion and probably clears the mirror on the Contax "just barely". Without the shroud, my Helios has more than adequate clearance on both the Mamiya 1000 DTL and the Singlex TLS (I don't own a Pentax M42 body, though I would might pick up a SV at some point. I still remember my time with the Sightseeing Screwmount very fondly.)


Steve

09-15-2011, 10:15 PM   #17
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 18
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Interesting. I just took a look at my Helios 44M and sure enough the rear element is pretty deep. The shroud would be a typical German response to the extra protrusion and probably clears the mirror on the Contax "just barely". Without the shroud, my Helios has more than adequate clearance on both the Mamiya 1000 DTL and the Singlex TLS (I don't own a Pentax M42 body, though I would might pick up a SV at some point. I still remember my time with the Sightseeing Screwmount very fondly.)


Steve
Then i don't get why they produced m42 version of their lenses apart from their own mount... m42 mount was the standard in the industry, but if their m42 lenses don't even fit the other camera bodies then what was the point of them to use the standard mount on their lenses?
BTW the sv is really a good camera to own, i think it's even better than the spf in terms of appearance and built quality...
09-15-2011, 10:54 PM   #18
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Gabriola Island
Posts: 591
QuoteOriginally posted by Erickcgm Quote
Then i don't get why they produced m42 version of their lenses apart from their own mount... m42 mount was the standard in the industry, but if their m42 lenses don't even fit the other camera bodies then what was the point of them to use the standard mount on their lenses?
BTW the sv is really a good camera to own, i think it's even better than the spf in terms of appearance and built quality...
It's a very early lens, built before the M42 configuration was entirely sorted out. They may have been thinking only about Contax bodies when designing the lens, without anticipating what might happen in the event of broader use of the M42 mount.

I have a makro kilar dating from about 1959 that is OK on SV/S1a bodies but interferes with the mirror on Spotmatics when set to infinity. (I got the Makro Kilar for $5 on an SV body at the local recycler. Both were filthy. so I thought the lens was an interesting-looking piece of junk until I got it home and had a closer look. It cleaned up beautifully. The camera, on the other hand, remains an interesting-looking piece of junk.)

John
09-16-2011, 12:09 AM   #19
Senior Member
RBullCZ's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Photos: Albums
Posts: 139
It works on K2 with M42 adapter

Great thread, it caught my attention because I have recently acquired few of the early M42 CZJ lenses and intended to use them on my SPF. The eary "skinny" variant of the Tessar 50/2.8 just returned from CLA, the mentioned Biotar is still in the works. However, the early Tessar lens does have the same shroud attached to the rear of the lens, protruding in the same way as it does on the Biotar. So I tried to mount it on Pentax (Honeywell - Heiland) H2 camera first and although it does fit flush, the shutter does not fire. There is some blockage inside.
Then I got the idea to mount it to my workhorse K2 via M42 Pentax adapter. And voila! It works, it clears the mirror and all the levers inside.

regarding the early Helios being Biotar copy. Yes it is - the optical formula, but the mechanics is different.

Hope this helps.


Last edited by RBullCZ; 09-16-2011 at 01:21 AM.
09-16-2011, 07:37 AM   #20
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Interesting. I just took a look at my Helios 44M and sure enough the rear element is pretty deep. The shroud would be a typical German response to the extra protrusion and probably clears the mirror on the Contax "just barely". Without the shroud, my Helios has more than adequate clearance on both the Mamiya 1000 DTL and the Singlex TLS (I don't own a Pentax M42 body, though I would might pick up a SV at some point. I still remember my time with the Sightseeing Screwmount very fondly.)


Steve
Just remember that early SV bodies have a shallow mirror cage and lenses with rear protruding elements such as the S.T. 50/1.4 will get whacked by the mirror.
09-16-2011, 08:22 PM   #21
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,424
QuoteOriginally posted by Erickcgm Quote
Then i don't get why they produced m42 version of their lenses apart from their own mount... m42 mount was the standard in the industry, but if their m42 lenses don't even fit the other camera bodies then what was the point of them to use the standard mount on their lenses?
To add to what John said, the M42 mount originated with Contax/Pentacon/Praktica and for several years was unique to those brands and lenses made for those cameras. Any incompatibility between Zeiss lenses and other cameras is entirely the fault of other manufacturers such as Pentax who adapted the mount for their products. Back in the day, M42 was called either Praktica/Pentax (note Praktica first) or universal screw mount.


Steve

Last edited by stevebrot; 09-16-2011 at 08:30 PM.
09-16-2011, 08:24 PM   #22
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,424
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Just remember that early SV bodies have a shallow mirror cage and lenses with rear protruding elements such as the S.T. 50/1.4 will get whacked by the mirror.
Shallow mirror box? The depth of the box is set by the registration distance. What is not set is the mirror length. Incompatibility between long mirrors and deep lenses used to be fairly common in my youth and continue today with some lenses on FF bodies.


Steve
09-16-2011, 09:10 PM   #23
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Shallow mirror box? The depth of the box is set by the registration distance. What is not set is the mirror length. Incompatibility between long mirrors and deep lenses used to be fairly common in my youth and continue today with some lenses on FF bodies.


Steve
Use a S.T. 50mm 1.4 on an early SV body and you will find out. It will whack the mirror. Read literature from Asahi Optical regarding the matter if you don't believe me. I didn't say anything about the registration distance. I am not going to argue with you about your youth because that is irrelevant to the discussion.


Last edited by Blue; 09-16-2011 at 09:31 PM.
09-16-2011, 09:29 PM   #24
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,424
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
It will whack the mirror. Read literature from Asahi Optical regarding the matter if you don't believe me.
Oh! I don't doubt that it will whack the mirror! As for my youth...I am not ancient and my age is not pertinent except that I do remember that clearance with certain bodies was often an item noted on lens reviews and that the issue was not limited to Pentax. The language used always referred to mirror length vs. protruding elements.


Steve
09-16-2011, 09:37 PM   #25
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Oh! I don't doubt that it will whack the mirror! As for my youth...I am not ancient and my age is not pertinent except that I do remember that clearance with certain bodies was often an item noted on lens reviews and that the issue was not limited to Pentax. The language used always referred to mirror length vs. protruding elements.


Steve
Some of the Asahi literature vaguely refers to some compatibility issues with some of their lenses. The 50/1.4 was one of them on some of the earlier bodies. I am not exactly what they changed on the early mirror cage. The sightseer is an early SV and I should have measured its cage dimensions before I sent it back out. My silver SV and black SV are both late versions. That was tongue in cheek regarding your youth because I know you weren't that ancient. I should have used mirror cage instead of box.
09-16-2011, 09:40 PM   #26
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,424
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
because I know you weren't that ancient
All is forgiven, my son...




Steve
09-16-2011, 10:14 PM   #27
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 18
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Some of the Asahi literature vaguely refers to some compatibility issues with some of their lenses. The 50/1.4 was one of them on some of the earlier bodies. I am not exactly what they changed on the early mirror cage. The sightseer is an early SV and I should have measured its cage dimensions before I sent it back out. My silver SV and black SV are both late versions. That was tongue in cheek regarding your youth because I know you weren't that ancient. I should have used mirror cage instead of box.
SV has early and late versions? I also have a sv but i didn't know that, how to distinguish them?
09-17-2011, 05:32 AM   #28
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by Erickcgm Quote
SV has early and late versions? I also have a sv but i didn't know that, how to distinguish them?
There are more late versions than early since the early one was produced about 2 years and the late one about 4. The easiest way is to look at the R on the rewind knob, the early ones have green R and the late have red R. Also, the plate that pushes the pin on the lens is rounded on the late ones and more rectangular on the early ones. This is what Gerjan says (in his book) hits the lens element on the 50/1.4. There are some other subtle differences as well but those are the easiest.
09-17-2011, 05:37 AM   #29
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 18
Original Poster
Oh i c, thanks... my one is the late one..
09-17-2011, 05:46 AM   #30
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 18
Original Poster
Today i took photos with my sv but something happened... this was the first time i use the sv to take photo, after about 20 shots the mirror didn't return, view finder got dark, and i could only wind the film and take another shot without finding view, then it came back again... this happened several times and when i got back home it seems normal again.. what happened? btw, it was with a super multi coated 35/2...
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, lens, m42, pentax, spotmatic, sv, zeiss, zeiss lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Shootout: FA31 Limited vs. Contax-Zeiss 28mm f2.8 Is the Zeiss the Limited's Peer? les3547 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 51 08-19-2011 05:29 AM
Why there is no Zeiss K-mount lens in lens database henryjing Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 05-18-2010 01:39 AM
M42 zeiss lens doesn't fit spotmatic Rideperfect Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 1 03-04-2010 05:07 PM
Spotmatic 2 and Zeiss lens cougar14 Pentax Film SLR Discussion 0 11-05-2009 12:53 PM
For Sale - Sold: CLA'd Spotmatic F; SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 and Carl Zeiss Jena 35mm f/2.4 lense Nick Siebers Sold Items 13 10-27-2009 11:30 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:21 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