[troika]

A friend who knows that I shoot Pentax just gave me a box of her personal film era Pentax equipment. She's a great lady and just moved into a new place, so she's trying to minimize her stuff and she could use a bit of money, though she didn't ask for anything for it. I'll try to give her something for anything I keep and told her I would find homes for the rest and hope to give her a bit of money in the end, though I don't think there is much of real value here.


Just for baseline, I have a K5ii and a couple of MXs, one of which I was about to list in the classifieds when this came up, so I decided to wait.


In the box:

There is a K1000, which I understand is good, but very common. I've never had one, so might shoot a roll of film or two through it, but suspect that my MX better covers that need.

There is also a Program Plus, which I really don't know much about. It has a roll of film in it with about 12 exposures taken. I'm going to put batteries in both cameras, shoot the rest of the roll and get the whole thing developed so that I can a) play with the camera and b) give her the photos that she took...15 - 20 years ago. What should I know about these cameras? I read the reviews and there is a manual here, but do people like these?

The crown jewel in the box for me is a Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8 manual focus lens. It's in it's original case and looks and operates great on the outside. I have and love the 100-300/4 and have been keeping an eye out for one of these for a long time, but it's hazy on at least one of the internal elements. I don't think it's fungus, it might be separation. I'm not sure, but I'll get it looked at. I hope it's reasonably salvageable because I would make really good use of this lens, but it's hazy enough the photos I took with it on my K5 are hazy.

There is also a Tokina 28-70 2.8-4.3 lens mounted to the Program Plus. I don't know anything about these lenses. I read a few good reviews and took a few nice photos with it on my K5. But, I think it has fungus. It's got something, it's different than what I see in the AT-X. I suspect it's probably not worth it to me to get it fixed, though it might be a good project for me to see if I can work on myself.

There is a Tamron 500/f8 mirror lens...I know...I know. I turned up my nose at it too, but I actually got a few pretty good snapshots with it off of my porch. Any bokah that you get is downright weird, but I'm not sure that I'm tossing this thing out yet. I could see it working pretty well for birds. But...probably the novelty will wear off. Was I right to turn up my nose or are there fans of these lenses?

There is a Tokina Doubler. I've been aware that these existed and have read luke warm reviews on them. It'll be fun for me to play with for a while and see what I think.

There is a NICE set of Pentax branded K-Mount Macro extension rings. Something I didn't have and something that should be fun to play with.

There is a Vivitar flash, a light meter, and some filters

And 13 rolls of very expired film.
2 x Kodak Tmax 100 36 exposure - Process Before 01/1994
1 x Kodak Gold 100 24 exposures - Develop Before 03/1999
1 x Kodak Ektachrome 100HC 36 exposure - Develop Before 02/1992
3 x Kodak Gold 200 24 and 36 exposure - Develop before 05/1999
2 x Kodak Gold 400 24 and 36 exposure - Develop before 12/1992 and 06/1993
4 x Seattle Film Works all with 2000 and 2001 dates.
1 x Seattle Film Works 400

I don't know what Seattle Film works is exactly, but there's a wikipedia page and actually a Pentax forums thread on it. Sounds like I should probably throw it away or put it on eBay just to see what happens. I generally get excited when I find a roll of expired film, but these dates are pretty old and I'm not doing my own developing, so it would cost me some money and take some time to shoot all of these and get them developed only to find out it was a bad idea.

I'm enjoying playing with all of this stuff and will assess and get 2nd opinions on the major items, but any thoughts, impressions, observations, ideas or suggestions that anyone may have on any or all of these things would be appreciated.

---

Last edited by troika; 09-09-2018 at 09:57 PM.

[abruzzi]

Does the Seattle film works film say ECN-2 or C-41 on it? The ECN-2 film was a different process, so if you bought the film you had to get it developed with them. The Kodak Gold is consumer Kodak color. Given it age, and C41s latitude for over exposure, I'd over expose it a couple of stops. The Ektachrome--I've got some ancient Ektachrome too, given the expense with E-6 developing, I'm hesitant to spend the money on something that is 50/50 junk. I shot some 20 year old TMAX 100 recently at box and it came out exactly like the fresh TMAX I've shot. A lot of that depends on how it was stored.

[troika]

I don't see either of those designations on it. They do say "Process SFW-XL", but I have no idea what that means. On closer inspection, some canisters say "Made in Italy" some say "Made in Germany" and some don't say either.


It came to me all really well packed in a taped up cardboard box. She is a very fastidious lady and this equipment was evidently a really big part of her life in the 80s and 90s, so I think it was well cared for. It's a shame about the issues with the lenses. The cameras seem okay, but I'll know more once I've put a battery in each of them.

[Alex645]

I don't know what Seattle Film works is exactly, but there's a wikipedia page and actually a Pentax forums thread on it.

Does the Seattle film works film say ECN-2 or C-41 on it? The ECN-2 film was a different process, so if you bought the film you had to get it developed with them.

I don't see either of those designations on it. They do say "Process SFW-XL", but I have no idea what that means. On closer inspection, some canisters say "Made in Italy" some say "Made in Germany" and some don't say either.

SFW-XL stands for Seattle Film Works, and yes, it requires ECN-2 processing. You can still buy kits to DIY or there are labs that can do that process:

Seattle Film Works, Signature, ECN II Film Processing

Seattle Film Works (and I remember a film called RGB) was originally motion picture stock film that was repackaged for still photography use. The popularity of it, back in the day, was the low price and that it was fairly easy for the lab to make either prints or an internegative which would result in a positive or slide transparency. Once upon a time, Kodak had a film factory in Rome and the German labels could have been Agfa motion picture film stock.

When I worked in Hollywood, the 400 or 1000 foot film magazine would be loaded into the motion picture camera (Panavision, Arriflex, etc) but the shot may have required more film than was left in the magazine (movie film holder). So the 2nd Assistant Cameraman would unload the shot film to send to the lab and save the "short ends" for either B roll (exterior shots, cutaways, short non-dialog shots, aerials, etc.) OR they would sell the leftover unused short ends to......Seattle Film Works at bargain prices.

Once in awhile, an aspiring actor or crew member would negotiate with the producer to take the short ends for free in exchange for a reduced salary, and with that film, make his or her own little film that would hopefully get them "discovered" as a cinematographer or director. But I digress.....

[abruzzi]

SFW-XL stands for Seattle Film Works, and yes, it requires ECN-2 processing. You can still buy kits to DIY or there are labs that can do that process:

Seattle Film Works, Signature, ECN II Film Processing

ouch. $36.50 a roll. I know at some point SFW switched to C41, but I honestly don't know how to tell. One of the big issues with the ECN-2 film was the remjet backing which can ruin the C41 chemistry if it gets run through.

[troika]

Clearly doesn't make sense for me to shoot the SFW film. If anyone wants it, I'm happy to send it on to you.

[Alex645]

ouch. $36.50 a roll. I know at some point SFW switched to C41, but I honestly don't know how to tell. One of the big issues with the ECN-2 film was the remjet backing which can ruin the C41 chemistry if it gets run through.

The Seattle Film Works that may have switched to C-41 would have been labeled as such. If not, labs had to assume it wasn't or that it was ECN-2 because the label usually said, "Return to SFW for processing."

I managed a photo lab and any employee running anything other than a film cassette with "C-41/CN-16" thru our expensive Noritsu processors and chemistry on it was risking their jobs. (Exception was cross-processing E-6 if requested.)

ECN-2's only issue was that remjet backing, which would come off in the developer and subsequent film rollers. The contamination would leave specks on future rolls of film put thru the processor unless you shut down the processor, dumped all the chemistry, cleaned all the tanks and rollers, refilled the tanks with fresh chems, and then restarted the processor. That meant at least $100 in chemistry, but more importantly, the processor being down for 3 hours with one employee atoning for their sins.

Of course, if you're hand processing one roll at a time, it's less of a big deal other than you're not going to replenish that developer if it was a C41 kit.

[BigMackCam]

There is a Tamron 500/f8 mirror lens...I know...I know. I turned up my nose at it too, but I actually got a few pretty good snapshots with it off of my porch. Any bokah that you get is downright weird, but I'm not sure that I'm tossing this thing out yet. I could see it working pretty well for birds. But...probably the novelty will wear off. Was I right to turn up my nose or are there fans of these lenses?

Tamron's mirror lenses are apparently some of the better models out there, and reputedly capable of good results compared to most. I'm stating the obvious, but accurate focusing is key to getting good results. Live view is essential - OVF focusing just won't cut it. Careful consideration of subject background is also advisable, due to the donut-shaped out-of-focus highlights. But with these observations noted, it's possible to get some very nice images with the better quality mirror lenses.

If I remember correctly, @csa (Carol) has this lens and gets some nice shots with it...

[UncleVanya]

Nice box. You should enjoy it.

[WPRESTO]

Some observations:
1) The K1000 was a workhorse camera, the favorite camera recommendation by people who taught photography because of its simplicity (you must understand everything). It has a reputation for rugged reliability, but the shutter can become unreliable (= speeds are not as marked).
2) Some versions of Tamron's 500mm mirror are consistently rated second-best of that type of lens, with the Zeiss Mirotar always rated top (a Mirotar typically goes for around $1000). I have read multiple evaluations that place the Tammy above Tokina, Nikon, and Minolta 500mm mirror lenses, and Sigma's 600mm mirror lens, but it depends on which specific version of the Tamron. It is a lens probably better than the sometimes throw-away price being asked for it.

3) Both the 28~70mm and 70~200mm Tamrons SFAIK are good, especially stopped down, but not up to the performance of modern zooms with similar specifications.

[MossyRocks]

There is also a Tokina 28-70 2.8-4.3 lens mounted to the Program Plus. I don't know anything about these lenses.

I'm a fan of this lens not because it is great but it is a pretty good all around lens if you are fine with manual focus. It has some fringing problems and on my k-3 always seems to meter 1 to 1.6 darker than it actually is (I have to set an E.V. adjustment of -1 to -1.6), but on the whole it is basically my go to general purpose lens if I don't know what to stick on on the camera when going out. I paid $30 for mine about 10 months ago and it is in very nice condition with minimal wear and was clean inside.

[troika]

I swung by the shop and picked up batteries for both cameras, so that I could try them out.

I had the guy there with the most grey hair look at the Tokina lenses (said he used to work for Tokina, coincidentally) and he said they both had significant fungus, which breaks my heart. I know it will also upset my friend, because she really cared about this equipment and thought she had stored it safely.


I suspect that the 28-70 is not worth even considering having fixed and probably the 80-200 isn't either, but I really like that lens, so I may look into it. Has anyone ever home remedied fungus? I've read lots of articles about it, but haven't tried yet.


My dad's a TV repair man and he's got this awesome set of tools. ... not really, but I'll send you a free roll of expired film if you get the movie quote.

[Alex645]

My dad's a TV repair man and he's got this awesome set of tools. ... not really, but I'll send you a free roll of expired film if you get the movie quote.

Fast Times at Ridgemont High. Thanks, but I'll pass on the expired film.

[BigMackCam]

Has anyone ever home remedied fungus? I've read lots of articles about it, but haven't tried yet.

I've successfully cleaned affected elements with white vinegar and lens papers (occasionally, freshly-opened cotton buds for stubborn bits), then rinsed the elements off with bottled water and dried them with more lens papers. I've read so many different articles that had so much conflicting advice that I've never been 100% certain that any one method is risk-free or "correct", but this worked for me. Use of cotton buds isn't risk free - there's a small risk of abrasive contaminants in the cotton - but if the lens is otherwise done for, it's worth a shot. The most important thing is to use a blower and soft brush to remove any debris from the elements before cleaning.

Be aware that whilst you can remove visible fungus, there's a chance it may have eaten through coatings and even etched into the glass. If it's just the coatings, then depending on the extent of the infestation, the lens could still be perfectly usable. If the glass is etched, though, it's a door-stop

But if the choice is between junking a potentially useful lens or having a go at careful cleaning - even with risks attached - I'd say have a go at cleaning it. You have nothing to lose

[troika]

Alex645, your film is in the mail. Don't think I don't know where you live...I have all of your addresses and a long telephoto lens.

BigMacCam, I'll talk with my friend, but it seems worth trying in this case. Cleaning and repairing lenses (for myself) is something that I've thought about before anyway. My dad wasn't really a TV repairman, but I am/was actually an amateur watchmaker once upon a time and in comparison, lenses are much bigger with much fewer parts.