[Erik]

Well, it could be the aperture communication pin. Does the cam meter correctly compared to your other camera?

That pin is held up towards the top with a spring. Getting to it might be something, though

Ummm...let me go look again and see if I can come up with anything...

The metering does not seem to make any sense. It does meter something, but no aperture information is communicated to the body and it meters ridiculously low. With ASA set to 1600 and pointed straight at a lamp, it meters 2 seconds. Don't know what this would signify. I appreciate the help!

[ryan s]

The lever inside the body fits in a gap in the lens (if you have another manual lens, turn it to wide open, and look at the left side). So it seems like the lever on the camera went above the lens' lever, not communicating with the body.

So it seems that lever is your issue...

[Ratmagiclady]

Hrm, so, we're sure it's not that more-easily-visible lever. I was presuming that Erik's must have gotten the stop-down lever that connects to it up on top of the corresponding part of the camera, thus locking the lens on (That lens lever should be *lower than* the camera's one.)

Making sure we're all on the same page here.

(Question, while I'm looking, is the B setting on the Super mechanical or battery-sucking? )

[ryan s]

Super's should be mechanical along with 1/125 since the meter doesn't light. But I could be wrong...

Well...I unscrewed the front of the Zenitar, and without taking off the focus ring and helicoid, you can't reach the lever. The whole lens might needed to be taken completely apart, starting at the front At least it's simple as can be.

[Ratmagiclady]

I'm having difficulty visualizing how that inside-the-mount lever could be stuck, such that it'd cause this effect.


Ryan, even if you couldn't get a tool in there, do you think it'd be possible to at least visually be sure whether or not this is the location of Erik's problem? (the only identifying mark I can see on the ring that holds the camera's lever there appears to be the lower screw of what attaches the lever/tab to the ring, visible when the lens is wide open. (The lens I have on for my own lookings-around is a Takumar Bayonet 135 2.5, should that matter)

*trying to reason this through as I go. It's about time I figured out these details, anyway.*

[Erik]

Hrm, so, we're sure it's not that more-easily-visible lever. I was presuming that Erik's must have gotten the stop-down lever that connects to it up on top of the corresponding part of the camera, thus locking the lens on (That lens lever should be *lower than* the camera's one.)

Making sure we're all on the same page here.

This is what it looks like on Bulb and 2.8:



I can't for the life of me get the lens lever to move up above the camera lever. As I understand it now, I'm not even supposed to do that..?

(Question, while I'm looking, is the B setting on the Super mechanical or battery-sucking? )

On the ME, at least, B and "100X" settings work without a battery.

[Erik]

Well...I unscrewed the front of the Zenitar, and without taking off the focus ring and helicoid, you can't reach the lever. The whole lens might needed to be taken completely apart, starting at the front At least it's simple as can be.

Ryan, thanks for doing so much to help! I really appreciate it! Pity there's no good news though

[Ratmagiclady]

This is what it looks like on Bulb and 2.8:



I can't for the life of me get the lens lever to move up above the camera lever. As I understand it now, I'm not even supposed to do that..?

Yes, those levers appear properly arranged. I had presumed you had seen that they were jammed against each other the wrong way.

It seems the 'registration pin' inside the lens mount is our other option for this. I'm thinking we're running out of things that can be done without lens disassembly or 'Use force, Luke.'

Could be an excuse to have that ol' lens fixed up. Apparently it has a nasty habit of jamming up on certain bodies. If you're not sentimentally-attached to the ME, too, they aren't too expensive, cause of the lack of manual exposure.

Question, does the lens actually stop down when you turn the aperture ring during that Bulb exposure?

[Erik]

If you're not sentimentally-attached to the ME, too, they aren't too expensive, cause of the lack of manual exposure.

You know what sucks though? I got the ME today, as my first Pentax film SLR. One of the first things I did was take the M50 off and put the Zenitar on there to see what it looked like with a full-frame camera. What more, I only got the lens two months or so ago. Arghhhh.

Question, does the lens actually stop down when you turn the aperture ring during that Bulb exposure?

It does.


Note to self: don't buy Soviet lenses

[Ratmagiclady]

You know what sucks though? I got the ME today, as my first Pentax film SLR. One of the first things I did was take the M50 off and put the Zenitar on there to see what it looked like with a full-frame camera. What more, I only got the lens two months or so ago. Arghhhh.

Note to self: don't buy Soviet lenses

Hrm. Well, the implication is that for whatever reason, it's the body that will give first, if it comes down to force, (best try and be sure on that. At least be glad it wasn't a more-expensive camera, and, well, yours truly will be sure to watch out for this, when I get to indulging my affection for quirky lenses.

*maybe someone can confirm my spatial visualization on this: what I'm trying to do now is see if it can be determined whether the levers are *backwards* from where they ought to be or actually wedged against each other end-to-end. My thought is that if it's the latter, simply applying more pressure might free them, but if they're wrong-side of each other, something would have to give in there, probably in bad ways.*

I'm thinking the symptoms here say wrong side rather than mushed together. Sound right?

[Erik]

Oh man. I just got pretty angry and fed up with the whole situation I guess, so I did what you said and just used brute force. I got it loose, but I appear to have damaged the lens *AND* the body. Not irreversibly, though, I don't think. It was, indeed, the aperture communication pin. They're now both bent, but not broken. I'm going to try and bend them back very carefully.

[Erik]

Just to clarify -- this is bent, isn't it? It's not supposed to be diagonal like that? I'm completely ignorant when it comes to the non-crippled K-mount.

[Ratmagiclady]

Well, that's one way to confirm a theory. Wrong side it was, apparently. As for the lens, it's now probably easier to get at the mechanism, though I've never had one of these mounts apart before.


And, yep, that's definitely bent. They're normally perpendicular to the ring they're mounted on. If you try to bend that back without removing it, try and support the ring it's attached to, ....I don't know what it may be attached to.

[Erik]

Well, that's one way to confirm a theory.

My reasoning was this -- either I do it this way, or I have to send it somewhere for repair and probably pay more than the lens and body are worth together. Meh. It sucks, but I don't see any other solutions that would have sucked less.

[Ratmagiclady]

Well, just be careful and think it through before you try attaching that lens anywhere, make sure a repeat isn't possible, even on the camera that worked OK with it before, since the lens's coupling has become bent.