[GibbyTheMole]

FINALLY! Got the Q today, and I'm hooked! This thing is wicked fun, and beautifully built! I'm thinking I'm gonna want more tiny lenses to go with it, so I was wondering if any C-mount lenses were good enough to bother with. Some have reported less than thrilling results with C-mount CCTV lenses.

I've checked it with a few K-mount lenses & the results were excellent on the Pentax-A 35-105, DA-L 55-300, and Tair 3M-5CA 500mm mirror lens. (Samples coming soon to the appropriate thread.) I haven't checked it with others yet. I'm thinking the Pentax 50/1.7 and my Promaster 100mm macro lens should be excellent as well.

I think I'm in love!!! (And I'm gonna have to get one for the wife.)

Cheers,
Bobbo :-)

---

Last edited by GibbyTheMole; 01-04-2013 at 05:09 PM.

[hnikesch]

I have ordered 5 "C" mount cctv lenses and received 4 CS mount and one C mount lens. It seems the current standard is CS and no matter what you specify when you order (they) send you a SC. I have used several sellers through Amazon and Ebay but have had problems with all. The lenses looked like they were C mount in the image from seller but they sent a different lens each time.

The one lens I did get a 4mm I put on adapted lenses thread with images and supplier info, it could be sharper but for $20 I think it will be fun to walk around with. I think I have to visit some stores to get what I want.

I really want a fish eye 2.5mm but just received my 2nd SC mount lens after ordering a C from 2 different suppliers. Both were in the $20 range. I have yet to find a CS to Q adapter. I am going to keep the latest SC 2.5mm and I will try to alter a D to Q adapter to make it work. The D adapter is a 5/8 thread and the CS is 1" but the flange distance is close, The D is 12.29mm and the CS is 12.52 so a thin shim should work. The SC lenses mount 5mm closer to the sensor than the C mount and can interfere with the lens contacts in the Q so you need to watch how far they protrude unto the camera.

Hans

[GibbyTheMole]

I really want a fish eye 2.5mm but just received my 2nd SC mount lens after ordering a C from 2 different suppliers.

Getting a cheap fisheye was the main motivation for wanting to explore C-mount lenses, so it sounds like I might be better off just buying the Pentax Q fisheye rather than tossing money down the toilet on C lenses that aren't really C.

[hnikesch]

Getting a cheap fisheye was the main motivation for wanting to explore C-mount lenses, so it sounds like I might be better off just buying the Pentax Q fisheye rather than tossing money down the toilet on C lenses that aren't really C.

After searching it seems there are quite a few brick and mortar surveillance stores around most cities. I think I must visit a few, maybe in person I can find a real C mount. The one C I did get correctly I talked with the supplier by phone before the order. I was able to return the wrong lenses so the only thing wasted was my time. I am not giving up yet.

Hans

[Shawn67]

I think C Mount lenses are worth messing with. Check this thread for example...

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/206633-pentax-q-cmount-lenses-re...ml#post2185448

Shawn

[Shawn67]

"Getting a cheap fisheye was the main motivation for wanting to explore C-mount lenses"

Keep looking. I have a cheap 2.5mm C mount fisheye that works OK up close but is soft around the edges. A few sample shots at:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/200668-wide-angle-c-mount-lenses.html

I also bought a used Computar 3.6mm f1.2 C mount lens on ebay. It is optically better than the 2.5mm but I haven't really used it much yet.

Shawn

[GibbyTheMole]

Meh. I might just use a cheapo fisheye attachment for awhile 'til I can spring for the real thing. My wife actually has an Ambico attachment that's pretty decent.

[crewl1]

The 03 fisheye is the only toy lens that I find is worth the price.
If you really like fisheye then just buy it as it is very good and so close to the DA10-17 in output that I decided to sell my 10-17.
If you just want to experiment then go for it, but if you are going to buy few C mount to try to find a fisheye you are better off just getting the 03.

[snostorm]

The 03 fisheye is the only toy lens that I find is worth the price.
If you really like fisheye then just buy it as it is very good and so close to the DA10-17 in output that I decided to sell my 10-17.
If you just want to experiment then go for it, but if you are going to buy few C mount to try to find a fisheye you are better off just getting the 03.

I agree. The 03 FE is one of the best bargains in photography. The only problem I ever had with it was that it was hard for me to focus because of the low res LCD and my eyesight. Notice the past tense -- with Focus Peaking, focusing is easily accomplished, even viewing the LCD at odd angles, because essentially the whole frame snaps into focus at the same time.. The 03 is sharp, inexpensive, super lightweight, easy to use, and doesn't require an adapter to mount. AFAIC, it's a no-brainer.

Despite it being designated by those who don't shoot a Q as one of the "Toy" lenses because it doesn't AF -- it's no Toy. IMO they left out the leaf shutter and AF because it doesn't need them. It has a super short focusing ring throw, and huge DOF. It would not be benefited by adding a shutter since flash is usually not an option with a FE since no standard flash will cover its FOV, and rolling shutter effect from camera shake is really a non issue with a 3mm lens. IMO, they left out the shutter and AF to make this easily the most affordable OEM FE ever made.

I could be wrong, but I'd bet that because of the very affordable 03 FE, there is probably a much higher percentage of FE shots taken and posted online from the Q than any other camera.

Scott

[GibbyTheMole]

If you really like fisheye then just buy it as it is very good and so close to the DA10-17 in output that I decided to sell my 10-17.

Yeesh! That's impressive! I have the 10-17 & I positively love the thing. I upgraded the firmware & enabled focus peaking so I shouldn't have a problem with focusing.

[crewl1]

Yeesh! That's impressive! I have the 10-17 & I positively love the thing. I upgraded the firmware & enabled focus peaking so I shouldn't have a problem with focusing.

Check this post https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/207235-fish-eye-q.html#post2200700

[GibbyTheMole]

Check this post Fish eye and Q

Wow... I'm impressed! (I didn't notice any severe CA, either. Maybe my eyes are wonky?) Yeah... I'm thinking I may need one of these bad boys sooner than later. :-P

[crewl1]

Wow... I'm impressed! (I didn't notice any severe CA, either. Maybe my eyes are wonky?) Yeah... I'm thinking I may need one of these bad boys sooner than later. :-P

It has less CA than my copy of the 10-17 actually. Biggest difference was slightly less contrast (fixed in PP) and the amount of detail in a 12MP image vs 16MP image.
For me, the amount of times I took out the 10-17 could be covered with a much smaller 03 on the Q.

These shots with the Q

[GibbyTheMole]

It has less CA than my copy of the 10-17 actually. Biggest difference was slightly less contrast (fixed in PP) and the amount of detail in a 12MP image vs 16MP image.
For me, the amount of times I took out the 10-17 could be covered with a much smaller 03 on the Q.

Those shots look great! I took the Q out on a country road trip yesterday & shot some stuff to put it through it's paces. It's surprising how great this little camera is. I'm almost tempted to consider selling the 10-17 to fund a Q fisheye and some other Q stuff.

[hnikesch]

These shots with the Q

Very nice Larry, now I really do want to go wider, I just may have to get that 03. That is after I adapt my 2.5mm CS and see how it works.

Hans