|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
05-02-2014, 04:34 PM
|
| |
I find this one of the most confusing threads here on PF I have ever read. Considering that, please forgive me for throwing in my 2-cents:
1. Cheapest is not always best - far from it. You may be FAR better off paying a few $$ more for a lens from KEH, or another high-track-record 100% seller offering a 14-day return.
2. Yes - you can sometimes find a great lens sold with an old worthless body. But bid 1/3 of its worth. They are far more likely to have fungus, haze, scratches etc. Caution - for sure - when you see: 'I know nothing about....' in the description.
3. 'Estate Sales' - offering where the deceased's camera bag is being sold by the wife or kids, are the ones I look for. Bid the value of the one lens you want - nothing more. Assume its all junk - even the lens you want.. (Watch out for 'faux estate sales' - there are sellers who put together a bunch of junk lenses with a junk body - and attempt to sell as an estate package.)
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-09-2014, 03:09 PM
|
| |
+1 for Just1More Dave. 43812 is the late (5 element?) version. 43802 has 4 elements. However, I suggest you test the lens before buying. In tests I ran, both the Vivitar M42 Komine 135 f2.8 (early 5 element - 8 blades) came out better than either Taks (unfortunately), and the 135mm f3.5 smct - stopped down a bit - matched them.
IMO, both 135 f2.5 are overrated.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-24-2014, 02:25 AM
|
| |
Interesting Baz and Barondla,
When taking a series of shots with the same lens, as mentioned earlier, I usually just focus once at the widest opening. However, one exception is my test: Lensbaby f11 & 16 'discs in adapter' results - 110 50mm f2.8 lens.
50_2.8Ctr (no disc)
50_2.8Edge (no disc)
50_11Ctr
50_11Edge
50_16Ctr
50_16Edge
Here, I obviously had to refocus every time. And now that I look at them after Baz' finding on CA - I think I see the Edge CA of the 50 at f16 is a bit worse than the same Edge at f11 (f being the lensbaby disc). (More lateral CA?) Maybe diffraction here, though? Maybe not - as I think f16 lensbaby equates to a real f5.6/6.3 or so??
And Barondla, seeing your 110 50 and 1.7 Soligor TC on the main thread ('fisherman') I just got a NOS 1.7 Soligor. So far unused by me. But instruction sheet (PDF attached) says it makes the 110 50 into an 85mm f8 - this will be another interesting resolution/CA test - as soon as I get to it:)
|
|
Forum: Pentax Price Watch
04-02-2014, 04:25 PM
|
| |
Only $197 more to go until it hits the Q at $199... Keeping fingers crossed!
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
03-29-2014, 03:43 PM
|
| |
An 'out of the box' possibility - but given the budget, just maybe worth a look. Larry (crewl1) has fantastic shots of birds posted over in the Q forum. Check out https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/173602-reach-q-images.html
For your budget, you can easily get a brand-new Q or Q10 ($200 with 02 lens) , even the Q7 - and the ability to turn a 100mm into 560mm, or a 200mm into 1120mm.
Take a look...
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-24-2014, 03:49 PM
|
| |
Glad the outcome looks good!
But the whole thing gives me comfort that when I am 'putting up' with my manual focus M42s, I will likely never have to send them into repair - even for another 40 years...
No motors, no problems.
Yes - you can call me a Luddite..:)
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-16-2014, 11:14 PM
|
| |
An off-the-wall suggestion, but have you considered buying a Q with its 5.6x crop factor and a $30 Fotodiox adapter? Less than the cost of of good long lens - new Q body about $100. With 02 still about $200. Check out the Q forum and the 'adapted lenses' thread there. Some stunning shots with a DA* 300.
I use an inexpensive but great M42 Tele-Takumar 200mm F5.6 preset with my Q quite often for nature shots (mainly birds). Preset really works much easier than the A/M switch - and the 5.6 Tak 200 is sharp to begin with.
Q body won't take up any more space/weight than a long lens - for sure. And with it, your 18-135 becomes a 100-700mm. Maybe no need to buy any more lenses?
Worried about IQ? Maybe then go Q7 (but a lot more $$ right now than Q - still, compared to a good super-tele??). And/or the genuine Pentax K/Q adapter for maybe $210 - with its additional shutter flexibility...
I usually shoot a K-01 and my great old Tak M42s, but found for birds my 300mm F4.0 simply wasn't long enough, even at 450mm equivalent. Also, using M42s exclusively, there isn't much available on the wide end. The Q and 02 solved both problems for me.
If you do go Q, I found I had to think a bit differently with it. I could be sloppy framing with the K-01 and then crop and never really see the difference. Same with ISO. With Q, frame/select FL so you NEVER have to crop (well, crop much..:>). Force ISO low, low, low, Like 125. Avoid the temptation to let it drift up - use tripod, building, stabilization, multiple shots - whatever it takes to keep ISO low...
Have fun!
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
12-26-2013, 07:45 AM
|
| |
IMO I just wasted a couple hours browsing through Sony 7, 7R, various NEX stuff to see how useful with my slew of Tak M42s compared to my K-01.
No in camera image stabilization? Unbelieveable. And at $300 or less for K-01 NOS, maybe I should buy a spare before they disappear..
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
11-26-2013, 04:15 PM
|
| |
for the replies and suggestions... Invaluable to me.
Based on all these, I decided to start by 'dipping my toe in the water' with a lightly used K-01 - in large part since I intend to use the camera only with my M42 lenses, and focus peaking/focus zoom with it appears useful enough.
My first 'new' Pentax since I bought my Spotmatic ES-II 'a few years ago'.....:)
So far, so good. Maybe a K-3 in future sometime, but for now the $250 K-01 is great for me..
Chris
|
