Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home

Showing results 1 to 15 of 15 Search: Liked Posts
Forum: General Talk 11-28-2012, 09:05 PM  
War on Christmas?
Posted By Ratmagiclady
Replies: 68
Views: 4,300
Oh, get over the persecution complex. You act like it's a 'war' on you if people *don't* label everything with your Christ and Commandments to the exclusion of all others, and then wonder why people don't think it's such a festive and friendly thing to say anymore.

You act like liberals are attacking your religion if employees at Wal-mart aren't *forced* to 'put the Christ in Christmas' every time they greet someone.

You act like it's an 'attack' on you if anyone says *anything else.* Including 'Happy Holidays.* (Which was apparently quite all right when Christians thought it just meant Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Boxing Day, and New Years, ... that's Holidays, plural: any hint of *pluralism* and you want the very merry One True And Only Holiday Enforced By Law Or Else.)'ve got all these dittoheads out there saying Merry *Christ*mas with that sneering way preachers say, 'Homo*sext*uals' to show contempt for others,

...they'd have *conniptions* if they realized 'Blessed Yule' was something Pagans say, probably.

Say their 'Religious Freedom' is under attack if they can't mark the whole country as theirs and only theirs *or else,*

...And wonder why people ain't feeling the 'Merry.'
Forum: Pentax K-r 11-28-2012, 01:19 PM  
Bad image quality?
Posted By hollywoodhr
Replies: 223
Views: 29,958
I'm glad this thread has helped you too!
Forum: Welcomes and Introductions 11-09-2012, 08:36 AM  
Posted By Weasel
Replies: 4
Views: 424
Sorry to step on your weaseltoes. :)
I'm not so wild, so have a great difference in behavior. :D
My filming history consists of cameras; Canon T70,Canon AV, Voigtlander Vito and some Olympus compact digis.
So, this is the first real digital camera and it feels great right from the beginning. :)
Forum: General Talk 11-07-2012, 02:20 PM  
Poll: Staying with Pentax or jumping ship?
Posted By Fontan
Replies: 324
Views: 21,821
Well, it has been almost exactly 12 months since I sort of jumped ship and went to Leica. I sold nearly all of DA ltds (except 35 and 40) and DA*'s (except 50-135 w/ busted SDM - I just cannot live without this lens!), and bought myself an M8. It was not a clear get away from Pentax altogether in a sense that I still shot with my 645D, but for the last year my FA ltds were collecting dust.

I just wanted to see what it was like out there. After all, you most likely only live once, and time is always running out. I needed to see what this rangefinder thing was all about. Having done it for 12 months, I just love shooting with Leica. It is a pure joy for me. Sure there is P mode on that thing, but I never use it. I am always involved in the decision making process. There is more of me in every picture I take. I learn more about characteristics associated with each aperture for a given object or situation. Transitioning to the focusing method of rangefinder was smooth too, in that I nearly always used manual focus (except with DA 40) anyway, and it is often more accurate too.

Another funny thing was that nearly all of my output turned into black and white. It has become more about shapes and shades. This jumping of ship will turn out to be quite expensive; I am now waiting for my monochrom, which I have no idea when I will get it, as everybody is out of stock with this thing.

This past week, I got myself a yellow K-01. So I am back peddling a bit here. But for $350, I had to get one, so that I can use my DA* 50-135, which I think is the finest zoom out there (even with busted SDM), and also my DA 35/2.8 ltd, which I think is the finest lens Pentax ever produced (I know I know, go ahead and disagree).

I still think that there are some good things about Pentax, but there are some really great things out there. One would selling himself short if not looking outside and else where.
Forum: Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 05-16-2012, 07:47 PM  
Post Your Fujifilm X100/X10 Pictures
Posted By Rupert
Replies: 4,931
Views: 395,832
Very nice...but the little girl in your blog is truly one of your best......the train is not far behind.

There is something magic about little girls......I have two sons and four girls...but I did have a little three year old that ate lunch with me every day for about six months at the place where her mom worked, and I eat daily. She stole my heart...and got anything she wanted, nearly bankrupted me!:D It was worth every dime!

Regards! :)

K5-Allee, my little Dolly!
[IMG] IMGP6982-800Allee by Rupert2009, on Flickr[/IMG]

You can see, we had tons of fun! :D Allee - a set on Flickr
Forum: Pentax K-30 & K-50 09-12-2012, 10:02 AM  
This Is It For Me....
Posted By Lupine
Replies: 32
Views: 4,522
I'm like wildweasel, I've always preferred black and I hate silver. But I have to admit that is a very pretty red and I honestly love the blue. If I were buying a new K30 right now it would be the blue version.
Forum: General Talk 05-18-2012, 11:06 PM  
Outrage builds over Florida vigilante-style killing
Posted By Wheatfield
Replies: 980
Views: 37,803
Wrongo little man. I've really given up on caring if Americans want to shoot each other for sport or not. I figure there are lots of you, so it's not like as if you are putting yourselves on the endangered species list with your culturally ingrained homicidal tendencies, and even if you wipe yourselves off the face of the Earth, it's not like as if we'll miss you.
Forum: Post Your Photos! 05-18-2012, 03:03 AM  
Macro Ants At Dusk
Posted By Nitrok
Replies: 11
Views: 605
Ants against the setting sun.

Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 04-18-2012, 02:30 PM  
Take the pledge - No new Pentax lens purchases
Posted By Philoslothical
Replies: 356
Views: 20,164
Oh, my. :D I suppose we hate you for your freedom, too? :lol:

Seriously though, thanks for the heartiest laugh I've had today, that's awesome. Made the whole thread worthwhile.
Forum: Pentax K-5 02-07-2012, 08:55 AM  
CD that came with the K-5
Posted By Andrew Lang
Replies: 7
Views: 2,385
if there is anything else i can send you one of mine... i haven't looked at them yet, owned 2 k5's for 6 months
Forum: General Talk 12-10-2011, 02:33 AM  
Distrust of Atheists
Posted By magkelly
Replies: 142
Views: 6,683
Just for the record this is amazing, this conversation, that we can all have it here without it ending up a shouting match, that's awesome. Most places I go an attempt at a rational conversation about any of this usually ends up a big old verbal slug fest. I'm really impressed with you all on this one. We do get into it, but this place is one of the few places I've ever hung out in where even people who are polar opposites in terms of this kind of thing can get along well enough to openly discuss why they believe what they do. Cool. :)
Forum: General Talk 12-02-2011, 11:18 AM  
Distrust of Atheists
Posted By MRRiley
Replies: 142
Views: 6,683
Some would submit that the "good" atheist is in some ways more ethical and possibly a "better" person than many "good" theists... Why? Because many theists are good out of a desire for their final "reward" or from fear of final retribution while the atheist expects neither supernatural reward nor punishment for his deeds.

Forum: Pentax Lens Articles 07-18-2011, 12:39 PM  
CHEAP MACRO -- Buying or exploiting a lens for ultraclose work
Posted By RioRico
Replies: 13
Views: 27,380
I see many questions like, "Can you recommend a macro lens for under US$200 (or whatever)?" Well, it all depends on what you mean by 'macro' and 'lens'. :)

'Macro' usually means reaching 1:2 (0.5x) or 1:1 (1x) magnification. (The exact cut-off between macro and near-macro is subject to dispute.) Reaching 1:1 isn't hard and needn't be expensive. 'Lens' can be anything from a superduper new multipurpose weatherproof wonder, to something you've salvaged from broken binoculars or eyeglasses.

Your lens choice may depend on whether flash is needed. On a Pentax P-TTL-only dSLR, using flash can be tricky without an AF or other A-type lens. All that trial-and error while the bugs run away... (Or maybe I'm just a wimp!) Some cameras, like early dSLRs and many film SLRs, DO support old TTL flash. Read your user manual.

The options:

* New or used AF macro lens -- not cheap, and you don't really need or want AF for macro work, but good for portrait and short-tele work as well as macro.
* Used A-type MF macro lens -- still not cheap, but you can easily use P-TTL flash.
* Used non-A-type MF macro lenses, still not cheap (usually) and flash can be tricky.

* Lens extension with aperture control: A-type macro tubes or de-glassed TC's.
* Closeup adapters -- very-to-fairly cheap, and you keep auto focus and aperture.
* Teleconverters -- macro-focusing or otherwise, A-type or not.

* Lens reversal using a cheap mount-reversal adapter.
* Reverse-stacking using a cheap thread-reversal ring.
* Lens extension, totally manual, with cheap macro tubes and/or bellows.

SOME BASICS: No lens can focus closer than its focal length, and that point is also where you get maximum magnification. Short lenses are for close work. Longer lenses allow (or force!) you to work a bit further off. On APS-C "crop-sensor" cameras, lenses 60mm or shorter are generally for studio and copy work; those 70mm or longer are more suitable for field work (90-105mm is a popular range); those 200mm or longer can be a bit clumsy handheld.

Lenses labeled as MACRO-ZOOM, ain't macro. They rarely go beyond 1:5 magnification. But printing MACRO uses less ink than CLOSE-FOCUS, eh? Anyway, real macro lenses, and enlarger and copy lenses (which I'll discuss below), are designed for edge-to-edge flatfield sharpness, while standard camera primes and zooms often display some field curvature. To shoot flat stuff like stamps and microcircuits, you want flatfield; for shooting a bug's butt or an orchid's ovary, a curved field probably doesn't matter.

Fine macro work often requires flash and/or a tripod. Autofocus and fast lenses are NOT your friends when shooting macro -- where the AF wants to focus, and where YOU want to focus, may not be the same!. A-type auto aperture is handy, though. And except with close-up adapters, MACRO SHOOTING EATS LIGHT! The more magnification you have, the less light reaches the camera. Bummer...

EXCLUSIONS: This article is a cheap-gear guide, not a review of new or used products, and not a tutorial on close-up and macro-shooting. So I *won't* go into specific macro lenses; focusing rails and stages and other nifty hardware; flash systems and lighting techniques; DOF and aperture and focusing issues; magnification calculations; macro-stacking warez; other technique-oriented stuff. Stay tuned for other articles, eh?
- Clean Macro: No extra glass between the camera and the subject.
- A-Type: Pentax-A manual lens or extension, with auto-aperture contacts.
- MF: Manual focus -- AF: Autofocus -- all Pentax AF lenses are A-type.
- Tricky Flash: trial-and-error; P-TTL flash is easier with A-type gear.

MACRO LENSES: For 'dedicated' AF or MF macro lenses with auto-aperture control, you must pay. Pentax, Tamron, Sigma and others make popular macro lenses -- see the reviews. For 'dedicated' MF macro lenses without auto-aperture control, you still must pay. I have three fine manual macro lenses, by Kilfitt and Asahi and Vivitar-Komine, relative bargains... and I rarely use them, preferring to put lenses on CHEAP EXTENSION (see below). Since macro lenses ain't cheap, and many threads here are dedicated to just such discussion, I'll say no more.

PRO: Easiest to use; flatfield sharpness; for more than just macros.
CON: Fairly to quite expensive.

A-TYPE EXTENSION: With aperture-control extension, you use A-type macro tubes on your AF or A-type camera lens. Such tubes may be hard to find, and not cheap. But A-type teleconverters ARE fairly cheap, and their glass can be easily removed, and you retain aperture automation and thus flash support. These are usually about 25mm thick, so two of them on a 50mm AF lens puts you at 1:1. This is probably the cheapest way to do clean macro with flash. NOTE: A-type is NOT the same as so-called Auto macro tubes. See the CHEAP EXTENSION section below for details.

PRO: Clean and simple; easy flash.
CON: Not quite as easy as macro lenses; eats light; not flatfield sharp.

CLOSE-UP ADAPTERS: Simple uncorrected meniscus +dioptre closeup adapters are cheap and are not great; but corrected adapters can give brilliant results -- see the Raynox Club thread. The fairly inexpensive Raynox DCR-250 reaches 1:1 at about 150mm on a couple lenses I've checked on my K20D. Your mileage may vary! That is, the exact magnification depends on the actual focal length and the focus distance. Adapters don't interfere with AF or auto-aperture; flash is no problem.

PRO: Very to fairly cheap; simple, easy; auto-control if desired.
CON: Imperfect image quality; not flatfield sharp; can be quite acceptable.


I call these 'strap-ons' and they range from cheap uncorrected meniscus screw-ins to the not-too-expensive corrected 2-element adapters from Raynox, and their ilk. Dioptres are additive -- stack +1+2+3 to get +6dpt. For reference, the Raynox DCR-150 is +4.8dpt and the DCR-250 is +8dpt.

The close-up attachment lens diopter selects the working distance, while the focal length of the host lens determines magnification. Here are focusing distances in inches and metric:

+1 >> 20-38" (500-950mm)
+2 >> 13-20" (330-500mm)
+3 >> 10-13" (250-330mm)
+4 >> 8--10" (205-250mm)
+5 >> 6.5-8" (165-205mm)
+6 >> 6-6.5" (153-165mm)
+8 >> 5" ---- (127mm)
+10 > 4" ---- (102mm)

Simple uncorrected meniscus strap-ons show aberrations, especially at the image edges, that you might not like -- no edge-to-edge flatfield sharpness, nope! But they can be OK for shooting rounded stuff head-on. And a +1dpt strap-on can turn a cheap slow 18-55 kit.lens into a decent portrait lens with thin DOF. These only cost a few bucks per set and are worth playing with, and FUN!

I mentioned adapters made by Raynox. These screw into supplied clip-on mounts that fit lenses from all makers on all cameras, as long as the host lens' front diameter is 52-68mm. The spring-loaded Raynox clip *can* be forced onto a 49mm-diameter lens, but I prefer to use a cheap 49-43mm step-down ring.

Most macro work eats light. Close-up adapters don't, and are good for dimmer shooting situations. Meanwhile, meniscus strap-ons can do other things, and other optical strap-ons and filters exist. Stay tuned for the article on those. [I'll link it here after I write it, soon...]

PS: Member PaleoPete posted his binocular lens macro rig. From his description that its working distance is about 5in, I can guess that the lens is about a +8dpt, like a Raynox DCR-250. Some of you experimenters with extra binocs lying about can try this CHEAP MACRO trick, eh?
TELECONVERTERS: Using teleconverters, you add glass between the lens and the camera. Ordinary TC's increase focal length (and f-stop) while keeping the same working distance, effectively increasing magnification. Macro-focusing TCs let you work closer and with more magnification. TCs magnify whatever problems the host lens may have. All TC's reduce the light reaching the camera. AF TC's are rare and expensive; A-types are less so; both of these are suitable with flash. I have some TCs. I don't use them; that's all I have to say about them.

PRO: Simple.
CON: Not the cleanest; eats light; magnifies lens problems.

LENS REVERSAL: Many macro shooters work with a reversed prime lens -- but reversal just brings you close to your subject. (Working distance is about 45mm with Pentax-type prime lenses.) You still need some extension to gain magnification. A lens with a deep front inset effectively has built-in extension; others may need an added tube. Lens-reversal is cheap, easy, and clean. Just about ANY lens can be reversed. That's how I recycle some non-Pentax lenses that I would otherwise not use. Or I can use a Pentax lens normally, for non-macro work, then flip it around to get real close.

You can reverse a zoom. DA lenses lack aperture rings; they won't do. But any FA or F or MF zoom can be reversed, with a working distance somewhere around 1.3-2x the focal length. Even a lousy zoom, reversed, can give good results. I do this with the A35-80, arguably the worst lens Pentax ever sold. At 35mm I get 1:1 magnification at about 5cm distance; at 80mm I get 1:2 magnification at about 15cm, and it will focus past infinity. A real macro-zoom! Not quite as good as my Schneider Betavaron 50-125/4-5.6 enlarger zoom, but that's another story...

PRO: Cheap and easy; flatfield sharpness.
CON: Close working distance; no auto control.

REVERSE-STACKING: You can reverse-stack lenses and can gain great magnification. Mount a longer PRIMARY lens on the camera; then use a male-male thread-reversal ring, then screw a shorter SECONDARY prime on that. (If you're really cheap, just use gaffer's tape to hold the lenses nose-to-nose.) Magnification is the ratio of the Primary:Secondary focal lengths. A 35mm secondary stacked onto a 105mm primary gives 105:35= 3:1 magnification. A 25mm stacked onto a 200mm gives 8:1, which gets into MICRO-photography territory.

The Primary can be a zoom, although I prefer primes. The Secondary should be a manual prime with an aperture ring. Use the Secondary's aperture ring to control exposure, and leave the Primary wide open. Stopping-down the primary can cause vignetting. You want the front objectives to be fairly close together; lenses with deep insets can cause vignetting. Changing distance between the lenses will change magnification very very slightly. Try it and see.

Reversing or stacking primes ALWAYS puts you at that same close working distance of about 45mm. That is good for studio work; not so good for the field. Be sure to use a hood with any reversed lens, to reduce flare. HINT: Macro tube sections work well as hoods.

PRO: Easy to achieve great magnification; flatfield sharpness.
CON: Close working distance; no auto control; eats light.

CHEAP EXTENSION: I love simple cheap extension (tubes and/or bellows). You can put a prime or a zoom on extension for close and macro work; I prefer primes. An Industar-50/3.5 on 50mm of cheap M42 tubes with a safe cheap wide-flanged M42-PK adapter puts you at 1:1 for a pittance. For not much more, is my favorite: cheap bellows and tubes mounting cheap enlarger lenses, copy lenses, other lenses without focusing mechanisms of their own -- non-camera lenses. You can shove just about any optical material into a bellows!

Many many types of tubes and bellows exist; I can't discuss them all here. I prefer cheap simple ones, and not only for macro work. Both PK and M42 tube sections can be used as adapters for weird lenses -- just glue a tube section to the lens body. Tube sets are dirt cheap, often well under US$10 shipped for 50mm of extension in 3 modular sections. I have about 6 sets of each and I need more. M42 bellows are cheap, PK bellows are a bit more. Bellows for other mounts can often be easily adapted to PK -- just replace the mount hardware with a cheap flanged M42-PK adapter.

NOTE: A-type is NOT the same as so-called Auto macro tubes. Whether M42 screwmount or PK bayonet mount, these have a mechanical linkage to close the lens iris, not the electric contacts that allow camera-lens communication and control. PK 'Auto' tubes can be used in M(anual) shooting mode and will stop-down the iris with Green button use. M42 tubes will not work this way on our dSLRs.

PRO: Cheap; clean; flexible usage.
CON: No auto control; eats light.


I love cheap enlarger lenses! EL's have edge-to-edge flatfield sharpness; they need hoods to avoid flare; they are FUN! A small bellows, some cheap macro tubes, and a handful of EL's will take you far. They also give me a great feeling of freedom. I'm not limited by whatever lens designers thought was A Good Idea.

On my K20D or K1000 I use a 50mm EL for close studio work; 75mm for slightly further macro work, and portraits; 90-110mm for portraits, and short-tele and moderate macro work; and 140-200mm for even more distance. I buy such EL's for under US$10 usually, sometimes four for a dime, maybe as much as US$20 for a Leitz or Nikkor. Premium brands can get expensive but the cheap guys work well too.

EL's have aperture rings, often with the numbers printed upside-down. Other lenses non-camera lenses can be put on extension: projector, copy, xray, process, other specialty glass. These typically DON'T have aperture rings. They can be used wide-open, or you can improvise baffles or Waterhouse stops for greater sharpness. Reversing an EL or other non-camera lens may increase sharpness also. EL and other non-camera lenses usually aren't designed for flare resistance, so be sure to use a hood.

Many European and some Japanese EL's have a 39mm thread, the same as M39 and L39 /LTM (Leica thread-mount) lenses. Some Japanese EL's have a 42mm thread, same as M42. Many USA EL's have inch-based or various non-standard threads. Some non-camera lenses have NO threads and must be taped or otherwise secured into adapters. Cheap adapter: a one-buck plastic body cap with a hole cut in it. Now stick that adapted lens onto bellows or/and tubes and have fun!

PRO: Cheap; EL's have flatfield sharpness.
CON: EL's rapidly become addictive!!
My recommendations: If you have the money and want a sharp versatile lens, get a new AF macro. (I'd love to crawl in the mud with a DFA 100/2.8 WR!) If you're real cheap and fairly lazy, get a set of meniscus close-up adapters; if not quite so cheap, get a Raynox. If you don't mind working real close, try lens reversal and stacking. If you want cheap clean basic macro, get a set of macro tubes or de-glass an A-type TC. If you want to experiment cheaply, get bellows and tubes and enlarger lenses. If 10x isn't enough magnification, get a microscope!

And there you have it -- the basics of Cheap Macro. I didn't say much about 'dedicated' camera macro lenses nor AF TC's because they ain't cheap! REAL cheapskates don't even buy macro tubes -- they get PVC pipe from hardware stores, and improvise. Online searches will reveal macro setups made from Pringles potato-chip cans. How cheap can YOU go? And I'm not discussing technique because enough is enough. I'll let the macro pros tell us how they do what they do, eh?

BIBLIOGRAPHY (actual books!)
FIELD PHOTOGRAPHY by Alfred Blaker (Freeman) ***
CLOSEUPS IN NATURE by John Shaw (AmPhoto)
CLOSE-UP PHOTOGRAPHY by William J. Owens (Petersen)

And an online resource:

Thanks to members jolepp, yeatzee, jatrax, abacus07, pacerr, GeneV, PaleoPete, *Lowell Goudge*, newarts for suggestions and corrections. The fixes are in! The discussion thread for the draft version of this is here [ ] in case you want to read those comments. Please don't hesitate to post more comments-corrections-catcalls here.
Forum: General Talk 09-20-2011, 03:05 AM  
FBI Teaches mainstream Muslims are violent
Posted By Northern Soul
Replies: 36
Views: 3,420
But of course maninstream members of most religions would claim that those that act, or acted in a way that is morally reprehensible were not 'true' believers.

There is plenty of evidence in the bible that God approves - and even helps - his followers to fight wars to glorify him - he slaughtered the first born male in all of Egypt to prove some kind of point, and he was not averse to slaughtering others based on their race - as I remember he gives the Ethiopians a pretty hard time.

If you are claiming that killing people of other faiths is not biblical, you need to explain in what way God was mistaken when he said this, from Deuteronomy 13, and tell me how you, a mere mortal, can tell that God was only joking. An explanation as to why an all-powerful deity would say such a thing if he didn't mean it would be useful to someone as ignorant as me, too.

6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people.

Of course you will come back to me and tell me that this passage is from the Old Testament, as though that somehow means that it's not part of the Bible - perhaps you will tell me of the new covenant and the commandment to "love one another as I have loved you (as long as you believe in me and aren't Egyptian or Ethiopian)" In which case I will ask if God was wrong when he said that - are you bold enough to say your God was wrong, or are you - a mere mortal - going to make excuses for a being his followers believe to be all powerful and all knowing?

Or are we left with the idea that, actually, as this ignorant poster said, all the Abrahamic religions have bits in the their books that encourage people to behave appallingly?

I'm not sure God does draw that line. He behaves fairly badly throughout the Old Testament - the longest bit of the bible in terms of pages and time covered. Torturing the good and honest Job for a bet? Drowning all of creation for something he knew was going to happen? Demanding human sacrifice then changing his mind? Sending plagues? Sending bears to maul children for mocking a prophet for being bald? Murdering millions of people? Condoning rape? Condoning slavery?

It's all in the Bible. There are even rules on how much domestic violence is ok. Where, exactly, does God draw a line between right and wrong?

I'm not omnipotent, or all knowing. But I can think of better ways to achieve almost anything than making a man believe I was going to force him to murder his own son. Can't you? Of course, if I *was* all-powerful and all-knowing, I could just make anyone think and do anything I liked, without "preparing" them with some form of mental torture.

I know that as a literary device this is interesting because God murders his own son later on - or at least arranges for him to be murdered. But that again was unecessary. If you're all powerful, and all-knowing, you can forgive sins without murdering anyone. If you *do* have to murder your son, it begs the question as to who is making you. Who told God, or required of him, that he murder his son? Or was it just something he decided he had to do, for himself?

If you don't believe that God favours his believers over everyone else, then you're not reading the bible properly - or you are choosing to selectively believe it. I corrected my earlier assertion that belief in reward after death is universal to all religions, and said that I was referring to the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) although I'm sure that idea is found in other beliefs too.
Forum: Do-It-Yourself 08-22-2010, 01:13 PM  
Pentax Reverse Ring Light Holder
Posted By CertEdFriday
Replies: 5
Views: 7,687
I have often wanted to use a reversed lens for taking macro images. No 1 problem, once the lens reversing ring (49mm or 52mm Pentax original) has been located, is lighting the subject effectively. There used to be a Pentax Reverse Ring Light Holder K manufactured by Pentax:

Despite posts on this and other forums - no luck in finding said item, so I decided to make one. The guy that gave me the idea was Peter Smith, who regularly posts on another forum. He posted a project similar to this a few years back and I had it on my list of things to do since then. So here goes.

Firstly I purchased a cheap but functional set of extension tubes and then took the male half of the 12mm tube apart and discarded it. I then used a cheap 49mm uv filter and removed the glass.

I then removed the female mounting plate from the 12mm extension tube and cleaned it of grease and and dirt. I then reassembled the front mounting plate and then glued the filter ring into the space left by the removal of the male half of the extension tube.

I retained the locking pin mechanism, so had to be careful to keep any adhesive away from this area.

Once the adhesive (Araldite Rapid Steel) was applied to both parts I then left it to cure overnight. Next day, after a bit of scraping to remove surplus adheshive, the job was done. Now I had a device I could fit to the reversed lens and lock into place and then fit the 49mm ring flash adapter in place to mount the flash. The results are shown below...

Front view of new mount:

Rear View:

All the parts together:
Ring Flash - Mounting Ring - Newly made adapter- Reversed Lens - Reversing Ring and Camera

Fitted and ready to go:

A couple of quick images to test the system works...
5 pence coin

Ballpoint Pen

The project took about an hour in total and I think makes a worthwhile addition to my macro kit!

(For larger images - see my album - Reverse Ring Light Project)
Search took 0.00 seconds | Showing results 1 to 15 of 15

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:20 AM. | See also:, 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?
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]