Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,533   Posts: 1,572,697   Online: 848
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 49
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    303
    The Takumars seem very sought-after by some digital user communities, but not others. I hear the Sony DSLR forum regards them as the spawn of hell, for example. Given the results I've had from a 1960s Auto Takumar 55mm on my K-5 before now I can only assume that the fault doesn't lie with the lenses...

    M42 lenses will always be in demand as there are adapters to fit them to pretty much any current system (and most older ones too). I know there are glass-free adapters to fit them to Canon DSLRs as well as the Pentax ones.
    Matt

  2. #12
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area (Albany, California)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,156
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    Yashinoff: WHY? Because I have lots of lenses and I just sold a Takumar 1.4/50 for USD 40 because the guy wanted to use it on his digital. There is, perhaps, new value to these old lenses since the 'official' digital lenses cost a fortune. - David Lyga
    There is! Many M42 lenses are going for twice what they were only a year or two ago. Many of the Contax/Yashica mount manual focus SLR lenses are WAY up vs. 2-3 years ago for this exact reason especially the wides as Canon DSLR shooters like them better vs some of the Canon offerings. Glad I loaded myself up for my RTSII and RX a few years ago before the prices mostly rose. Seems to be a new resurgance lately I think a lot because of the Sony NEX cameras and the cheap adapters from China.
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  3. #13
    zk-cessnaguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by PentaxBronica View Post
    ... I hear the Sony DSLR forum regards them as the spawn of hell, for example.
    eh??? The Minolta Dynax/Maxxum mount (which is the Sony a-mount) easily takes M42 lenses with a glassless adapter - with no infinity focus problems. Dunno where you got that info from. There's a whole subforum on Dyxum.com dedicated to M42.
    There is nothing, absolutely nothing, half so much worth doing, as simply messing about in boats

  4. #14
    zk-cessnaguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by rich815 View Post
    There is! Many M42 lenses are going for twice what they were only a year or two ago. Many of the Contax/Yashica mount manual focus SLR lenses are WAY up vs. 2-3 years ago for this exact reason especially the wides as Canon DSLR shooters like them better vs some of the Canon offerings. Glad I loaded myself up for my RTSII and RX a few years ago before the prices mostly rose. Seems to be a new resurgance lately I think a lot because of the Sony NEX cameras and the cheap adapters from China.
    It's because of videographers as well - they love manual lenses for the 'filmic' look they give, and manual focus lenses are better, as in no focussing noise etc.
    There is nothing, absolutely nothing, half so much worth doing, as simply messing about in boats

  5. #15
    Andrew K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    520
    In Micro 4/3 (or Pentax Q/Nikon V and Sony NEX) you can use pretty much get adaptors in any lens mount...I've seen adaptors for Retina reflex/Voigtlander Bessamatic, Alpa, Zenit (m39), Kowa, Canon 0.95 rangefinder (it's a unique bayonet mount), Exakta bayonet, Rollei TM, ...not to mention adaptors for movie & video lenses (Arriflex PL, B4, Ikegami, C mount).

    And there's the adaptors for medium format lenses - I know of ones for Hasselblad, Pentax, Mamiya 645, Pentacon 6/Kiev 60..........or adaptors for 35mm rangefinder lenses - M39, leica M and Contax G..there's even ones for the old Contax/Kiev mount Rangefinder lenses, and one for Nikon bayonet mount rangefinder lenses.

    With Digital SLR's there are limitations - you can't use Minolta MC/MD lenses on a Sony/Minolta DSLR unless you use a adaptor with a lens in it, or you won't get infinity focus. Nikon and Pentax lenses work on most DSLR's, and as people have said - screw mount lenses work on many cameras..

    It all depends on the flange depth of the original mount, and the flange depth of the DSLR mount....
    A camera is only a black box with a hole in it....

    my blog...some film, some digital http://andrewk1965.wordpress.com/

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by zk-cessnaguy View Post
    eh??? The Minolta Dynax/Maxxum mount (which is the Sony a-mount) easily takes M42 lenses with a glassless adapter - with no infinity focus problems. Dunno where you got that info from. There's a whole subforum on Dyxum.com dedicated to M42.

    Well, I meant as in they consider them to have poor image quality. Seems to be the same mindset that says "if it wasn't made yesterday then you must replace it", which the Sony marketing machine is particularly skilled at. A friend of mine uses Sony gear, to the best of my knowledge they've never tried a Takumar but consider them garbage, presumably from what they've read on some forum or other.

    Funnily enough they went rather quiet after I started posting images taken with one online! My old K-m wouldn't meter properly with M42 lenses but the K-5 will, so I've been playing around with various Taks a fair bit, although I try to buy the first series of K lenses (SMC Takumars with the new mount) instead as they don't need an adapter.
    Matt

  7. #17
    zk-cessnaguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by PentaxBronica View Post
    Well, I meant as in they consider them to have poor image quality. Seems to be the same mindset that says "if it wasn't made yesterday then you must replace it", which the Sony marketing machine is particularly skilled at. A friend of mine uses Sony gear, to the best of my knowledge they've never tried a Takumar but consider them garbage, presumably from what they've read on some forum or other.

    Funnily enough they went rather quiet after I started posting images taken with one online! My old K-m wouldn't meter properly with M42 lenses but the K-5 will, so I've been playing around with various Taks a fair bit, although I try to buy the first series of K lenses (SMC Takumars with the new mount) instead as they don't need an adapter.
    I'm sure there is a (very) large subset of Sony users who do partake in the "if it wasn't made yesterday then you must replace it" kool-aid.
    The K-mount lenses branded as Takumar don't have as great a reputation as the M42 ones, which may be the root cause of your friend's Takumar-phobia...
    There is nothing, absolutely nothing, half so much worth doing, as simply messing about in boats

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    303
    Ahh, those "things"...

    The 28mm f2.8 isn't bad, I bought one before I knew anything about decent gear and revisited it recently. Colours are a bit washed out but it's decently sharp, apparently it's identical to the later version of the Pentax-M lens but with simplified coatings. It lurks in one of the reserve flight cases as I have the K and M versions of the 28mm f3.5 which are much better. K is slightly sharper but M is smaller and easier to find.

    I hear the Tak Bayonet 135mm f2.8 isn't too shabby either. That's about it. The rest are definitely a case of being able to do much, much better for the money if buying used!
    Matt

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,063
    The design of lenses for analog and digital use are somewhat different. In digital cameras it is preferable for the rays exiting the lens be as close to perpendicular to the sensor plane as possible. Oblique rays can cause various distortions and color shifts. Of course this is not a problem with film. There was a lengthy article on this subject on the web but I don't have the reference. So lenses for analog cameras may not work as well as those lenses designed for digital cameras.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  10. #20
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,045
    I don't think this is a subject for a none digital forum.
    Ben

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin