Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,283   Posts: 1,534,943   Online: 906
      
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 71
  1. #51
    Stock Dektol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New York
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    No definitely don't force it on. I guess it's like mine made in a back-street machine shop in Hong Kong or China & the tolerances aren't that good. Mine goes on fully and the pin locks. The problem is getting it off as there's nothing to grip, that's quite different.

    Ian
    Thanks for all your help. Mine does go on now. The reason I couldn't get it off was because of a pin that only my N55 body has- the rest do not. Instructions I have found say to take the mount off with the lens- so you have something to grip. If you don't want to do that due to a fragile lens a rubber glove works like a charm.
    I will NEVER stop developing...

  2. #52

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    225
    EVERYBODY should carry a pair of rubber gloves in their camerabags......hehehe.

    OK, i got a list as long as your arm now. any more?

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA., U.S.A.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    228

    The 120 mm f 2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Howell View Post
    never heard of a 120mm, sounds like a bit of an oddity.

    Pentex made 42mm lens from 35mm to 150, for the most part, in 15mm increments, although from some reason they jumped to 105 rather than 100: 35, 50, 85, 105, 120 135, and 150. The 120 is somewhat rare, the 150 is easy to find. I find the 150 to be a better fit than the 180, I have a sologair 180 in 42mm as well, fast but just close to a 200. I dont think the 120 and 150 were carried over in the K lineup.
    The 120 mm f 2.8 was carried over into the " K " mount
    The 150 mm was not.

    What was great about the 120 was for an f 2.8 lens, it was tiny.
    The 135 mm f 2.8, ( or f 2.5, I don't remember ), was huge by comparison.

    I had a friend who suffered from Screwmountitis. I call it that because it seems ridiculous to me NOT to have a camera with open aperture metering.

    I found him a Spotmatic F, & updated his lenses to S.M.C.T., which included a 120 mm f 2.8.
    He loaned it someone, who promptly stole it.

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by rthomas View Post
    Another vote for the 135mm f/3.5 SMC Takumar, I used to have a Spotmatic with this lens and a 55mm f/1.8 Super Takumar. These are sharp lenses, and they are not very expensive.
    Another vote for the 135mm f/3.5 SMC Takumar. Very sharp with moderate contrast and it handles great. And despite the fact that it's a "budget" lens that did not receive SMC on all lens surfaces - it's more flare resistant than ANY Canon EF lens that I own.

    These can be had for about $40-$65 on eBay or KEH, quite easily.

    The only downside to the lens, IMO, is it's generally poor bokeh.

    The 135mm f/2.5 SMC Takumar is even better, but it will set you back around $150 these days due to all sorts of digiFools attempting to fit them to their DSLRs (only to complain that they don't focus at infinity).
    Digital Photography is just "why-tech" not "high tech"..

  5. #55
    Andrew Moxom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Keeping the British end up in Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,868
    Images
    333
    I use an M-42 Helios lens. It's called an 44M-6 and is 58mm focal length. They have M-2 to M-7 versions and are just older to newer types. The later types having more coatings etc. That said, my M-6 is just outstanding. It's razor sharp but has that lovely out of focus swirly bokeh that a lot of Russian lenses can exhibit. It's f2 wide open. I understand this lens design is a copy of the Zeiss Biotar.

    I found mine for $20 on E'Bay and I am blown away at the results I am getting with this lens. These two shots were done in the last few weeks and shot wide open with the Helios and a beaten up 30 year old Vivitar sl220 camera body.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails super ricohflex (print).jpg   Burrs again (print).jpg  
    Last edited by Andrew Moxom; 06-10-2009 at 08:36 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    Please check out my website www.amoxomphotography.com and APUG Portfolio .....

  6. #56
    luvcameras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    379
    The Leica CL stands for "Compact Leica"

    Dan
    Antique and Classic Camera BLOG
    www.antiquecameras.net/blog.html

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Oz
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    481

    Takumar M42 f/4, 17mm "Fisheye": a desirable lens?

    Quote Originally Posted by wayne naughton View Post
    i just got a hold of some m42 adapters for both minolta af and manual bodies and while i've been reading up on the different lenses, i'd be curious to get people's opinions and recommendations on what to look out for. my only experience with screwmounts has been with a spotmatic and a couple of takumars (and that was about 30 years ago...grin)

    many thanks

    wayne

    I have just obtained -haven't had time to use it yet- an M42, Takumar Super-Multi-Coated f/4, 17mm "Fisheye" lens.

    Does anyone have any experience of, or opinions about, this lens they would be willing to share, please?

    (I will be using it in an Asahi Pentax M42 film body)

  8. #58

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    268
    If you want a fisheye, that Pentax 17mm is a good one.

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Oz
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by dougjgreen View Post
    If you want a fisheye, that Pentax 17mm is a good one.
    I found this site with some sample images:

    http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic....7340&view=next

  10. #60

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    261
    Quote Originally Posted by John Koehrer View Post
    The Minolta's Is the CLE and uses an electronically controlled shutter.
    The CL is Mechanical.
    Well there were three, the Leica Cl, the Leitz-Minolta Cl (essentially the same camera with a different badge) and the Minolta CLE... sweet Cl size with what appeared to be Minolta XG series electronics.

    David

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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