The Official Vintage Glass Thread

does any have any experience with a canon fd 35-105 f3.5 on gh1/2/3,it seams like it would be quite a large lens on a gh2? being 600grams and 11cm long
 
So i am l looking to buy a pentax k1000 body and was surfing on KEH and i noticed on the pentax lenses how there is either a "M" or "A" designation. I know the "M" means manual something, but what does the "A" mean? I understand the "A" lenses are newer, so would an "A" lens work on a fully manual everything k1000 body?

Also give me some suggestions for pentax to eos and pentax to sony NEX adapters. Are many eos adapters glassless? Budget is around $50 each
 
They will work no problem on the 7D.

On the 5D, you will have to shave down the Aperture pin to get them to work. How much, I'm not exactly sure, but it will interfere with the mirror if it's not taken down.
 
A means Auto, being that they can be used on Auto Exposure cameras such as the ME or the LX, which have Program and Aperture priority exposure settings.

The K1000 is a completely manual camera, so it doesn't need the A setting, but it can still use any A designated lens flawlessly. You can't use an ME very easily with an M designated lens. It just won't work right. (call me out if I'm mistaken - as I've never actually needed to worry about this)

Pentax k-mount doesn't need element adapters with an EOS camera. Neither does Nikon, Olympus, M42, Contax/Yashica, Leica R.

NEX is a mirrorless system, and doesn't need a glass adapter with really anything, unless that is you want to make something full frame, like with the Metabones adapter- which gives you the FOV of a full frame lens on a crop sensor body like an NEX (as well as allows you go get like f1.0 out of them, which is fucking silly shit)

You shouldnt spend more than 10 bucks on any pentax adapter. I have like 5 of them and I paid maybe 20-25 for the lot.

 
Pentax has always used the same mount so you can use any vintage K mount lens on any pentax SLR without an adapter.

You can get Program and Shutter priority on the ZX50 with a SMC-A lens set to the "A" position on the lens
 
Looking to get another lens for my Sony A55, currently I just have the kit lens (18-55mm)…I was looking at these two:

PROMASTER 28-80mm AF Aspherical Wide Angle Zoom f3.5-5.6

gbrJgvi.png


Minolta Maxxum AF Lens 28-80mm f3.5-5.6

v6RrWZX.png


Any recommendations or experience to help me make a decision? The price difference is negligible.

The Minolta comes with a couple filters, I don't have any experience with them though.
 
28-80 used to be the standard for basic AF film cameras just like 18-55 is kind of the standard for crop digitals today. They are pretty much the same as any of today's 15-55 lenses.
 
sorry for triple post, but I am just going to assume that your budget is pretty minimal if you are looking at 1990's 28-80mm lenses. I would suggest two lenses for your A55, the OM Zuiko 28mm f3.5 and the OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8. They are both super cheap, especially the 28mm, for how good they are. You could really get any other vintage 50mm and it will be great (see tijmendal's thread), but if you get two OM lenses you don't have to get more than one adapter.
 
Thanks for the reply…my budget definitely isn't limitless, but I am definitely not unwilling to spend some money on a quality lens. Like most others in this thread I want to broaden my camera's abilities without spending a fortune on a "G-Series" type lens. As you can tell I'm rather new to this, so any help is appreciated.
 
It's not in the best shape. Aperture ring is missing. but the glass is mostly clean. Part of me wants to keep it, but it's too much of a project for me right now. Ebay profit time.
 
Why can't those tumbling dickweeds who sell rare lenses on eBay never take a few let alone one proper shot off said rare lenses?
 
13174942:omnidata said:
Why can't those tumbling dickweeds who sell rare lenses on eBay never take a few let alone one proper shot off said rare lenses?
Click to expand...

too busy oogling and aweing at the bulbous elements.
 
Speaking of Nikon wide/fisheyes, would anyone seriously recommend a zenitar 16mm? apparently its horrid until f/16, trying to figure out if thats worth $150.
 
13175462:CheddarJack said:
Hold on.

What?? What is so special about this lens?
Click to expand...

Its a very wide lens that is optically fantastic and has practically no distortion. And they were made in a very small quantity, so its rare to even see them being sold. Heres Ken Rockwell blowing his load about it.
 
13175413:JuliusJ said:
Speaking of Nikon wide/fisheyes, would anyone seriously recommend a zenitar 16mm? apparently its horrid until f/16, trying to figure out if thats worth $150.
Click to expand...

If you're on a Canon full frame, sure. Go for it. Especially if you can get it for around 100 or less and really want a fisheye look. If you're on a Nikon it won't work well really, and I'd recommend a Tokina 17 or a Vivitar 19 for around the same price instead.
 
Speaking of old Tokinas. A friend of mine just found one of these in his uncles old stuff. I'm quite jealous.

25153fcd22dbb57c11e6faafdd3a0d49.jpg


Tokina RMC 28-85 f4.

**This post was edited on Oct 20th 2014 at 11:40:36am
 
13181598:DingoSean said:
If you're on a Canon full frame, sure. Go for it. Especially if you can get it for around 100 or less and really want a fisheye look. If you're on a Nikon it won't work well really, and I'd recommend a Tokina 17 or a Vivitar 19 for around the same price instead.
Click to expand...

I mean I already have a 20-35. Looking for real wide, preferably a fisheye look. Why wont it work well on a Nikon?
 
13181749:JuliusJ said:
I mean I already have a 20-35. Looking for real wide, preferably a fisheye look. Why wont it work well on a Nikon?
Click to expand...

as far as I know, it's m42 screw mount only, right? Pentax doesn't adapt well to Nikon.
 
13181770:DingoSean said:
as far as I know, it's m42 screw mount only, right? Pentax doesn't adapt well to Nikon.
Click to expand...

i think they make a nikon mount? either way it looks way fuzzy until f/16 according to mr rockwell.
 
13181813:JuliusJ said:
i think they make a nikon mount? either way it looks way fuzzy until f/16 according to mr rockwell.
Click to expand...

It's soviet glass.. it's always a total crapshoot and it's usually never consistent.. Plus, Mr. Rockwell isn't always right. Mir, Dynax and pentax forums are more likely to give you a rough idea of how a vintage lens performs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top