Md rokkor lens on pentax mx mount?
-
A
- Thread starter Iodosan
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS Best TLR ever:) Kodak Brownie Reflex Synchro Model, 127 film
- Started by Erik L
-
For Sale Rodenstock Sironar f 5.6 210 mm lens in Copal 1 shutter
- Started by spoolman
-
For Sale 4x5 film sheaths
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Sale 3.25x 4.25 plate holders
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Sale Zone vi darkroom safelight
- Started by Peter Schrager
Forum statistics
Yes but it won't focus at Infinity, better to sell it and find a Pentax lens.
Ian
Ian
It's not worth it. Adapters with glass may work for all sorts of combinations, but they degrade image quality and offer no automatic stop-down. The 45/2 is no exceptional lens to begin with. But if you want to use it, you can probably find a Minolta body for the same money an adapter costs. And of course you can find the great Pentax-M 50 1.7 for little money, and the 50 1.4 is still quite affordable, too (just has some barrel distortion, like most 50 1.4s).
I have the 50 1.7 and it's good. Not a summicron but good 50. But I'm searching a good 40mm for my pentax. This is my favourite focal length. The pancake I read that it is not good and the 43 mm really costs too much. There is a tessar red t 40mm f4, 5 but it is very rare and I do not know how it is. I bought a mir 1b 37mm and am testing it but other quality solutions I don't know about.
That is why he inquired about a "glass adapter", thus a adapter that corrects for lacking flange/focal distance compliance.
I doubt though that a adapter exists at all, let alone one with an correcting optical element.
To exist, it exists. With glass. I don't know if it works or if the lent Loses quality
https://www.ebay.de/itm/172330797636
I forgot that the PK mount has been taken over for digital cameras. (I'm analog only... and got no Minolta lenses either.) That of course explains the existance of such adapter.
As you got that lens for free, why not try such adapter. But of course that will lengthen the lens.
A alternative, real pancake lens would be the M42 Industar 50mm 3.5, if adaptable.
As you got that lens for free, why not try such adapter. But of course that will lengthen the lens.
A alternative, real pancake lens would be the M42 Industar 50mm 3.5, if adaptable.
Last edited:
I've had Pentax M42 to Nikon F with lens to correct, acted as a teleconverter, with only a single element was not sharp at all.
I like 40mm, too. I would assume the Pentax 40 2.8 to be better than some other lens + lensed adapter. However the most affordable way to get a good 40 is to buy the Konica AR 40 1.8 and a fitting body, or a fixed lens rangefinder.
Great lens, Pick up a X-370 and headout to take some pictures.
The Konica 40/1.8 is an outstanding lens. Worth picking up a Konica body to use it on.
I agree that this is an outstanding lens. I would look for something in the sr-t series to shoot it on. They're manual cameras that are built like tanks and have a really cool two needle metering system and generally a variable bottom-weigting averaging system that I actually trust to tell me what to do in some cases.
I generally think of the minoltas as being superior to the low end pentaxes but I've heard the MX is pretty nice.
I generally think of the minoltas as being superior to the low end pentaxes but I've heard the MX is pretty nice.
That's the simplest option, and that particular camera can be found easily.
The small and compact MD lenses are perfectly paired with the X300/500/700 etc series cameras.
Great lightweight shooters, fast if you let the camera handle the shutter speed. Fun to walk around town with.
While the SRT's are certainly good camera's, they are outright agricultural as far as ergonomics and handling goes.
There is also the Auto Chinon/ Revuenon 45mm 2.8. It is a 4-element lens but an excellent performer, probably my favorite lens in PK mount (I haven't tried the FA 43mm). Similar in my experience to the Zeiss 45mm 2.8 for Contax. But I am also partial to the type of rendering offered by Tessar-types, and not so concerned with sharpness in the corners.
I don't care if it's small. I'm interested in him having a good quality. I am not demanding a summicron but a good one. So you advise me against using an adapter and letting go of the pentax system and choosing between a konica or a minolta (which are all semi-automatic solutions, instead the mx was completely manual.) therefore or for example a konica fs1+hexanon 40mm or a minolta x series + rokkor 45mmand I add an contax 139q+tessar45 (although here the price goes up)
I had read about the existence of this lens but I thought it was just an imitation of the pentax m 40 That I don't like at all. But if you tell me that That has the character and yield similar to the tessar (I am also an admirer of tessar lenses) contax yashica then I found the solution!
[QUOTE="Auer, post: 2372139, member:]
While the SRT's are certainly good camera's, they are outright agricultural as far as ergonomics and handling goes.[/QUOTE]
I dunno, I've certainly felt much worse ergonomics. And the film advance and shutter speed dials have been silky smooth on every SR-T I've ever had.
While the SRT's are certainly good camera's, they are outright agricultural as far as ergonomics and handling goes.[/QUOTE]
I dunno, I've certainly felt much worse ergonomics. And the film advance and shutter speed dials have been silky smooth on every SR-T I've ever had.
Have you tried a 35mm lens? If you could live with a 35 rather than a 40, there are a lot more choices, including a couple of f/2.0 versions from Pentax.
I've been happy with a SMC Pentax-M 35 mm, f/2.0 on my MX cameras. It is slightly soft in the corners, but overall I think it is a very nice lens. The non-M version may be even better, if you can find one. Pentax lenses with 35mm focal length and f/2.8 are relatively common and affordable.
I've been happy with a SMC Pentax-M 35 mm, f/2.0 on my MX cameras. It is slightly soft in the corners, but overall I think it is a very nice lens. The non-M version may be even better, if you can find one. Pentax lenses with 35mm focal length and f/2.8 are relatively common and affordable.
Unless you have a bad copy, there are no optical quality issues with the Pentax 40mm f2.8 just that it cost more then the 50's and that it is smaller and takes a little getting used to it.
Here are a couple of Flickr albums, first the Revuenon and then the Contax Tessar. It's not a scientific comparison, but you can get an idea of the relative characters.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/littleparallelograms/albums/72157715961425172
https://www.flickr.com/photos/littleparallelograms/albums/72157677412801328
Thanks a lot! Nice comparison. The c/y tessar It's really good. Apart from It has saturation that I like the most but it depends on the film. The Revuenon Sounds like a good solution. Meanwhile I found news about another 40mm M42 lens http://forum.mflenses.com/carl-zeiss-jena-tessar-40mm-f45-m42-t72335.html
No problem! And the 40mm lens on the Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII is sharper than both of them, if you are interested in rangefinders. Very nice optics. A bit lower in contrast, though.
I bought a Not working prinz35 (minolta 7sii clone like revue400, vivitar 35) but I could never find anyone willing to fix it
I'd find 45 too close to 50 to bother specifically looking for one, especially as most options seem optically worse than a run of the mill 50. 40mm is different enough to seek one out.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |