Related Links:
K-mount Glitch in
Russian Versions
Myths of Photography
Pentax provides an answer, and it is "NO!", you don't need to
change your lens mount to provide full autofocus benefits. The new Pentax
autofocus cameras can work with the older manual focus lenses in various
modes (except autofocus modes, of course). And the new autofocus lenses
can mount and work on the older manual focus cameras using manual
focusing. The old manual cameras work in all their manual modes with the
newer autofocus lenses. The new autofocus cameras can use older manual
focus lenses in the various manual focus modes (such as manual,
auto-aperture, auto-shutter, and program modes). Zero obsolescence!
[Editor's note:
see Jerry Crum's warning below about Ricoh "P" mounts with Pentax AF bodies!]
Pentax has a lens mount adapter that lets you use the older M42 screw
mount lenses on the newer K-mount and KA-mount (autofocus) bodies. So you
can even use their older screw mount lenses on the newer autofocus bodies!
Granted, a few budget low end models have been produced without the
ability to mount and meter the older lenses, but they are the exceptions.
Pentax is also notable for having an adapter that lets you use their P67
6x7cm SLR lenses on their pentax 6x4.5cm SLR in full automatic modes, and
similar adapters to use their medium format lenses on their 35mm SLRs.
Most lens makers don't provide such an adapter at all, and if they do, you
lose automatic diaphragm operation. Again, Pentax shows it doesn't have to
be that way!
In other words, Pentax's example proves that you can provide autofocus
features without obsoleting either the older manual lenses or
cameras. They didn't need to change their (smallish) manual lens mount to
accommodate the changes for autofocus cameras.
If Pentax can preserve total lens and camera interoperability between new
and old lenses and new and old camera bodies, why can't everybody else?
Unfortunately, Nikon's newer autofocus consumer camera models generally
won't meter with manual focus lenses mounted. Nikon doesn't offer a
service to update their older manual lenses so they can work with their
newer cameras. But a smart Nikon user does make such lens
chipping upgrades out of his home. Kind of makes you wonder if some
guy can do this at home, how come Nikon, who makes these lenses and chips,
can't do so too? In fact, it is kind of hard to understand why the newer
Nikons can't meter with the older manual lenses. The top of the
line Nikons can do so, as did the older consumer autofocus models. Did
Nikon just "forget" how to do such metering with manual lenses on their
newer models? What do you think?
By a similar token, Nikon has dropped the "rabbit ears" on their newer
lenses, which are needed to be fully compatible with the older manual
cameras (e.g., Nikon F2 Photomic, Nikkormat FTN..). Some of their latest
lenses even lack manual control rings, turning all such actions over to
the camera electronics. Given the cost of Nikon's optics, do you think the
savings from dropping the "rabbit ears" on these lenses benefitted
consumers? Or do you think such actions were more likely to force camera
body and lenses upgrades that benefitted the manufacturers?
Contax's AX camera model shows we didn't have to obsolete our manual focus
lenses to get autofocus capabilities too.
The other manufacturers quickly figured out the benefits of selling all
new AF lenses and bodies would outweigh the outrage of existing owners of
now obsolete equipment - and they were right! Canon seized the opportunity
to overtake and pass its competitors with massive investments in autofocus
equipment and marketing ad campaigns.
My point here is that autofocus didn't suddenly appear and revolutionize
the industry. Autofocus cameras and lenses were around for decades, and
available to consumers for circa ten years, before autofocus became the
new standard.
Some autofocus fans will argue that the early autofocus was too slow,
which explains why it wasn't until later that better autofocus cameras
were suddenly popular with consumers. I guess these folks just haven't
tried autofocus on those older Nikon 2020s and the like recently? The
majority of autofocus camera users, not using those kilobuck pro AF
cameras with fast lenses, were consigned to poor AF performance until very
recently.
What the industry largely chose to do was force us to obsolete our older
manual focus lenses and camera bodies and "upgrade" to all new autofocus
lenses and bodies. As I have suggested on my AF Problems pages, this autofocus upgrade was
chosen because it provided major financial benefits to the manufacturers
from all of those upgrades and sales.
In fact, a few digital camera models use existing 35mm lenses to provide
such compatibility, but limited to 3.1 to 6 megapixels using current
chips. The problem is that higher density chips tend to use
smaller features in the same or smaller sized chips to achieve their
higher density while lowering costs. Today's chips are generally less than
24x36mm film size. Sometimes optics in the camera body are used to
concentrate light onto the smaller chips (sort of like a reverse
teleconverter). But most digial cameras use only the center coverage of
your lenses, which unfortunately converts those high dollar fisheye and
wide angle lenses into much lower coverage optics.
Sensors are getting smaller, rather than 16 MP chips getting larger.
Foveon's 16MP chip
uses 0.18 micron technology, versus 0.35 to 0.5 micron features for their
competitors. Their 16MP chip is also 22 by 22 microns square(!), which is
a problem for rectangular format fans such as 35mm SLR's familiar 2:3
ratios. Simple geometry suggests the 22x22mm chip will only image 56% of
the 24x36mm format. Using your 35mm SLR lenses would result in a
chip-based cropping of the 2x3 rectangle to a 1:1 square - surprise!
Things will be worse on medium format, with the 22x22mm chip only imaging
16% of the format area. So a very wide and heavy 40mm Hasselblad lens will
act like a 100mm short telephoto lens. Too bad for us wide angle
fan(atics)!
You need 186+ sensors per mm to yield 4096 sensors in 22 millimeters, or
16.8 Megapixels for 22 mm x 22mm square chip. Using 2 pixels per line
(black/white), that suggests 186/2 or 93 lpmm for the optics to match the
chip. Got many 35mm or medium format lenses that deliver 90+ lpmm? No,
huh? Me neither.
So even if we could get such a 16MP chip in a digital back, we would get
only 1/6th of the image, and at less than optimal resolution. You can add
optics to focus the 56x56mm image onto a 22x22mm square. But besides the
cost, you also have to expect rather lower total resolution. The
resolution on the 22x22mm square is already marginally low, and doesn't
get full benefit from the chip's potential resolution. Since the big
advantage of medium format is larger film area, using a small chip defeats
this expectation. You might as well use 35mm SLR optics and save the
weight and cost, since the chip size and optics are the limiting factors.
My bet is that the chips will be made quite small, and the lenses will be
sized to match. Fortunately for users, small lenses such as those used for
microfilm cameras can have very high resolutions at relatively low cost
(e.g., 250 to 350+ lpmm). It is much easier to improve a small
lens and minimize aberrations than in a large one. On the other hand,
diffraction becomes a big problem with small lenses very quickly (e.g.,
past f/2.8).
So I would predict very small, lightweight, and fast optics.
I think fixed wider angle lenses will be popular, while "zooming" will be
done digitally using interpolation. The lenses will be fast because the
smaller size of the sensors will make it hard to avoid noise unless you
have a lot of signal (light). Sheets of microlenses looking like bug eyes
will help focus light from the entire chip surface onto the limited light
sensitive area of the chips (e.g., 30% of chip area).
I am not saying 24x36mm or even 56x56mm (6x6cm) or larger chips
won't ever be made. I am betting that those larger chips will be custom
production runs, for a very limited (in chip maker terms) market of 35mm
and larger camera users. The really low cost mass produced chips will not
be aimed a the relative handful of us owning 35mm SLRs. The current 16MP
CMOS chip maker, National Semiconductor, CEO is even talking about
millions of cheap sensor chips added to portable videophones and other
gizmos including disposable 16 MP cameras (actually, recycleable is
a better description).
Now do you think that you are going to lug around that medium format
camera and lenses, or your ten pound bag of 35mm SLR bodies and heavy zoom
lenses and tripods, or a six ounce $100 16 Megapixel recycle-able camera?
Remember, both may deliver the same 16MP resolution. The tiny lens on the
disposable camera may even have lower distortion than those oldie Zeiss or
Nikon optics which weigh much more. After all, you can use digital
technology to map the distortions on the lens and then correct for them in
software (but not in film). Do you really think you will carry around all
that obsolete glass, or just use the 16MP sensor in your video digicam or
videophone and upload directly to your server and home printer?
My bet is that another ten years will have most current 35mm and larger
film format cameras seem as heavy and unappealing as a wooden Kodak 5x7"
view camera.
But don't worry; I'm betting the manufacturers will have figured out
something else they can sell us by then....
From posting on rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Robert Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Isn't Nikon's F mount obsolete? PopPhoto..
Date: 31 Dec 1997
Summary: lens mount compatibility
Keywords: nikon lens mount AF MF compatibility
Popular Photography's Keppler did one of his SLR columns in 1991/2 time
frame on the autofocus mount issues and reasons for changes. Nikon (and
to a lesser degree pentax and olympus) got kudos for preserving
compatibility on their new autofocus bodies.
Keppler asked the tough question - was it avarice and greed that made
Canon and others change mounts, thereby obsoleting past lenses and forcing
new lens purchases? Then he ducked answering it directly, but I got the
distinct impression the answer was often yes ;-) ;-) Perhaps with the
smallest camera mounts (pentax and minolta) the bore size was optically
limiting and justified a new mount. But could the others have copied nikon?
While there were some technical issues (large bore advantages), he noted
that Nikon figured a way and by inference, the others might have also.
The real disadvantage to Nikon buyers, per Keppler, was that maintaining
lens compatibilities downward and upward meant extra elements on both the
lenses and the camera bodies - hence, one of the (more minor) reasons
the
nikon F4s were so pricey. The only really needed element is the original
lens diaphragm coupling (not the meter prong) that stops down the lens,
so if the lens fits the nikon mount and has that, you're in business.. ;-)
I am glad that Fred and David and others are providing nikon lens/camera
related resources online so the rest of us can track down and find some
of the great buys out there in older lenses, whether for use on the
latest autofocus body or the earliest nikons.
I have an autofocus 35 f/2 nikkor mounted on my Nikon F as its normal lens
right now. Works great as a fast normal lens on the all-mechanical F. I
suspect the former owner traded up to the latest autofocus nikon, and
dumped these less than current AF lenses to get the latest variant.
There is a lot of confusion out there, which rec.photo folks and resources
are helping to clear up, on the various nikon lens types and the lens
compatibility across the entire line. In my book, the ability to take a
photo with a lens is what counts, even if I miss out on autofocus on my
earlier lenses etc.
I also have pentax, minolta, and topcon bodies with 1 to 3 lenses each,
(and underwater housings for them, I used to teach u/w photography ;-)
but I am buying lenses only for my nikon bodies. Like lots of other
folks, I have a large investment in mostly older and used nikon lenses,
including a number that I use infrequently. I wouldn't want to have to
rebuy these many lenses just to use the latest nikon bodies, despite some
new features and benefits - especially at today's prices!! ;-0
I have bought a number of nikkor AI prime lenses this year - 135mm F3.5, 28mm
F2.8, 35mm f2 AF, 50mm f1.4, 105mm f2.5 - all for under $75 each used (EX
or better condition). According to Fred and David and other online lens
reviews, these lenses are optically very good and provide results hard or
impossible to distinguish on the slide/print from the current nikon
lenses. I also bought nikon AI mount vivitar 300mm f5/6 and 200mm f3.5
and cambron 500mm f/8 glass lens (T mount) for under $120 for all 3!
Finally, I bought a used kiron 28-200mm AIS zoom for $60, bringing my nikon
mount lens expenditures just under $500.
My point is that for $500, I have a range of lenses (28, 35, 50, 105, and
135 nikkors, plus 200, 300, 500 and backup 28-200 zoom) that can all be
used to take great photos and that can be mounted on any nikon or
nikkormat from my nikon F up. (up to the current auto-everythings ;-).
For me, that's the bottom line on lens compatibility issues - only with
nikon can I afford the quality lens that I want on my student's budget
and still hope to use them on current and future nikon cameras ;-)
regards and happy 1998 to all - bob monaghan
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (David Rozen)
[1] Re: 24mm
Date: Tue Sep 15 1998
steven T koontz [email protected] wrote:
: WHGTGAS wrote: : > own a Nikon and thinking of getting a 24mm. the group's : > thoughts on Nikon lens versus Sigma, Tokina, Tameron and : > Vivitar. Money is a factor or I would go for the Nikon. : > : if quality is a factor I would do the same. If not go with : cheaper glass. Also if you ever sell it, aftermarket glass : almost worthless on the market while nikkor lens will hold : it's value alot better..
OTOH, accepting the above as true [and I do],
if money is a *major* factor, a clean used
aftermarket lens is a capable if less than
perfect tool, and available very cheaply. It
all depends on the definition of capable. If
you use f:2.8 a lot, shoot against a lot of
flare-inducing light sources, and expect to
mimick the 645 format by using a tripod, fine
grain films, etc then you *need* the Nikkor.
If your subjects and scenes de-emphasize the
barrel distortion, if you enlarge to modest
sizes and shoot in favorable lighting using
medium to small apertures, a Nikkor is *very*
expensive compared to the aftermarket if both
are clean used lenses. IOW, the difference
in price for new lenses is there, but it's
not huge. The difference for used lenses is
extreme, and makes the non-Nikkor a great buy
and an extereme temptation where money is a
top priority and the user understands the
limits of the lesser item.
The user of an FE-2, FM-2 etc is in a better
position here than a user who needs and AF
lens. Aftermarket build quality was a good
bit better 10 yrs ago or slightly longer, and
many 10 to 15 yrs old lenses in amatuer use
are in near-mint condition. Much of the newer
aftermarket AF stuff is built to meet a price
with little concern for durability, but some
of the earlier stuff is noticeably better.
Regards, - dr
From: J Greely [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Is something wrong with Minolta.
Date: 07 Dec 1998
[email protected] (Allan Brown) writes:
>If I had bought the Minolta SRT101 instead of the Nikkormat I did buy, I >would not be able to fit any of the new Minolta lenses on it. Whereas >I can fit the new Nikon lenses on my Nikkormat.
This is a bullshit argument. I own a Nikkormat that won't work with
modern Nikon lenses unless I want to lose most of the automation
(including all metering modes and most flash functionality). I also
own Nikon lenses that will break many modern AF bodies if you try to
use them. I could buy lenses that will work with my Nikkormat that
can't even be mounted successfully on a modern body.
Nikon's "unchanged F mount" has changed a lot over the years, making
the used market a minefield for the unsophisticated buyer.
I think that aspect puts a lot of people off Minolta.
If you had $10,000 of MD glass, you have a right to have been annoyed
many years ago. Get over it.
-j
From: Anders Svensson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: planned obsolescence Re: Plastic components and lens quality
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999
Interesting points!
Keeping up camera consumption can be done in several ways and basically
we see two major routes... :-)
One is evil - changing camera specifications a little now and then (so
you have to shift systems, if you want to upgrade) or deliberatly make
cameras that are weak, break and only lives long enough to outlive
their warranty.
The other is starting a feature race, and trying to justify a exchange
on merits of obsolescense. That means a perfectly good camera gets
ditched, just because the next generation has some "killer" feature that
you (supposedly) cannot live without.
The technology pace *is* fast and camera makers must secure a working
market. That is why they are saying that "AF-S is the future - get it"
or "45 AF points is sooo much sharper and better than 7" - it's part of
the great conspiray to get us to consume cameras in a pace that makes
the makers happy (too...).
I don't believe that users are asking for bracketing or AF - I think
these are functions that are presented and sold to the customer. This is
an opinion, ofcourse. I do not say that it either reason is bad or
wrong, but I don't think that public demand was the only reason for
these features to emerge - not even a significant one.
"Planned obsolescense" isn't necessarily a bad thing. I just notice that
the camera industry are today making cameras that are designed to be
renewed much more often than in the "old times". One way of making this
happen is to add features and keep costs at a low, marketing friendly
level. Both these moves make cameras more shortlived.
In a short perspective renewing is more echonomical than repair, in a
long perspective, repair is impossible due to the extreme complexity.
That is happening because the camera market really is decreasing. I
connect this to that when cameras was the only means to document your
life, serious cameras was more commonly used than today.
We might even see the last protuberance of technological evolution here
and now - perhaps that would be regarded as unplanned obsolescense...
;-)
Anders
> Anders Svensson [email protected] writes: > >But planned obsolence it is. > > I disagree. If people didn't demand high-speed autofocus, 5+ frames > per second, advanced exposure metering, flexible auto-bracketing, and > the other features that many pros insist that they can't do their jobs > without (or that many amateurs insist on for ease of use), then these > cameras wouldn't have components in them that would fail so > (relatively) quickly. A brand-new F2A wouldn't outsell an F100, or > even an N60, and it certainly wouldn't lure people away from other > brands. > > While not everything in modern cameras is there because of user > demand, most of it is, and calling it "planned obsolescence" only > makes sense if you ignore the alternative, which is "going out of > business". > > -j
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Mon Aug 16 1999
From: [email protected]
[1] Re: Are Minoltas lousy
cameras?
McEowen wrote
> Ohh, that settles it. I'm selling all of my Minolta equipment and buying > Nikon just so I can use manual focus lenses on it... NOT!!! > > > Oh don't be that way . . . Nikon really deserves praise for sticking to their > long standing promise of non-obselescence. Back in the early 80s I sold cameras > in St. Louis. I would tell customers about Nikon's lens mount and how lenses > made in 1959 would still mount on current bodies. A lot of folks thought it was > just so much b.s. but it's really true and still true today -- and all the more > remarkable seeing what Canon and others have done. > > I've been buying Nikon camera equipment since 1978. I still have a few pieces > that date to that era. Most of it I don't use much but it's nice to know I can > take a AF-Nikkor lens and mount it on my 1968 Nikon F and it works perfectly -- > I do just that when I do copy work (actually a Nikon F2 usually).
Nikon's great in that respect, and Pentax did the same thing. I have 2
manual focus pentaxs and 1 autofocus. Makes it very economical and
useful that I can use any of my mixture of AF & MF lenses on any one of
my 3 cameras. Seems like Nikon & Pentax really had the market in mind
when they stuck to that philosophy.
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Philip Wang [email protected]
[1] Re: Are Minoltas lousy cameras?
Date: Mon Aug 16 1999
I will think twice before sinking more money into Maxxum camera and
lenses.
Lens compatibality is a very important issues to me.
I have Canon manual cameras and some very good Canon FD lens. But at the
same time I own some Canon AF bodies. I don't want to and cannot afford
to own two sets of lens to cover both FD and EF mounts. I may give up
Canon AF bodies completely.
The same story goes for Minolta. I am a happy owner of over 20 Minolta
manual cameras including almost all SR, SRT, and X-series and MD lenses
covering from wide angle to 500mm zoom. I only have one Minolta AF
camera and plan to sell it soon because of the lens compatibility issue.
I like Minolta Maxxum 9's features but I am looking at Nikon or Contax
now because of the same lens compatability issue.
I don't like Minolta's decision to make its Vectis APS SLR lenses
incompatible with its Maxxum AF lenses. Nikon and Canon is better on
this. It seems Canon has learned a lesson from its FD/EF lens
incompatible issue and now more willingly take care its existing
customer's needs and invest.
It is a problem of business ethic.- Customer first or the company's
(temporary) interest first. Completely switching to another lens line
can increase lens sale short term, but in long run it will lose customer
loyalty.
Minolta's camera and lenses are good enough for a new customer. But
remember after you bought its camera your are already an existing or
old customer. The next change of the product line will affect you. And
according to past experience Minolta will not put your interest in the
first place and to protect your invest. Minolta may give up its Maxxum
lens product line completely and use its new Vectis S-1's lens mount for
its next generation digital SLR. At that time people probably have to
buy a whole new line of lenses if he wants to upgrade to the technology.
Thanks,
- Philip
(An owner of over 20 Minolta cameras)
...
From Nikon Manual Focus List:
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999
From: Richard Lahrson [email protected]
Subject: 1950s Lens Mounts
Hi folks!
I can think of only THREE system lens mounts from the '50s that
are still in production continually with new designs, both 35mm and
roll film:
1) Leica bayonet mount of 1954 with M3
2) Hasselblad bayonet mount of 1957 with 500C
3) Nikon bayonet mount of 1959 with F model
Is it coincidence that these cameras remain at or near the top in
their class?
Cheers,
Rich Lahrson
[email protected]
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 1950s Lens Mounts
[email protected] writes:
I can think of only THREE system lens mounts from the '50s that
are still in production continually with new designs, both 35mm and
roll film:
1) Leica bayonet mount of 1954 with M3
2) Hasselblad bayonet mount of 1957 with 500C
3) Nikon bayonet mount of 1959 with F model
Add to the list:
4) Leica 39mm screw mount. Currently new lenses being
produced in limited quantity my Leica; also new lenses and bodies by Cosina
and Konica recently or just being released. Can be used on M-Leicas with an
inexpensive adaptor.
5) Universal screw mount (Pentax/Practica), lenses produced
in former Soviet Union.
From: John Halliwell [email protected]
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Pentax - K mount vs. Screw Mount.
Bob [email protected] writes
>will the K mount fit on the new modern Pentax SLR's?
Yes, the Pentax AF mount is a K mount with a few additions. A K lens
restricts you to manual focus and you loose the program and shutter
priority modes (these modes are available with KA lenses). You may also
loose matrix metering with K lenses.
The only exception is the MZ-50 (ZX-50), which will not meter with a K
mount lens.
The screw lens adapter can still be used but only with manual stop down
of the lens diaphram.
--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
[Ed. note: since Pentax K mount lenses are compatible with the autofocus
as well as prior body mounts (with one model exception noted above), this
may be of use and interest regarding pentax lenses...]
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000
From: Dave Oswald [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: New AF SLR purchase: Nikon vs Pentax?
Dave Oswald [email protected] wrote:
>> - Variety: It seems clear that there is a significantly smaller >> range of Pentax lenses. Is this likely to be a problem for >> someone who may need a few different lenses of good quality, >> but is unlikely to require anything particularly exotic? > >I've heard the claim that Pentax's lens selection is smaller than >other brands'. I'm always confused by that comment. First, if you >look in the Pentax dealer catalog, I can't really find any particular >lens *missing*. I'm sure there is a hole in the lineup somewhere, but >in my searching I find that every need is filled. And then add to >that the fact that Pentax cameras will support ANY Pentax K-mount lens >going back nearly 20 years, and with an adapter any S-mount lens going >back 30 years, there is a fantastic selection of used equipment too. >No other manufacturer has maintained lens compatibility for so long. > >Again, I doubt that you will feel the need for a lens that Pentax >doesn't carry.
Please excuse me for following-up to my own post, but I just wanted to
add that the July '99 Pentax dealer catalog lists 55 k-mount lenses,
four k-mount teleconverters, one s-mount adapter, and one s-mount
lens. That is in their current lineup!
Because pentax has maintained compatibility with their older lenses,
their catalog also has a list of discontinued lenses; presumably so
that dealers will understand what they can expect to find on the used
market. The total number of k-mount lenses in that category
(discontinued, but probably available used) is 80. That takes in all
discontinued FA, F, A, and M lenses. Screwmounts aren't mentioned
among the lists of discontinued lenses.
So if you add together all Pentax brand K-mount lenses listed in
Pentax's catalog; new and used, you have 135 lenses. You cover focal
lengths from 15mm rectalinear and 16mm fisheye, through 1200mm
telephoto. There is even a 28mm shift lens, four macro, two 'soft',
bellowes, etc. in the current lineup.
With a new lens or two being added each year, it's hard to imagine a
discerning amature needing something that Pentax doesn't offer in
lenses.
I don't mean to steal thunder from other manufacturers. There are
many fine cameras made by a number of great manufacturers. I'm just a
little tired of hearing about how Pentax doesn't have many lenses.
It's not really the case. Ask yourself how many lenses from Canon,
Nikon, etc. will mate up with a particular camera in their lineup. It
might be a few more, but not many.
Dave
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Older Nikon lenses on newer Nikon bodies
Date: 28 May 1999
Cathal Gantly
[email protected] wrote:
>One of the really great things about the Nikon system is the lens >compatibility. Every F-mount lens can fit on every F-mount Nikon camera. >Since the F-mount was introduced some time in the fifties, this gives >you a superb range of bodies and lenses to choose from.
This is not quite true. Pre-AI lenses cannot be mounted on most modern
AI only bodies. These include, FM2, FE2, FG, EM, FA, F5, F100 and
every N-series camera including the N90s. If you try to mount an
non-AI lens on these bodies, you may damage the AI lever. Some AI
cameras, like the FM, FE, F2A, F2AS, F3, FT3, EL2 and F4 can move their
AI lever out of the way and can use pre-AI lenses; however with most of
these, stop-down metering is required since most don't meter couple
with the old lenses. Finally, pre-AI bodies must use stop-down
metering with AI and later lenses that don't have the IC prong which
includes all AF lenses and I think all E series lenses.
--KAS
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] important info
I don't know. I remember back in the mid 70s when I was using
Contarex cameras with Zeiss lenses. When Zeiss/Ikon discontinued
production of Contarex cameras Zeiss issued a press release ( I think
I still have a copy in one of my files) assuring all Contarex owners
that any new Zeiss lenses for 35mm would be offered in Contarex
mount. Well, they did not keep their promise, and never offered any
of their lenses after that in Contarex mount, which is why I ended
up selling a lot of very expensive Contarex kit and abandoning the
use of Zeiss lenses for a long time.
Bob
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] What about the manual focus line and the
marketingstrategy?
Sorry, Bjorn, I was talking about REAL cameras!
I thought the original post was about 35mm SLR and I should have
narrowed my reply to just 35mm SLR, for which there have only been
two Minolta mounts, both still manufactured and supported.
We did a check on this a while back to see which company had changed
their lens mount the most times. The answer is Nikon. Canon has
had three, Canonflex, FL/FD, and EOS. Olympus has had two, M-42
screw mount (with open aperture metering) and OM.
Bob
[Ed. note: another lens mount obsolete - but does it need to be?...]
you wrote:
I dont know if I buy that, either. f/1.2 lenses look the same
(angular-opening wise, as viewed from the film plane), regardless of their
focal length, or design. In other words, if the last lens element is
located at the lens mount, then that last element will have the same size
for all f/1.2 lenses.
It might be a different story for some zoom lenses, because they might
need the extra room for mechanical devices.
Joe.
From Nikon Mailing List:
There was a time when this would have greatly concerned me. Nowadays I
find myself moving from AIS to AI rather than AF. But it does mean THE END
of one of the *great* arguments in favour of the Nikon system, which is
upwards compatibility of new lenses on older cameras (especially so since
downwards compatibility in the other direction was neglected).
Mark
From Nikon Mailing List:
....
I know.
In fact I wanted to avoid to be the one to bring out this part of the
news.
I was very saddened when I first heard about it.
It marks a new lens *series*, the G series. An entire line of new lenses
that are without aperture grills, and the aperture can be controlled from
the modern cameras only, and they can not be used with the old MF cameras.
I almost feel guilty for telling you all, but someone had to do it...
Nikon is dropping the axe on MF.
Date: 03 Nov 2000
That said, a ZX-5n would probably be an excellent choice. The capabilities
you'll gain with the old lenses are: aperture-priority autoexposure, focus
confirmation, depth-of-field preview, spot-metering in addition to
center-weighted, motor drive, TTL flash, autobracketing, DX film-speed
setting (manual film-speed setting is possible too, though). If the older
lenses have an A on the aperture ring, you'll also gain program and
shutter-exposure autoexposure.
Coming from the K1000, you'll recognize the controls. You'll hardly need
the instructional manual to understand the ZX-5n.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://members.aol.com/ernreed
From: [email protected] (McEowen)
The thoughtful bottom feeder should probably limit his/her search to used
offerings from either Nikon or Pentax. Both of these companies have left
their lens mount more or less in tact so you could upgrade later without
disposing of what you start with. My own recommendation for your price
range would be a used Nikon FM or FE and maybe a 35mm f2.0 lens. Look
around on Ebay or check the ads full of used equipment in Shutterbug
magazine. You should be able to find such a combination fairly easily in
your price range.
[Ed. note: An important warning...]
One of the great things about the Pentax system is that every bayonet
mount lens ever made by Pentax (going back to 1975) can still be used with
a high degree of functionality on the most modern Pentax SLR...
(One important point that should be noted: some
non-Pentax brand K-mount lenses have protrusions that will cause them to
get stuck when put on an autofocus camera. Ricoh program lenses are
especially dangerous. No non-Pentax lens should be put on a Pentax
autofocus camera until it has been carefully examined.)
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001
[Ed. note: An important warning...]
One of the great things about the Pentax system is that every bayonet
mount lens ever made by Pentax (going back to 1975) can still be used with
a high degree of functionality on the most modern Pentax SLR...
(One important point that should be noted: some non-Pentax brand K-mount
lenses have protrusions that will cause them to get stuck when put on an
autofocus camera. Ricoh program lenses are especially dangerous. No
non-Pentax lens should be put on a Pentax autofocus camera until it has
been carefully examined.)
Of course, the easy fix for this problem with the P/KAR or P/RP lenses is
to simply remove the extra pin that catches on the AF drive. I have done
this on several lenses. Quick and easily done.
From: John Halliwell [email protected]
Tommy Humphries [email protected] writes
Pentax do still make 'A' series lenses, largely those they haven't yet
upgraded to AF (mostly exotic stuff). The ZX-M also comes with an 'A'
35-80, but it's more an AF lens without the AF. Using with the Program
Plus may frustrate because it's slow (f/4-5.6 I think) and will be a
pain to focus (split-image black out).
My Sigma 70-300 APO Super Macro won't work on my Super-A in program mode
(the metering is all wrong). Maybe a problem with all Sigma Pentax AF
lenses (officially stated as 'Pentax AF fit').
All Pentax AF (F & FA series) lenses will work correctly, but won't have
that manual focus 'feel'.
--
Preston, Lancs, UK.
Hi Robert,
I've been a long time Pentax user as well as a user of many third party
lenses.
First off, I'd like to thank you for the effort you've put into your
pages. They are a great reference and have helped me out very much. In
fact, you discussion of some old Modern Photography testing convinced me
to grab a Vivitar Series 1 70-210/2.8-4....one of the best purchases I've
ever made!
But, back to Pentax, and specifically your Myth #23 about lens
compatibilities.
You have a comment from Brian Reynolds that all Pentax K-mount lenses are
compatible with all K mount bodies. This was true for many years, but
Pentax has released two recent autofocus bodies, the ZX-50 and ZX-30 which
have incompatibility issues. These are both entry level bodies. The
specific problems are with older K mount lenses. On the pre A series
lenses, the ZX-50 and ZX-30 will not function correctly. In fact, the
ZX-30 will not even fire the shutter with any lens that does not have the
A series information contacts.
The ZX-50 will fire, but it exposes the film incorrectly and will not
index the aperture correctly. You can use an older K mount on the ZX-50,
but you will have to meter it manually with a hand held meter and stop
down the lens and set the correct shutter speed accordingly.......if you
fire the shutter using the automatic program on the ZX-50 with a non-A
series lens, the camera will meter the scene per the program line, but it
will not close down the aperture, and exposes the film incorrectly, with
the aperture set wide open (or at least that is my understanding of it).
Clearly, not the best of designs for an entry level body!
So, while it is true that all other Pentax bodies, K mount, K-A mount,
K-AF and K-AF2 will accept all Pentax lenses, even those old screw mount
Takumars with an adapter, the two newest entry level bodies will not work
properly with K-mount lenses (SMCP, SMCP-M and Takumars). However these
cameras will work with the SMCP-A and all SMCP-F and -FA autofocus lenses.
Hope this helps you out!
John Glover
[Ed. note: thanks!! to Lars Hansen for these tips on modifying and using
Nikon lenses!]
Dear Robert!
I think this account owes to give some information on the possibility of
compatibility "hacking" of old and new Nikon lenses.
Pre-AI Nikkors can be AI-modifed (see
http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen/photo/repair/aimod/aimod.htm) and
new
lenses can have meter coupling shoes added to for metering compatibility
with pre-AI cameras (e.g.
http://www.aiconversions.com/images/VGA501.8ERetro27.jpg).
For a quick overview of the evolutionary steps of the Nikon F-mount check
http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen/photo/fmountsteps.htm
Best regards,
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001
FWIW, the size of the mount has nothing to do with
limiting fast lenses. Canon made a 50mm f/0.95 for
their rangefinder cameras, and those had a smaller
mount than the FD. They also originated the
85mm f/1.2L formula in the FD mount......
I guess it's just sour grapes here. I'd be a lot more
willing to make the switch if I didn't feel like I was
being forced to abandon my old friends... (snif!)
[email protected] (Stephen M. Dunn) wrote:
rec.photo.misc
I think Mamiya holds the record for obsolete 35mm SLR lensmounts, they
used at my count 5 different bayonets, and 2 M42 screwmounts.
Darrell Larose
From Nikon MF Mailing List;
--- In NikonMF@y..., Rick Housh rick@h... wrote:
{snip}
We're getting way off-topic here, but it is nice that there is some
interest in such things... arcane dark corners of the wrong turns in
the development of SLR technology! (As much as Nikon has messed up, I
confess there is an awful lot more that they have done right!)
Yes, there are separate SMC Takumar lenses for the later Spotmatics
and Electro Spotmatics (the aperture-priority automatic ES, ES II)
that will actually damage any other screwmount camera, because the
lug that communicates maximum aperture to the body won't clear the
mirror.
In fact, from the book "The Asahi Pentax Way":
"While older Takumar, Super-Takumar and Auto-Takumar lenses could be
used on variety of non-Pentax cameras, most of the new SMC Takumar
lenses cannot. They have a small lug protrusion at the back which
keys the proper aperture into the Pentax ES and Spotmatic F models.
This lug will not clear the mirror on many non-Pentax cameras and can
cause damage to both lens and camera body. Only 85mm f/1.9 and 85-210
f/4.5 zoom can be used safely on all screw-mount cameras."
Thus spake Herbert Keppler!
Fujica did strange things like add extra pins and couplings to their
mount, but that is REALLY arcane. ST701's, -801's and -901's are good
buys right now, even if the meters are dead (as they are in many
Nikkormats...)
MadMat
From Nikon MF Mailing List;
--- In NikonMF@y..., Robert Monaghan rmonagha@p... wrote:
Apparently the Leica people thought the same thing when they went
from screw mount to the M-bayonet... a simple adapter will allow you
to use screwmount Leica lenses on an M rangefinder body. With
rangefinder coupling! :-)
Leica bodies are not, haven't been, and will never be, inexpensive, and I
think the same thing can be said for top-of-the-line Nikon bodies. (Though
I seem to keep running across F and F2 bodies for less than $200!) Except
for the EM, FG, and FG20, and more recently the FM2 and FE2, you've been
able to use the oldest non-AI Nikkors with stop down metering on MF
cameras. If you're going to go autofocus, you might as well spring for the
new AF lenses... this is what is depressing the prices for the older MF
lenses, I think. The N80 is really the first AF SLR on which you can't
really use the TTL meter with AI lenses...
{snip}
That's a good page, and I think Steven Gandy's adapter page is great,
too (you can actually buy some from the cameraquest page):
http://www.cameraquest.com/adaptnew.htm
Actually, this is more practical than it sounds. (I've got one of
those adapters!) I think Nikon was a little too conservative in their
design philosophy with the push to autofocus, and their decision to
put the AF motor in the CAMERA rather than in the LENS (where Canon
knew it belonged!) was a grievious error from which they are still
recovering. For AF SLR's I use (gasp!) EOS, and for apps where AF is
unimportant (macro and wide-angle) I'd just as soon slap a Nikkor on
the EOS... because of the way the firmware was designed in the EOS
cameras, you still have autoexposure in the apeture-priority and
program modes, along with TTL flash, even though you don't have
autodiaphragm operation. Works for me.
Nikon has recently decided that focus motors need to be in the lens
for the big tele's and zooms... and in doing so, made older AF
cameras incompatible AF-wise with the newer lenses. It's interesting
to note that all Canon EOS EF AF lenses, including the image-
stabilized lenses, work 100% wtih every EOS body.
MadMat
From Nikon MF MAiling List:
MadMat wrote:
Actually the N80 is only the most recent. It all started with the
N4004/N5005/F401? series in 1986, then the N50/F50, N60/F60, N65/F65, and
now the N80/F80. As a matter of fact, of current AF body production,
doesn't that leave only the F100 and F5 that will meter with AI
lenses? The F4, N2020/F501, N8008/F801, N6006/F601, N70/F70, N90/F90 all
would meter with AI lenses, of course, but alas, they're gone.
- Rick Housh -
From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001
From: Nikon Cameras [email protected]
Subject: Grateful To Nikon
Complain as much as you want, I am grateful that I can still use my 250mm
(25cm) f/4 and 350mm (35cm) f/4.5 RANGEFINDER lenses on my slr bodies with
a N-F adapter. These were lenses made as early as 1954. That is what I
call consideration for the buying public and I am grateful to Nikon for
this. How many other manufacturers can claim this!!!
...
From: "David Kieltyka" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon's incompatibilty with older lenses
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002
jriegle [email protected] wrote:
> Nikon has taken some abuse here for making many of their
> new cameras incompatible with older lenses.
Indeed. And the operative word here is "making." There's no mechanical or
technological reason why the N80/F80 couldn't meter in stop-down mode with
manual focus Nikkor lenses. But Nikon has chosen to deliberately disable
this capability, making the camera useless for someone like myself who has
no interest in AF lenses but wouldn't mind having an inexpensive electronic
body to use with his old MF lenses. This is quite different than Canon or
Minolta changing their lens mounts. In this case the lens mount hasn't
changed at all...the camera body has been dumbed down, no doubt for some
marketing reason that completely escapes me.
-Dave-
From: "Joseph S. Wisniewski" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Was Nikon fails again:Should Nikon have dumped the F mount?
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000
"[email protected]" wrote:
>
> The size of the mount is immaterial to the advancement of the lenses and
> bodies. Nikon can put all the functionality on their lenses they want.
There is one minor difference. Really fast lenses are a bit of a pain to
make work on the Nikon mount (they're not impossible, just a pain). The
Nikon F mount has a 43mm inside diameter. Which means that, allowing
about 2mm for a lens barrel and some sort of lens mounting ring, the
lens can't have an exit diameter bigger than 39mm. So certain lenses are
not easy to make. Canon has a 50mm f.0 and a 85mm f1.2. Nikon could make
these lenses, but they would have to be a double retro design,
(telephoto followed by wide angle) to work without vignetting. Actually,
Nikon already does this to some extent for the 85mm f1.4 (which should
need a 37mm exit for Nikon's mount depth, and would be operating at the
ragged edge without the extra wide angle element in back), which is part
of the reason it has a more complicated design than the Canon 85mm f1.2.
Depth of the lens mount (really depth of the body, but you can't talk
about one without he other) is also important. Make the body deeper, and
you can enlarge the mirror so telephotos don't go dark at the bottom of
the viewfinder. Make the body shallower, and wide angle lenses need less
complicated retro designs and perform better.
Ciao!
Joe
From: [email protected] (McEowen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 06 Jul 2002
Subject: Re: A budget on 300 USD. What to buy?
While we are on the subject of obsolete - do you realise how many of the
Nikons you recommend are in parts limbo? There are plenty of parts around to
fix an AE-1 -- unlike some of those antiques you recommended.
How silly. You don't repair $150 Nikon FM bodies. You buy another one . . .
Here's the point about obsolescence: buying an FM from 1978 is an entrance into
a modern system. Every Nikon lens made today with the exception of the G series
lenses function 100 percent on that old camera. More importantly, they will
work on the NEXT camera body the shooter buys. When they can afford a F100 or
an F5 they'll have a bag full of lenses to use with it. If they buy a Canon
FD-based camera and "invest" in a few lenses what are they going to do when
they decide they want an EOS? They'll have to buy all new glass. That, to me is
the danger in buying into an obsolete system.
From: Paul Rubin [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: A budget on 300 USD. What to buy?
Date: 05 Jul 2002
[email protected] (McEowen) writes:
> How silly. You don't repair $150 Nikon FM bodies. You buy another one . . .
>
> Here's the point about obsolescence: buying an FM from 1978 is an
> entrance into a modern system. Every Nikon lens made today with the
> exception of the G series lenses function 100 percent on that old
> camera. More importantly, they will work on the NEXT camera body the
> shooter buys. When they can afford a F100 or an F5 they'll have a
> bag full of lenses to use with it. If they buy a Canon FD-based
> camera and "invest" in a few lenses what are they going to do when
> they decide they want an EOS? They'll have to buy all new
> glass. That, to me is the danger in buying into an obsolete system.
Actually it's bugging me--if I buy another Nikon SLR it's likely to be
a D100. But despite being about the same price as an F5, the D100
will not meter AT ALL with manual focus lenses. Neither will the
F60/F80/etc. but those at least are cheaper cameras. Nikon is really
trying to obsolete its MF lens line. It does make for some big
bargains: I got a 35/1.4 for about $200; the 28/1.4 AF is around $1500.
From: "Tony Spadaro" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: A budget on 300 USD. What to buy?
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002
Wrong. I don't know about D1 and D100 - but the N80, N60, N65, and N55 will
not meter with lenses that do not have a chip in them -- and while you can
have some of them chipped, it costs money and is apparently only worth doing
for the better lenses. Not exactly the sort of thing I'd want to stick a
beginner with.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
From: [email protected] (McEowen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 06 Jul 2002
Subject: Re: A budget on 300 USD. What to buy?
Canon FDs have an advantage in that they are now pretty cheap --
while old Nikon lenses are being sold as if they were collector's items.
OK, I checked KEH. Let's put this silly notion to rest. All the following
prices -- comparing Canon FD lenses to Nikon AiS manual focus glass --
represent equipment in excellent condition at KEH:
24mm f 2.8 -- Canon $205/Nikon $235
35mm f2.0 -- Canon $140/Nikon $179
50mm (f3.5 vs. 2.8) macro -- Canon $200/Nikon $215
85mm f1.8 (vs f2.0) -- Canon $250/Nikon $265
200 f2.8 vs 180mm f2.8 -- Canon $275/Nikon $525
So, with the exception of the 180mm (which is ED glass and was always a lot
more expensive than the Canon lens), the Nikon lenses really are only a few
dollars more than the Canon glass. Consider that the Nikon lenses cost quite a
bit more than the equivilent Canon glass when they were new. Take into account
that the Nikon lenses will perform 100 percent on most current Nikon bodies
while Canon hasn't made a body that will accept these lenses in over 10 years.
Now ask yourself, which brand's old lenses are the collector's items and which
are the bargains?
Clearly, if you have old Canon FD equipment already by all means continue to
use it and maybe even buy some more lenses. But it would be an act of utter
foolishness to start a Canon FD system today! You don't have to buy Nikon but
don't throw your money down a hole by choosing an obsolete system.
From: [email protected] (Collin Brendemuehl)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Pentax lens compatability -- Re: entry level slr: why not minolta?
Date: 26 Aug 2002
IN ADDITION ...
#1 ... some 3rd-party lenses have a rather large shrowd that protects the
aperture coupling arm. On the PZ bodies, the power zoom contact base
does conflict with that shrowd. The simple solution there is to just
check it befor eputting it on the camera, and then don't force a lens
into place when mount it. It might be attached for life!
#2 ... be careful of Ricoh interfacing lenses (they have a pin on the
side opposite Pentax' "A" contacts, close to Pentax' autofocus coupling.
These lenses can get stuck on the coupling.
These are the only two issues and deal only with a very, very small percentage
of lenses. BUT, it's a real problem when people purchase lenses and
expect a simple interface. Most (99.9%) of the time it's fine.
Collin
KC8TKA
[email protected] (Tom) wrote...
> Actually, that is not quite true. A couple of years ago I bought my
> son a Pentax MZ-30. Its a very nice beginner camera, but it clearly
> states in the manual and in its sales brochure that it can only use
> electrically coupled lenses. It will not release the shutter with
> older non electric lenses or accessories. I think there are a couple
> of other Pentax camera models with the same limitation. Others will
> fire the shutter, but will not meter.
>
> Tom
> "Tang Wong" [email protected] wrote...
> > Don't count on backward compatibility from Canon and Nikon. Canon changed
> > their lens mount and Nikon backward compatibility is limited to the top of
> > line and that may change. Pentax is the only brand that can still claim best
> > backward compatibility. How long will it stays is unknown, however.
From: Mark Roberts [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Pentax question
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002
[email protected] (Bill Cory) wrote:
>I never thought I would disagree with Mrs. Reed but I just ordered the
>ZX-L and I don't think its compatible with "M" series lens's.
Mrs. Reed is correct in this case: The ZX-L (MZ-6 outside the U.S.) *is*
compatible with M and K lenses. See Boz's famous k-mount page at
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/bodies/MZ-ZX/index.html
The new budget model MZ-60 (or ZX-60) is not compatible with M and K lenses.
--
Mark Roberts
www.robertstech.com
From: "Jeffery S. Harrison" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Should I get a new camera?
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002
> So you take the view that working with *no* manual focus lenses is
> more compatible that working with some of them? What an interesting
> point of view.
>
> B>
Even though I'm a Nikon fan (I gots 7 bodies :-) this issue is getting kind
of old. The whole compatibility issue is one of those things that everybody
"knows" that isn't really true anymore like Macs are better graphics
platforms than PCs (they're not in case you're wondering). Canon went to the
EOS mount what, a decade ago? I would venture to say that most Canon
shooters have never used a FD mount body and those that got screwed by Canon
all those years ago have either left Canon or dealt with it. Nikon on the
other hand has stuck with the F mount for ever but has continued to produce
new bodies that take an F mount lens but can't use all of them. The last
Nikon that I'm aware of that can use ALL (nearly all?) their lenses without
modification is the F4/F4s. So while Canon manages to build more and more
compatibility into its line as time goes on, Nikon manages to build less and
less compatibility into its line (only way they can fix it now is to go to a
new mount or at least standardize its current mount and stop
supporting/creating new cameras that to meet the standard--just like Canon
did). Right now the only place you have any degree of compatibility with
Nikon is if you stick with their top end models.
Jeffery S. Harrison
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002
From: Pudentane [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Correction: Re: Should I get a new camera?
Leon Mlakar wrote:
>
> >
> > What does it mean to not be compatible? The comparison chart at the
> > Pentax web site listed lenses that will work with the camera, and for the
> > ZX-60 a number, non-autofocus, were excluded. I thought if you were using
> > a non-autofocus lens on any Pentax body, it would simply be a lens that
> > doesn't autofocus, but you wouldn't have expected it to.
> >
> I made some mistakes in my previous answer. After checking the manuals, it
> looks that:
>
> 1. MX-30 will work with all auto-focus lenses and KA manual focus lenses, as
> long as you keep aperture ring at A position. Otherwise, it will freeze the
> shutter. It will not work with K lenses as they have no A position.
> 2. MX-60 will only work with autofocus lenses. It will not work with any
> manual focus lens.
One good thing Pentax does is most of their User's Manuals are available
from their PentaxUSA website as PDF files. Goes back to Honeywell Pentax
& Spotmatics.
Anyway, I took a look at the modern autofocus cameras Pentax offers, and
here's what I found from the User's manuals. There may be some things I
misunderstood, but I think I got it pretty much straight.
I've included a couple of cameras I'm pretty sure are no longer in
production, because they're recent and you may run across them used.
-------------------
ZX-10 Compatible Lens -- Pentax Kaf2, Kaf, Ka and K-mount lenses are
usable. Autofocus is possible using AF Adaper with Ka-mount lenses.
Aperatures may be set manually.
ZX-30 Compatible Lens -- Pentax Kaf2, Kaf, and Ka-mount lenses are
usable. Autofocus is possible using AF Adaper with Ka-mount lenses.
Only functions with lenses in 'A'.
ZX-5 Compatible Lens -- Pentax Kaf2, Kaf, Ka, K, and Screw-mount lenses
are usable. Autofocus is possible using AF Adaper with Ka & K-mount
(Pentax M) lenses. Aperatures may be set manually.
ZX-50 Compatible Lens -- Pentax Kaf2, Kaf, Ka and K-mount lenses are
usable. Autofocus is possible using AF Adaper with Ka-mount lenses. With
K-mount lens attached only maximum aperature may be used.
(Apparently will not stop down lens unless in 'A' position. Selected
aperatures can be set through the menu system for Aperature priority and
metered manual modes.)
ZX-5n Compatible Lens -- Pentax Kaf2, Kaf, Ka, and K-mount lenses are
usable. Autofocus is possible using AF Adaper with Ka-mount lenses.
Aperatures may be set manually.
ZX-7 Compatible Lens -- Pentax Kaf2, Kaf, Ka, and K-mount lenses are
usable. Autofocus is possible using AF Adaper with Ka-mount lenses.
Aperatures are set through camera body for Aperature priority & metered
manual; all functions with lens set to 'A'.
ZX-60 compatible Lens - Pentax Kaf2 and Kaf-mount lenses are useable.
Aperature priority and metered manual are set through the body. Lens is
set to 'A'.
ZX-L Compatible Lens -- Pentax Kaf2, Kaf, Ka, and K-mount lenses are
usable. Autofocus is possible using AF Adaper with Ka-mount lenses.
Aperatures may be set through the body in 'A' mode or manually.
------------------
The interesting one was the ZX-5 which stated specifically that screw
mount lenses would work with the K-adapter insert, and that both Ka & M
lenses could be used with the Autofocus Adapter.
Unfortunately, the one User's Manual I couldn't find on their site was
the AF-7 (?) Autofocus Adapter.
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Almas 103? Question for Bob Shell....
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
M.C. Steele wrote:
> Hello Bob and others,
> So how would you compare the Almaz to the Pentax LX? (Aside from the
> self-timer issue). I wanted one, and asked Zenitar (Victor Goloubev)
> to find one for me and he politely refused, saying they spent more
> time in the repair shop than taking photos........probably for the
> self-timer issue you cited. Are different prisms available?
> Thanks!
> Mike Steele
The Pentax LX is a much more reliable camera, the last truly
professional camera from Pentax. LX is for 60, because it came out on
the 60th anniversary of Asahi Optical Co. A zoologist friend of mine
has tried all sorts of cameras in the tropical rain forests of Central
and South America, and the Pentax LX is the only one which will hold up
to the 100% humidity and heat. He has to replace all his lenses once a
season because they corrode internally, but the bodies last for many
seasons. The Almaz would not come close in comparison.
If you buy an Almaz, do it as a collector, not as a user.
The only difference between the 102 and 103 is the prism, metered in
the 102, meterless in the 103. There were several different focusing
screens, though.
Bob
From: "Bandicoot" "insert_handle_here"@techemail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: good lenses for pentax
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003
"ver" [email protected] wrote
> I have been working with cheap lenses for my pentax lx. I would like to
> go with good lenses (for a change) but don't know what are considered
> the best among older or newer lenses for pentx that work with manual
> foccus and aperture. Thanks.
For Pentax lenses - and these pretty much are the best Pentax K mount
lenses - you can find a lot of excellent information on Stan Halpin's site
where he has collected together comments and discussions on lens matters
from the Pentax mailing list (PDML). This is at:
http://www.concentric.net/~smhalpin/
Any Pentax K lens (except the spawn-of-Satan FAJ ones) will work on an LX.
The specifically manual focus and aperture are the K and M series; the A
will work every bit as well except that the A setting on the lens won't be
any use on an LX - not a problem. F and FA lenses are autofocus but can be
used manually - in general AF lenses are not that easy to focus manually as
the mechanical feel is not so good, but the exceptions are the three Limited
lenses (which focus equally well either way) and the F* and FA* lenses
(which have a 'clutch' to disengage AF).
There are some other K mount lenses that are as good as the Pentax ones (I
am fond of Angenieux) but in general sticking to Pentax is a good course.
The few 'bad' Pentax lenses are clearly flagged by the comments on Stan's
site.
The LX is a fabulous body, you'll be pleased with putting good glass on it.
Peter
> From: Foto Nord [email protected]
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000
> Subject: Re: [CONTAX] What about the manual focus line and the
> marketingstrategy?
>
> They also have the Vectis SLR-mount for APS. So, there are three Minolta
> mounts altoghether.
>
> Bj�rn Joachimsen
> Norway
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000
From: Joe Doehler [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] N1
>on 8/6/00 2:26 PM, Bob Shell at [email protected] wrote:
>
>> The stated reason for switching the lens mount to a considerably larger
>> diameter (on N1 same as Canon EOS mount diameter) is to allow for easier
>> design of ultra-fast lenses.
>>...
> I dunno if I buy that. The old C/Y mount had some -really- fast lenses:
>f/1.2 50 and 85mm; f/2 28, 135 and 200mm, etc.
>...
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000
From: "Mark Vints" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] The End of an Era - was: Nikon New Gear Rumors
>75-300 G (new series lens) to replace 75-240 lacks aperture control grill
>and will only work with new cameras , will NOT work with older MF cameras.
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000
From: Alexander [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] The End of an Era - was: Nikon New Gear Rumors
From: [email protected] (ERNReed)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Good Intermediate camera
>>I've had the Pentax K1000 for years and now I'm ready to buy a new
>>camera (It's about time). What would be a good camera to buy in
>>$300-$500 range.?
>>
>
>What about the cost of lenses? Unless you stick with a Pentax camera, you
>have
>to add that cost.
>
>Good news: Most of their new autofocus cameras accept the manual focus
>K-mount
>lenses. Naturally, some high tech features (autofocus, multi-segment
>metering,
>Program modes) will not function, but you can use all other capabilities.
E.R.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 13 Dec 2000
Subject: Re: Good manual focus body/system for beginner?
>So, with that information in mind, what brand of used camera would you
>recommend, considering both body and lenses? Are there any new, MF
>bodies I could use with older lenses?
from
Tests of
Classic Pentax Lenses by Peter S. Spiro note:
From: Jeff Wiseman [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: easy fix for this
from Tests of Classic Pentax Lenses by Peter S. Spiro note:
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001
Subject: Re: New lenses for an old camera...
>I have a Pentax program+ and was wondering if Pentax has any newer "A"
>lenses that are compatible with the auto functions on this camera. I don't
>expect any auto focus capability, but would hate to have to go the used
>route to get compatible lenses. The Pentax website was not up when I checked
>so I am asking here.
>From a list in my latest catalogue (approx. 1 Yr old):
SMC A 15mm f/3.5
SMC A 16mm f/2.8 fisheye
SMC A 20mm f/2.8
SMC A 50mm f/1.2
SMC A* 200 f/2.8 ED
SMC A* 300 f/2.8 ED (IF)
SMC A* 400 f/2.8 ED (IF)
SMC A 400 f/5.6
SMC A* 1200 f/8 ED (IF)
SMC A 35-80 f/4-5.6
SMC A 80-200 f/4.7-5.6
SMC shift 28 f/3.5
SMC 500 f/4.5
SMC Mirror 1000 f/11
SMC Mirror 2000 f/13.5
SMC A* Macro 200 f/4
John
Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk
[Ed. note: Special thanks to John Glover for providing this update!!!]
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001
From: John Glover [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Pentax compatibility
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001
From: "Hansen, Lars Holst" [email protected]
To: "'[email protected]'" [email protected]
Subject: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/obsolete.html
[Ed. note: http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/obsolete.html is updated address]
--
Lars Holst Hansen - [email protected]
http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NikonRepair
From: A1 Shooter [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: How often are 35mm SLR lens mounts changed?
>[email protected] writes:
>$My personal belief is that the EF mount was intended to
>$make sure EOS camera buyers also had to abandon all
>$of their FD lenses and force the purchase of new glass.
>
> I'm sure that was at least a side benefit, if not one of the
>reasons why the decision was made.
>
> Canon also wanted to produce the 50/1.0L and 85/1.2L, to show
>how big their pen!$ is, and the old mount wasn't big enough.
>
> Anyway, in retrospect, Canon's move worked out well.
>There have been zero physical changes to the lens mount since
>then, and all of the changes to the data have been done in a way
>which does not break compatibility with Canon bodies or lenses.
>(It does break compatibility with third-party lenses, but to
>be fair, Canon can't be expected to handicap their own products
>because the third parties have not fully implemented the data
>transfer; also, if there's a demonstrable advantage to buying
>Canon lenses over third-party lenses, that's not such a bad thing
>from Canon's perspective.)
From: [email protected] (Darrell A. Larose)
[1] Re: How often are 35mm SLR lens mounts changed?
Date: Wed Jul 25 2001
Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: pentax K compatibility vs nikon Re: Digest Number 1 105
> Didn't Pentax have some intermediate solution that was added to the screw
> mount, before they switched over to K?
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: lens mount obsolescence..., lens mount adapters, origin of
K..
> re: pentax M42 to K conversion; pentax evidently deliberately designed
> new mount so it made a simple machined ring adapter possible for using
> the M42 lenses on their newer K-mount bodies. I find this much more user
> friendly "upward compatibility" so users can continue to use their huge
> investments in glass in the new mount,
> given the camera body (like a
> pentax ME super) is relatively cheap versus cost of all new lenses. The
> Nikon downward compatibility so can use new AF lenses on older bodies
> is less useful if you have a lot of lenses already; might as well spend
> $200 or so and get the AF body that works with the kilobucks of lenses?
> for nikon types interested in optical adapters, here's my list from
> http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronmounts.html
n.b. [http://medfmt.8k.com/bronmounts.html updated link as of 2/2003]
> and for those who want to bail out of Nikon to Canon (just kidding ;)
> Nikon lens to Canon AF body
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001
From: Rick Housh [email protected]
Subject: Re: lens mount obsolescence..., lens mount adapters, origin of
K..
> The N80 is really the first AF SLR on which you can't really use the TTL
>meter with AI lenses...
From: [email protected] (LEDMRVM)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 15 Aug 2001
Subject: Re: New Pentax, Old lenses
>Hello everyone. I've really learned a lot from reading this newsgroup, and
>hope you can help me out with something. I've been saving and shopping for
>a new camera because my old ME-Super is giving me inconsistant exposures
>(among other minor problems). I have several K-Mount lenses for it, and due
>to this, I've been thinking of getting a new Pentax.
>Most of the reviews and comments I've read say that the new cameras will
>take the older K mount lenses. This sounds good to me. However, I've also
>read something that concerns me greatly. I've heard that the old lenses
>work, but you can't get an exposure reading with them. I may not be saying
>that right, but it sounded like they were saying that the meter wouldn't
>work with old lenses.
>Is this true? If so, the fact new cameras will take old lenses doesn't seem
>like much of a selling point?
>Please tell me what the low down on old lens, new camera really is.
>
>Thanks,
>Scott
The ZX30 and ZX50 are only two Pentax AF bodies that are not compatible with
the older K mount lenses. They meter properly only with KA and the K- AF series
lenses. (The KA's have an auto setting on the aperture ring.) All other K mount
cameras have both backward and forward compatibility. The only limiting factor
is the array of contacts on the lens. The earliest K lenses, for example, were
limited to manual and aperture preferred auto. When my old 50/1.4 is mounted on
my PZ1p, it meters and allows manual or aperture-preferred automation. In
short, avoid the ZX30 and ZX50 and you have metering plus the capabilities
allowed by the contacts on the lens.
Regards,
Ed M.
From: "Mark Cassino" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: New Pentax, Old lenses
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001
Scott -
Pentax has maintained the highest degree of backwards compatability with
older lenses of any major manufacturer. Your older K Mount lenses will work
fine with any new K Mount body. The only thing that you do lose is
evaluative metering (a.k.a. matrixed metering). The new bodies will default
to center weighted average metering with lenses that do not have the "A"
settings. These include the original K mount lenses and 'M' lenses.
Evaluative metering works with manual focus 'A' lenses and autofocus F and
FA lenses. If the body supports spot metering, that too works fine with the
older lenses. TTL flash works fine.
I use a variety of older K mount lenses on the Pz-1p and Mz-S with no
problems. the only glitches I've encountered - Ricoh program mode lenses
have a contact that will lock into the AF well on the new autofocus Pentax
bodies, so don't use them on those bodies. (Non-program Ricohs work fine,
though.)
Hope this helps -
MCC
"Scott Smith" [email protected]> wrote...
> Hello everyone. I've really learned a lot from reading this newsgroup,
and
> hope you can help me out with something. I've been saving and shopping
for
> a new camera because my old ME-Super is giving me inconsistant exposures
> (among other minor problems). I have several K-Mount lenses for it, and
due
> to this, I've been thinking of getting a new Pentax.
> Most of the reviews and comments I've read say that the new cameras will
> take the older K mount lenses. This sounds good to me. However, I've
also
> read something that concerns me greatly. I've heard that the old lenses
> work, but you can't get an exposure reading with them. I may not be
saying
> that right, but it sounded like they were saying that the meter wouldn't
> work with old lenses.
> Is this true? If so, the fact new cameras will take old lenses doesn't
seem
> like much of a selling point?
> Please tell me what the low down on old lens, new camera really is.
- - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino
Kalamazoo, MI
[email protected]
- - - - - - - - - -
Photos:
http://www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - -
[Ed. note: Important Warning on using Ricoh "P" lenses with Pentax AF Mounts...!!!]
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002
From: "Gerald W. Crum" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Pentax K mount compatibility.
I read Grover's comments with some interest, but there are other
incompatibilities. Ricoh used a different electrical contact scheme than
Pentax for manual focus lenses on program mode cameras. If a lens or
multiplier with the Ricoh "P" dedication is used on a Pentax AF mount (body
or a multiplier) the pin for the Ricoh dedication drops into the hole in the
mount for the drive lug and locks the lens to the mount. I have run into
this on third party lenses which had the combined KRP (or KPR) mount with
both kinds of dedication, with Ricoh "P" lenses on Pentax AF mounts, and
with Tamron Adaptall mounts with the Ricoh "P" dedication.
Either surgery or brute force is needed to get them apart. If the lens to
mount fit is a little sloppy, sometimes a thin piece of plastic can be slid
in and worked around enough to break it loose. In another case, a lot of
torque on the mount sheared off the Ricoh pin and freed the mount. But then
the lens lacked the "P" dedication.
If you are tempted to use a third party K mount lens on your AF Pentax, be
sure it does not have the Ricoh dedication.
Jerry Crum
From Camera fix mailing list:
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Another silly question
Gene Poon wrote:
> Asahi Optical (Pentax), from its experience with the "universal" M42
> screw mount, envisioned the Pentax-K bayonet as a sort of "universal
> bayonet" and licensed its use to Chinon, Cosina and Ricoh, to spread
> its
> popularity. This lasted until Ricoh and Pentax went separate ways when
> it came to electronic interfacing of lens and body, while Cosina and
> Chinon didn't go to electronic contacts on the lens mount face at all.
> With some exceptions, all these K-bayonets will physically interchange;
> what functions can be used with the camera/lens combination depend on
> the specific camera and lens involved.
The K mount was a product of the collaborative venture between Carl
Zeiss and Asahi Optical. In the early 70s when the Carl Zeiss
Foundation refused any further funding to Zeiss Ikon for continuing
camera production, Carl Zeiss (the lens maker) went to Japan to find a
partner to build 35mm camera bodies for their lenses. They first
started a joint venture with Asahi Optical to build the camera and some
prototypes were built. The partnership fell apart when Asahi simply
could not produce electronic systems which satisfied Carl Zeiss. Asahi
kept the lens mount developed for the prototype cameras and used it on
their Pentax K cameras. Lens multicoating was also developed during
this time period leading to SMC lenses from Asahi and T* lenses from
Carl Zeiss.
After this venture fell apart, Carl Zeiss went to Yashica, a company
which had far more experience building electronic cameras, and the
result was the Contax RTS. This is why the Contax/Yashica bayonet is
so similar to the K mount, but not enough to be interchangeable.
While it is generally true that a K mount is a K mount and fully
interchangeable, the Russian K mounts are slightly different and most
will not fit on Japanese K cameras.
Bob