Leica 400 6.8 telyt, can the viso version be used on Pentax K

Can the viso lenses, specifically the 400, but also the 200 and 560,

be used on a Pentax K mount? I'm thinking there's an adaptor to get

to pentax screw and then you can use the m42 to K adaptor.

 

And by the way, would you want to do this? Any thoughts on

comparisons with the pentax primes would be nice too.

I have the 400 in Viso version. With a 14167 (Leica M to R adaptor)and a NOVoflex Leica R-Canon EOS adaptor I can use this lens on any EOS film or digital body (although the Elan 7/7E won't meter properly all the rest will). The cheapest, oldest, rattyiest EOS body is much easier to focus this lens than any Leica R body and even a little easier than the ancient Leicaflex SL and SL2 which are best left to silly fools with a masochistic need for self punishment. If anyone has a direct adaptor to Pentax it might be www.cameraquest.com.

 

That said, the lens has the most obnoxious ergonomics of any on the planet. It is as long as your arm. You must hold down a button to release the slide-trombone focus tube, which is goes completely contrary to human anatomy in terms of being able to fine focus the lens. You shoot past the mark in both directions. There is a reason no other manufacturer ever burped up such a moronic design. Lenses focus with rings because that's what the human hand can operate with the greatest ease and finesse.

 

The lens is s-l-o-w. With slow speed film and even slight shade you won't have a high enough shutter speed to stop any movement of animals, trees, grass, nothing. And finally the lens has extreme field curvature. If you keep a subject either dead center or at the extreme corner you can get away with it, otherwise forget it. The 560 is even worse on all accounts and is the size of a bazooka. The 200 is a preset lens, low contrast--why torture yourself, 200/4 SMC Takumars are dirt cheap and tack sharp and the 400/5.6 SMC Takumar in thread mount with a K adaptor will run laps around that old Leitz oddity. I still use my 400 Telyt once in a while, on my EOS, just to get laughs out of some ofmy buddies who shoot at the local NWR, before I pull out my 300/3.8 Image Stabilizer with teleconverters and do some serious shooting.

Oops that was supposed to be 300/2.8.

Thanks Jay, I was hoping you'd see this. Yeah, it was a crazy idea. I'll look for some of those nice Takumar lenses.

I have Leitz Telyt 400/6.8, with Leitz shoulder stock. I find it

easy to use with my R5 and R4. The push pull focusing does not present

a problem to me. This lens does have field curvature, being a two element design, not enough glass to correct the field curvature, hence

no particularly good for architecture<p>

 

Modern PHotography had quite positive review on this lens:"400 mm Telyt to be easy to use, functionally well designed, rapid and precise in focusing, and all round excellent performer both in black and white and color with a wide variety of objects<p>

 

David Douglas Duncan had outstanding results with this lens in his book

"Self Portrait: USA ) for his coverage of 1968 presidential convention.<p>

When it first came out, this lens was listed at $2067. The 560/6.8

Telyt at $1822.50

Here are some test shots taken with my Telyt 400/6.8<p>

<center>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1778191-md.jpg"border=5><p>

 

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1778207-md.jpg"border=5><P>

<p>

</center><P><P><P>

Douglas Herr's pictures with Telyt 400/6.8 are far better than mine,

have look here:

 

<a href="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/400R68.HTM"> Doug's photographs with Telyt 400/6.8</a><p>

 

Jay, I like to see your pictures taken with image stablelizer<p>

 

 

</center>

"the 400/5.6 SMC Takumar in thread mount with a K adaptor will run laps around that old Leitz oddity"<P>

 

Jay, can you show us two pictures of yours, one from 400/5.6 Takumar

the other from Telyt 400/6.8 ? Picture is better than thousand words.

That's pretty funny coming from someone who posts an average of six times in every thread. I'd say your words outnumber your photos by at least 10,000:1. But rather than look at my amateurish photos and come away thinking an overpriced 40 year old curiosity is the equal of the latest technology, why don't we all take a field trip on over to www.birdsasart.com and have a look at Arthur Morris' work. Then we can stop by at www.leppphoto.com and see what George Lepp does with Canon IS. And we can check out Art Wolfe and Carl Sams III too. Just for starters. Their pictures are worth a million of my words.

It is even funnier coming from some one who posted more than 8 thousand messages on photo.net, and bragged about picture quality of

this lens vs that lens etc.. etc. yet without even posting a single

picture !

"I'd say your words outnumber your photos by at least 10,000:1. "<p>

You have absolutely no credibility in what ever you say<p>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=504260">Martin Tai profile</a><p> I posted about 3988 messages with at leasst 47 uploaded photos (not including twice

that amount in W/NW threads )<p>

 

 

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=497253">

Jay profile</a><p>

 

8229 messages: zero pictures."your words outnumber your photos by at least 10,000:1" fits you perfectly

I suspect that 99.99% of the readers of every forum (perhaps except the Leica forum)recognize that uploaded images at screen resolution proves absolutely nothing about the sharpness, contrast or color balance of a lens. For me to scan my images for the other 0.01% such as yourself who will see only what they want to see anyway, would be a collosal waste of my time. I no longer even own a scanner. I have high-end drum scans made for my local pro lab to print.

 

And I find it hysterically funny that the angry, acccusatory demands that I get to upload images is from people who disagree with me, to which the only logical conclusion anyone can draw is that lacking any substantive facts to support their zealous obsession with particular camera brands they seek to figuratively burn my photos in effigy.

You suffer clear hysteric symdrome.

Clearly your knowledge of psychology would fit on a Minox negative.

DDD wrote: " It's infrequent, indeed, that a professional photographer

feels grateful to a single piece of equipment for gaining what he feels was a momentary jump on his collegues during the shooting of

a highly competitive assignment..."<p>

 

"... a Leicaflex SL, fitted with what might be described with considerable understatement as the sharpest, lightest, easiest-to-focus telephoto lens with which I am familar-- the Leitz Telyt 400mm, f/6.8"<p>

 

From David Douglas Duncan: Self Portraint U.S.A; Harry N. Abrams, Inc.

 

<p>

David Douglas Duncan's Leicaflex SL and Leitz Telyt 400/6.8 lens used for his 1968 Replubican and Demoncrat conventions project is now at the David Douglas Duncan Archive of Texas University<p>

 

http://teachnet.edb.utexas.edu/~leica/article.htm<p>

Al Kaplan is selling his viso lens to Pentax mount adapter

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008F7X">Viso to Pentax adapter </a>