dshombert

<p>I haven't shown my face for awhile. Here's a day lily, shot with a new lens.</p><div></div>

<p>I went to a contra dance weekend in Asheville (NC) last weekend, one of several I go to throughout the year. Fortunately, contra dancing is now drawing in some members of the younger generation. Here's a shot of some of them waiting for the next dance to start. Believe me, when the music starts they have way more energy than you'd think from this photo.</p><div></div>

<p>One of many taken in Antelope Canyon, a slot canyon outside Page, AZ. Winds were gusting to 50mph on the surface, blowing sand in from the top openings, so it was kind of like being in a sandstorm while in a phone booth. The sand trashed my 20mm lens, the focus ring now sounds like a Buick transmission. But I got this great shot! Anyone know where to send the lens for repair?</p><div></div>

<p>Inspiring work as usual, Camus. I think I like no. 10 best. Thanks for posting these.</p>

<p>Second one. I found this in a small tree in my woods, obviously blown down from a larger one.</p><div></div>

<p>A couple of shots from experimenting with my new K-5 (yee haw)</p><div></div>

<p>Geez, not this guy again</p><div></div>

<p>His mate</p><div></div>

<p>Kicking things off this week with some shots of hungry visitors to my feeder. We had an April Fool's snowfall of about 2 inches. Shot hand-held with the 200mm DA* on my K-7</p><div></div>

<p>Others here may know more than I do about the value of the lens. I've owned Pentax gear for years and had not heard of CPC. It may very well be made by one of the other better-known lens makers as a second line. But I wouldn't get my hopes up about it being worth a lot of money. It's almost certainly a manual-focus lens, possibly has the capability to set the aperture automatically, but most likely it would only appeal to someone who is still shooting film. And those are diminishing in numbers these days.</p>

<p>Cameras (and lenses) of this age almost always need work, even if they've been well cared for. I'd be surprised if the combination was worth more than a hundred bucks. But it's worth looking into, maybe some others on this board can shed some light on it.</p>

<p>You can find a complete discussion of the ME, including average prices for resale, at this page http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-manual-focus-film-slr-camera-reviews/61219-pentax-me.html at the Pentax Forum. There's lots of other Pentax-related info on that site.</p>

<p>Apparently CPC is a third-party lens maker, one I'm not familiar with. I think something's missing from your description, though. It's a zoom lens and, as such, has a zoom range. This would be a set of numbers something like "70 - 200". The numbers you've given, 3.5 - 4.8, are the values of the largest aperture at the two extremes of the zoom range. I suspect 67mm is the filter size. Judging from the size of the lens, I'd guess it's maximum range is at least 200mm.</p>

<p>I bought a completely functional ME in pretty nice shape not long ago for $25.</p>

<p>Steve,<br /> Those are helfpul suggestions, all right. I had thought of the level but not the concrete joint idea. Thanks.</p>

<p>Slightly off topic, but this thread brings to mind a question that I've always wondered about. I understand the reasoning behind ensuring that the lens is perpendicular to the wall, as Andrew and Michael have pointed out. What I'm not clear on is (a) what are the limits of tolerance on this requirement, and (b) how do you establish that it's within those limits? Is it good enough to just eyeball the setup, or are measurements required? If the latter, what gets measured, and how?</p>

<p>@Wayne - you're a sick pup, and a man after my own heart.</p>

<p>Jeffery - I'll second what Doug said, this is a very friendly bunch and I've benefited greatly from reading this board. I would also recommend the Pentax Forum, found at www.pentaxforums.com if you don't already know about it. There's a wealth of information there and, for the most part, they're pretty friendly too. Welcome aboard.</p>

<p>Heather, it's on its way.</p>

<p>Boy, this was a tough decision -- let's see, either (a) go through all the annoying machinations required to sell the lens for a whopping $20 (if I'm lucky) OR (b) hand it off to a young person who still wants to shoot film. Geez, what a tough call.</p>

<p>Body cap. I meant that it's being used as a fancy body cap. Sheessh.</p>

<p>Heather, I have a copy of that lens that I'm not using. It's not in perfect shape, the aperture ring sticks a little when you're changing from one setting to another, but it's functional. I used it last summer and the pictures were fine. It's just sitting around, basically being used as a fancy lens cap. I have other 50mm lenses that I like better, so this one's yours for free if you want it. Send me your mailing address and I'll stick it in the mail.</p>

<p>Titmouse getting ready to make his moves on our feeder. Taken through the window, hand held.</p><div></div>

<p>I would try putting it in the freezer for a couple hours, then try it. A fairly small temperature difference can have a huge effect when two metal surfaces are jammed together; one piece contracts to a different extent than the other. Not guaranteed to work, but I don't think it'll do any harm (no more than leaving the camera in your car on one of these cold nights) and it just might work.</p>

<p>I had one of these lenses, and the SDM failed shortly after the warranty expired. I squawked a little and Pentax fixed if for parts only - about $45. I also had (still have) a 16-50 zoom, and the SDM failed in that as well. However, that was within the warranty and Pentax replaced it (with a lens that had a lower serial number than the one that failed).</p>

<p>Once they had been for repairs, I never had a problem with either lens. The 16-50 is still working great after close to five years. My theory - admittedly unproven - is that their repair fixes the SDM issue once and for all. To my knowledge, Pentax has never been forthcoming about what causes this failure; they haven't even really admitted that it's a problem. But it seems plausible to me that they're aware of it, they have a permanent fix, and once it's fixed it stays fixed. Why they don't 'fess up about it is another question. But if I'm right and the lens you're looking at has been serviced, that would be an advantage.</p>

<p>Optically, I thought both DA* zooms were superb. I sold the 50-135 because I just didn't use that range very much.</p>

<p>I was offering (in the best spirit) a good-natured jibe -- go back and look closely at what you typed in your post. </p>

<p>Geoff, I imagine that others will weigh in with similar sentiments, but I want to be the first to tell you that I have no interest in using the type of lenses that you mentioned first in your post.</p>

<p>I think I'm like a lot of others who started in photography with film -- there's just something about it that's enjoyable in a way that digital isn't. I have a K-7 and a few lenses, and I use them, and I like what they can do. But I also have an MX, an LX, and an MZ-S, and I get a satisfaction from shooting with them - particularly the first two - that isn't there with the DSLR. The simplicity of it, the fact that you have to think MORE about the exposure itself (at least I do), the feel of a really well made camera in your hands -- shoot, I can't explain it, I just enjoy it.</p>

<p>Kathleen - take a look here:</p>

<p>www.gordyscamerastraps</p>

<p>Lots to choose from. I don't have any of their products, but they look to be pretty well made.</p>

<p>The one I have is the Pro II 3-Way, and it turns out the screw that attaches the head is inside the short (detachable) top section of the center tube,i.e., it goes from the bottom up. I think Akira's suggestion would have worked if it hadn't been on so tight -- I couldn't hold the tripod tightly enough. But a long Allen wrench inside that short tube did the trick. Thanks to both of you.</p>