ken_oakes

<p>Since I am one of the more fortunate since I have the 200mm macro and its collar, here is a tip.<br>

Make yourself a vee block from a piece of hard wood -- beech is ideal. Drill and tap a 1/4 inch 20 or a 3/8 16 TPI thread in the bottom to take a tripod thread. Use a flange on the thread of at least 1 inch dia. Staple a velcro strap of about 1 inch wide to the wood block so that it wraps around. It is as effective as the real mcoy. If you really want to get fancy get yourself a metal bushing</p>

<p>Having answered that. I now have a question:</p>

<p>I have a slew of FD Breech lock lenses ( the said macro is not a breech lock but its successor ) which are sitting at the back of the cupboard doing nowt since I have long gone over to digital. I want to use the macro on a non Canon ( heavens forbid ) and have made an adaptor for the newcomer's flange. The old FDs allow me to use them in manual mode , IE I can select the aperture for using the new boy in the aperture priority mode, but I have mislaid the owners manual for the 200m. and can't figure out how to do it. and its been a long time since I used my F1. . Can this be done and how. ?</p>

<p>Of the Several Canon FD cameras I have, IE: F1 ( original ), EF, A1, and Ftb. I'd choose the EF for the pleasure of using and the readily available info in the viewfinder, not to mention the sound it makes. The trouble now tho is that I have gone digital and these real cameras are just potential for the junk bin .</p>

There would seem to be a lack of responses to this topic since jan 2007, but I would welcome a resumption since I am experiencing similar problems. I have a K100D and use the 18-55 kit lens with no exposure problem at all. I also use several K M lenses in the Aperture priority mode with no trouble, however my SMC's give real trouble in getting proper exposure even in the M mode with or without the lens switch being in Auto or Manual, and I am not surprised at this because there is no metering connection at all. I use consistently for testing purposes, 200 ISO and the Pentax M to K adapter. I also use my old Weston Master meter for checking. Setting the aperture on the lens at f16 and using Av. I have presumed that the camera will look after the exposure time .and will indicate the correct speed in the view finder, but this doen't happen. in fact it gives ridiculousl speeds of 3 to 4000 sec. and trying it, confirms that is horribly under exposed. Changing the EV compensation progressively to + 2 brings the shutter speed down and the exposure is more acceptable. and when I the scene is constant. If I change the scene the shutter speed changes to match the new reflectance. Using the M mode, once the camera is turned on what seems to be an arbitary value appears and stays there irrespective of the subject manner. Using the +\- I can select a different value but the shutter speed remains the same. In fact it would seem that the camera hasa mind of its own and refuses to change. I then use the preview mode to do an eyeball check to judge the exposure and then experiment by changing the shutter speed until it looks OK. I am sure that there must be a better way.

 

Is there a little trim pot somewhere inside the camera to bring the exposures to match those obtained when using the K Mount and later lenses, since mixing the use of my K and M lenses is a pain in the you know what ?

Why not get yourself a 50mm Macro SMC Takumar, the earlier pre-focus variety . It focusses down to 1:1, so no tubes or bellows !!

I am hesitant in posting this mail in case I am overwhelmed with cries of shame. However nothing ventured :

nothing gained. I own a very comprehensive Canon outfit and have built it up over the last 30 years or more. so I

am not exactly a newcomer. I have an early F1, an EF, a FTB and an A1, with prime lenses from the 17mm to a 300. All

are in excellent shape. However I haven't used them for a several years because I now use my Pentax K100D with all

my old Pentax glass lenses. Nevertheless I occasionally wish I could use the Canon lenses and have considered

removing the Auto aperture fingers and modifying the lens to film distance in order to use them on the Pentax. I

can hear the cries now . !! -- but I am now rather long in the tooth and darkroom adventures have taken a back

seat to digital. However whenever I go to the cupboard and open the cases think it a shame that all this good

gear is laying dormant.

 

If this question has been asked before, please excuse me, but I am hoping to take a short cut to answers .

The first thing to do is to decide where the problem lies. Is it the lens or the camera. If when focussing to 150m the image is sharp then the lens is OK and the problem is with the camera. Different make SLRs have different flange to image dimensions. Inability to focus at infinity then would suggest that the flange\image dimension of the camera you are using ( what is it ? ) is greater than the Pentax dimension.If the camera is a Pentax, is there by chance an extension tube that is on the lens? If the camera does not have the flange\image dim of a Pentax, the less costly solution is to get one that does.

All the above conversation is very interesting, and some of the questions may be answered by going to EBay and searching for item 280212522348. The seller is Henry's,a Toronto camera dealer. Having recently purchased a Tamron 158A lens on EBay and had found it altho cosmetically pristine, it was very "Foggy", I went searching again for more info about this lens, and found the Henry'ad. I saw that of the six lenses offered in this package, three were "Foggy". The others had dirt and debris inside. Now Henry's, who are not a charitable organization, were honest enough to draw attention to the defects, so it would perhaps indicate that Tamrons had problems. With this info, and since the return postage was uneconomical, I dissected my Tamron 158 right down to the last screw and found that 90% of its construction was from plastic, including some of the lens elements. This then rang a bell within me because a few years back I experienced at my work that some plastics gradually exude vapours which tend to form fog. message here is that altho once upon a time lenses were generally made from glass and brass, design has changed to meet price. This is not a criticism of Tamron but a comment that one should not buy cheap if you want quality and reliability, otherwise the lens you return could end up on EBay.

 

Ken Oakes

May I contribute a wee bit to this discussion? I purchased a new Reid 111 in 1954 for 144 Pounds Sterling. It was available in the UK when Leicas were not. It was a delight to use, and performed very well. I sold it 1n 2005 for vastly more than I paid for it. How Reid and Sigrist came to manufacture it may be of interest. During the war years there were no 35mm cameras being made in the UK and so we had to buy them from Leitz outlets in Sweden,Switzerland and Portugal. At the end of hostilities the Ministry of Supply which was the prime provider of equipment to the military, decided that this situation would never be permitted to re-ocurr and so the design of the Leica 111B was "acquired" from Leitz as part of war reparations, and Reid and Sigrist who were manufacturers of precision aircraft instruments were chosen to make in in the UK. ( They also designed and made an aircraft -- The Snargasher ) Initially the contract was for a mere 1000 or so cameras.

 

When this was completed, Reid and Sigrist obtained permission to continue production and sell the camera to the general public. It was one of these that I purchased. The camera was a virtual screw for screw copy of the Wetzlar product, and it used the 2"TTH Speed Pancro lens, which was superb.

 

After I came to Canada, I wanted it serviced and took it to the Leitz service centre near Toronto. Leitz declined to service it, being a direct copy, but the foreman of the centre approached me privately and offered to do it for me at home. He was very interested because he had never seen a Reid before. When he returned it to my house, he asked me if I would sell it to him, because it looked like a Leica, sounded like a Leica but was better made than the Leica, and I concurred, because I already had a 111f and the difference quality and feel was obvious, not that the genuine article was poor but the Reid was that much better.

 

When I sold it in the UK it was because by that time I had gone to a SLR and later digital. A wonderful camera, and both it and the lens were much under-rated. My 135mm lens was also a Brit product, a Dallmeyer Dalrac, also very good. Filters were not a problem since the Leitz 36mm slip-ons fitted as did the lens hoods. I still have the Frame finder and a box full of Leitz cassettes as well as the slide copier. Happy days !! but I parted with an old friend.

I have now received the Seagull. Notice of shipping was sent on the 14th Feb.,I received it on the 20th, and it arrived complete with adapters for several other cameras.It looks very well made, and it does all that is required,-- good value.The image is clean and sharp. Using 1:1, the Seagull's dioptre adjustment is adequate, but at 2:1, a touch of the camera adjustment is required.

 

Caveat emptor: The price I paid, including shipping was about half the price several other would be suppliers were asking for the identical product, -- so shop around.

 

And caveat yet again . I joined Photonet only last week. Two days later I Googled my name as a check, and found it was there. Furthermore I was quoted verbatim ( see above ) so I was glad that for once in my life I was quietly polite. Beware of Big brother !!

Attn Ed.

 

I was being flippant when I suggested Bostik or duct tape. I have the plain cooking model, IE Ref converter, with a reversed L-R image. Contrary to the info supplied in the PDF manual, it does work with my ES11 and a K1000. It did not work with the MX because the depth of the grooves in the view finder was greater than the blades of the finder. Since I only use it occasionally and I also have a magnifier, it was a better proposition to CAREFULLY increase the depth of the slots on the camera.This I did successfully. Should the Seagull fit the K100D then there will be no problem , but if not, then the same solution will be adopted for the 100. I also have a Canon right way round finder for the F1, which has the same size frame ( as Pentax call it )and so I am reluctant to part with more cash for an item that has only occasional usage. Thanks for the ref tho.

 

Ken Oakes

I already have. Pentax US confirmed to me after me insisting that they provide an explicit answer, that there is no right angle finder for the K series digitals. istDs and older models yes. The illustrations for the Seagull shows a variety of adapters, but there are no grooves for the shoe to slide into, so unless the adapter just pushes into the rubber eyepiece,which would hardly be secure, its Bostik or duct tape as far as I can see.

I too have been looking for a R.A. Viewfinder for my K100D, but have discovered that Pentax do not make one. The earlier pre-digital cameras eg K1000 were provided for, and I have one of those. The istD was also catered for but the K10,K100 and subsequent,are not. If you look at a istD you will see that the eyepiece has the necessary grooves to take the R.A. metal frame. They are absent on the new K series.

 

I have ordered the Seagull because it specifically claims to be able to fit, but now(after ordering)suspect it won't,-- we shall see. In which case does anyone have any suggestions other than duct tape ?