Jump to content


Photo

K3 Lens i won off ebay


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Stewart Munro

Stewart Munro
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 07 October 2007 - 04:44 PM

I won these 2 lens off ebay MIR 12.5mm f2.0 LENS and VEGA 7 20mm f2.0 LENS

Posted Image

Posted Image
  • 0

#2 Charles MacDonald

Charles MacDonald
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1157 posts
  • Other
  • Stittsville Ontario Canada

Posted 07 October 2007 - 07:54 PM

I won these 2 lens off ebay MIR 12.5mm f2.0 LENS and VEGA 7 20mm f2.0 LENS

yes they look like Russian Lenes alright. with the russian style mount rather than the Pentax style. What do you want to tell/ask about them?
  • 0

#3 Stewart Munro

Stewart Munro
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 07 October 2007 - 09:47 PM

yes they look like Russian Lenes alright. with the russian style mount rather than the Pentax style. What do you want to tell/ask about them?



god what was i thinking i have the Pentax style!lol
  • 0

#4 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 08 October 2007 - 02:06 PM

god what was i thinking i have the Pentax style!lol


That there are no 12.5mm or f/2 20mm lenses with M42 mounts.
Why do you think it's called a SCREW mount?
  • 0

#5 Charles MacDonald

Charles MacDonald
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1157 posts
  • Other
  • Stittsville Ontario Canada

Posted 08 October 2007 - 07:11 PM

god what was i thinking i have the Pentax style!lol

If you look at where the flange for the mount is, thay would definatly hit the mirror in a pentax camera, although I belive that the taper at the back is carfully designed to JUST clear the mirror on some models of the Russian Cameras.

I am not sure if these will fit the "russian Mount" version of the K-3, but they would probaly fit the "pro" Russian Cameras.

If it makes you feel any better, I got a Russian Zoom thinking of trying it (blind) on my Filmo with a M42 Adapror, and it came with the same sort of mount.
  • 0

#6 Olex Kalynychenko

Olex Kalynychenko
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine

Posted 09 October 2007 - 02:42 AM

I won these 2 lens off ebay MIR 12.5mm f2.0 LENS and VEGA 7 20mm f2.0 LENS


This is russian lenses, made at Krasnogosk factory ( KMZ) , from set of lenses of Krasnogorsk-1 camera.
This is lenses have bayonet lens mount of Kransogorsk-1, Krasnogors-2, Krasnogorsk-3 cameras.
And compatible with Krasnogorsk cameras with bayonet mount.
The lenses have 52.00 mm of flange focal distance.

This lenses can be modify on M42 screw mount, but, the rear part od body of lens must be replace.
the Kranosghorsk factory not make this lenses at M42 screw mount version, that's why, the rear part of body with M42 must be hand made.

The lenses have very good quality and i can recommend of use of this lenses with Kranorgosk cameras.

The similar lens mount had russian professional cine camera 16 SP.
The prime lenses from 16SP camera can be use with Krasnogorsk cameras too.
  • 0

#7 Stewart Munro

Stewart Munro
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 09 October 2007 - 10:59 AM

This is russian lenses, made at Krasnogosk factory ( KMZ) , from set of lenses of Krasnogorsk-1 camera.
This is lenses have bayonet lens mount of Kransogorsk-1, Krasnogors-2, Krasnogorsk-3 cameras.
And compatible with Krasnogorsk cameras with bayonet mount.
The lenses have 52.00 mm of flange focal distance.

This lenses can be modify on M42 screw mount, but, the rear part od body of lens must be replace.
the Kranosghorsk factory not make this lenses at M42 screw mount version, that's why, the rear part of body with M42 must be hand made.

The lenses have very good quality and i can recommend of use of this lenses with Kranorgosk cameras.

The similar lens mount had russian professional cine camera 16 SP.
The prime lenses from 16SP camera can be use with Krasnogorsk cameras too.



How can i make these M42 screw mount?
  • 0

#8 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 09 October 2007 - 01:42 PM

How can i make these M42 screw mount?


"This lenses can be modify on M42 screw mount, but, the rear part od body of lens must be replace.
the Kranosghorsk factory not make this lenses at M42 screw mount version, that's why, the rear part of body with M42 must be hand made"

Sounds like it will be cheaper to get a second body with bayonet mount.

But it will put put you ahead of most K-3 users.
  • 0

#9 Jon Petro

Jon Petro
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Film Loader

Posted 10 October 2007 - 06:44 PM

"This lenses can be modify on M42 screw mount, but, the rear part od body of lens must be replace.
the Kranosghorsk factory not make this lenses at M42 screw mount version, that's why, the rear part of body with M42 must be hand made"

Sounds like it will be cheaper to get a second body with bayonet mount.

But it will put put you ahead of most K-3 users.


Just get a second body. If you like one body more than the other, the fronts screw off very easily. So you can swap them out. I got the bayonet mount first, then bought a second body only to find out the screw mount is great if you only want to shoot telephoto. The bayo mount is the way to go. I bet you those lenses you got are really sweet. I have seen them on ebay from now and again. Russian lenses are good.

Jon
  • 0

#10 Olex Kalynychenko

Olex Kalynychenko
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine

Posted 11 October 2007 - 04:11 AM

Sounds like it will be cheaper to get a second body with bayonet mount.

But it will put put you ahead of most K-3 users.


Yes, I recommend search of K-3 camera with bayonet mount, or search of K-1 with bayonet mount and replace front part of K-3 body from M42 on bayonet version.
But, I must underline. The procedure of replace of front panel - the complex procedure and will need do of full procedure of test and adjust of flange focal distance of lens mount and centering of lens mount.
The front and rear parts of body of Kransogork cameras have aligner fingers.
That's why, the second body with bayonet mount can be better.
  • 0

#11 Kirk Anderson

Kirk Anderson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 220 posts
  • Other

Posted 13 October 2007 - 02:48 PM

ha ha ha...sorry to be an a-hole, but sounds like a case of premature buy it nowing.
Once I bought a arri motor from sweden, thought it was an sync motor, but was actually a time lapse piece of junk that was destroyed internally with european cables. Lesson learned.
Now, buy a bayonet mount, I've owned several K3's and I don't understand why everyone wants the m42. old m42 lenses suck 90% of the time, I bought the same russian lenses for my bayo K3 and it kicked the crap out of my lousy m42 with old pentax lenses I found on ebay. sigh, I sold all my K3's for a Arri, I miss my old bayo package with three primes and the zoom, it was the most complete I'd ever seen.
good luck, sell the M42 and go bayo and never look back!
and to be fair this is, in my own opinion...
love,
kirk
  • 0

#12 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2030 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 26 November 2007 - 05:26 PM

I bought the same russian lenses for my bayo K3 and it kicked the crap out of my lousy m42 with old pentax lenses I found on ebay.


I've had great luck with m42 mount lenses. Plenty of 2nd hand camera shops out there that have a pile of these sitting around and let them go dirt cheap. Usually the Pentax Super Takumar line. There are plenty of bad ones I'm sure.

Nothing wrong with the bayonette mount though, funny that you need to buy a camera for your lenses. With the K3's you might as well. They're usually about $30 less anyway.
  • 0

#13 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 27 November 2007 - 03:46 PM

I've had great luck with m42 mount lenses. Plenty of 2nd hand camera shops out there that have a pile of these sitting around and let them go dirt cheap. Usually the Pentax Super Takumar line. There are plenty of bad ones I'm sure.


Are you photographing adulterers for a divorce lawyer?

If you want usable wide angles on 16mm, forget M42. You'll never find a 12.5mm f/2 nor a 20mm f/2
in M42.
  • 0

#14 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2030 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 28 November 2007 - 03:30 PM

Are you photographing adulterers for a divorce lawyer?

If you want usable wide angles on 16mm, forget M42. You'll never find a 12.5mm f/2 nor a 20mm f/2
in M42.


Actually I have a 16mm Russian lens and the 8mm Peleng. Both cover the Super 16 area great (unlike the stock lens between 17-22mm). I have a great 24mm and a 20mm F3.8 Pentax Super Takumar.

For the adulterers I have a 50mm F1.4 lens that works great on a tripod for subjects not moving very much... beautiful lens.
  • 0

#15 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 28 November 2007 - 04:00 PM

Actually I have a 16mm Russian lens and the 8mm Peleng. Both cover the Super 16 area great (unlike the stock lens between 17-22mm). I have a great 24mm and a 20mm F3.8 Pentax Super Takumar.

For the adulterers I have a 50mm F1.4 lens that works great on a tripod for subjects not moving very much... beautiful lens.


Your 8mm and 16mm are fish eyes, ribi glaz, & f2.8 and f/4.
& you've nothing inbetween 8 and 16.

The 20/3.8 is nearly two stops slower than 20/2. In T stops very probably a full 2+ when you consider the number of elements in the Takumar vs. the 20/2.

Try to find a 24/25mm f1.4 in M42.

A fast 85 and 135 for the adulterers might be useful.
  • 0

#16 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2030 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 28 November 2007 - 04:44 PM

Your 8mm and 16mm are fish eyes, ribi glaz, & f2.8 and f/4.
& you've nothing inbetween 8 and 16.

The 20/3.8 is nearly two stops slower than 20/2. In T stops very probably a full 2+ when you consider the number of elements in the Takumar vs. the 20/2.

Try to find a 24/25mm f1.4 in M42.

A fast 85 and 135 for the adulterers might be useful.


Good to know there's so much available for the K3 bayonette mount.

There's no 24mm 1.4 m42 mount that I know of, but there is a 2.0 that's rare and a little expensive.

Those 16mm & 8mm lenses distort but they aren't really "fish eye" on a 16mm camera. Not the best glass available but if you need much better than that why would you use a K3 anyway?
  • 0

#17 Stewart Munro

Stewart Munro
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 29 November 2007 - 03:34 PM

hey there has anyone got any Pentax style lens for sale?my camera is super 16 thank!
  • 0

#18 David Auner aac

David Auner aac
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 29 November 2007 - 06:04 PM

Those 16mm & 8mm lenses distort but they aren't really "fish eye" on a 16mm camera. Not the best glass available but if you need much better than that why would you use a K3 anyway?


Hi Will,

a fisheye lens is a fisheye lens no matter how close you crop it. It's a different type of lens than a normal rectilinear lens. It's just that very heavy barrel distortion (the stuff you get on cheap wide angle lenses) looks kind of similar to the way a fisheye projects it's image. Actually a fisheye is nearly distortion free, what we think of as distortion is just the different way the image is projected onto film.

Cheers, Dave
  • 0

#19 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2030 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 30 November 2007 - 02:40 PM

Hi Will,

a fisheye lens is a fisheye lens no matter how close you crop it. It's a different type of lens than a normal rectilinear lens. It's just that very heavy barrel distortion (the stuff you get on cheap wide angle lenses) looks kind of similar to the way a fisheye projects it's image. Actually a fisheye is nearly distortion free, what we think of as distortion is just the different way the image is projected onto film.

Cheers, Dave


Sorry, mispoke, meant to say "fisheye effect." You are of course correct.

In otherwords, these lenses on a 16mm camera don't create the warped edges as much as they would on a 35mm camera and I find them quite usable (the Peleng is pretty noticeable but an interesting effect for some types of shoots.)
  • 0

#20 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2030 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 30 November 2007 - 02:52 PM

Since we were talking about m42 lenses... here's a shot I took using a 50mm Super Takumar 1.4 lens with Double-X b&w negative on a Super 16 K3. Used a tripod and the child was straped ito in a bouncy seat (if you don't know what that is, wait till you have a kid).

You can see a scratch on the right side where my gate is widened... only appears rarely but I need to work on it.

Posted Image
  • 0


Opal

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Abel Cine

Visual Products

Wooden Camera