Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

beginner's questions: Contax? Leica?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:29 pm    Post subject: beginner's questions: Contax? Leica? Reply with quote
Please once more bear with a beginner's question, pardon me for this kind of a general question which only can be asked by the innocent. If an answer would go into certain models instead the better!

Looking at some samples ( mostly of Orio and Abbazz? ) I suppose that Leicas and also Contaxes must be considered the creme de la creme of lenses, yes?
I have never much tried to look into them as they seemed to be too expensive for me and a fast check did not give me much knowledge.

Therefore my questions:

Are Leicas/Contaxes also available in M42?
Do Leicas have a own Leica Bajonett?
Do Contaxes have their own Yashica resp. Contax Bajonett?
On which dSLR can they be used? Canons and Olympus? ( well, I remember once having run across some adaptation for Pentax )
Which Leica/Contax can be had without spending a few 100s?
Would a Sonnar/Flektogon/Pancolar be a possibly cheaper but comparable alternative, maybe being on par with the Contaxes, just Leica being beyond?

thank you for any input,
Andreas


PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:47 pm    Post subject: Re: beginner's questions: Contax? Leica? Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:

Looking at some samples ( mostly of Orio and Abbazz? ) I suppose that Leicas and also Contaxes must be considered the creme de la creme of lenses, yes?


Not for all focal lenghts (for instance, Leicas are weak in the ultra wide angles and Contax are almost absent in the long teles), and anyway, the differences amongst the lenses made by the best makers (which include also Nikon, Olympus, Zeiss Jena, Pentax, the Russians) are often a matter of particulars that would rarely surface, for instance, from a 10x15 photograph.
Basically, the story is: the differences in price have a foundation. But, in order to really appreciate them, your photographing must be at a high skill level, and the products you are going to make, must be high-amateur or professional level. For instance, a poorly taken photograph with the best lens will look worse than a properly taken photograph with an inferior lens.
Also, not much point in spending hundreds in a lens if all the use you make of a photograph is to print a 10x15 photo or to display it over the web.

Quote:
Therefore my questions:
Are Leicas/Contaxes also available in M42?


No

Quote:
Do Leicas have a own Leica Bajonett?


Yes (I assume you are speaking of reflex lenses. Old time rangefinder leica lenses are M39 threaded. Recent Leica rangefinder lenses have a bajonett also - different from reflex one)

Quote:
Do Contaxes have their own Yashica resp. Contax Bajonett?


Yes. Keep in mind the differences however. There are old Contax systems that used a different bajonett. Also, amongst modern day Contaxes, there's not only the Contax/Yashica line. There is the Contax N line (autofocus Contax) with it's own bajonett, the Contax G line (rangefinder Contax) with it's own bajonett, and the Contax 645 line (medium format Contac) with it's own bajonett.

Quote:
On which dSLR can they be used? Canons and Olympus? ( well, I remember once having run across some adaptation for Pentax )


On Canon and Olympus digital, you can use these lenses with an adapter. On the other digital reflex systems, you need to apply a hardware modification to the lenses in order to mount them.

Quote:
Which Leica/Contax can be had without spending a few 100s?


There are several. For Contax, the Planar 1.7/50 I just sold is an excellent candidate as it can be bought for less than 100 Euros. Other cheap or affordable lenses are the Planar 1.4/50, Distagon 2.8/35, and sometimes other models too, depending on the condition and on the luck of the moment.
For Leicas, in general all first version Leica-Rs have affordable prices, especially the most common models such as Summicron-R 50, Elmarit-R 35, Elmarit-R 90

Quote:
Would a Sonnar/Flektogon/Pancolar be a possibly cheaper but comparable alternative, maybe being on par with the Contaxes, just Leica being beyond?


Many Sonnar models in the Jena catalogue are in fact the same lenses as in the western Zeiss catalogue. There are some differences in the lastest years as Contax models were optimized, but generally speaking the design of lenses like the Sonnars and Tessars is the same in both Zeiss companies.
As for Leicas being beyond, I would not assume this as a dogma. Some Leicas objectively are. Some others are on par with lenses from other makers. Some Leicas are worse than lenses of other makers. Trust only your eyes not the brand names.

-


PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi!

Allow me to answer the questions to the best of my knowledge.

"Are Leicas/Contaxes also available in M42?"
Not as far as I know.

"Do Leicas have a own Leica Bajonett? "
Yes, it is called "Leica-R"-bayonet for SLRs. Not to be confused with LTM (Leica Thread Mount) and "Leica-M" for rangefinder cams.

"Do Contaxes have their own Yashica resp. Contax Bajonett?"
Yes, it is mostly referred to as "C/Y"-bayonet.

"On which dSLR can they be used? Canons and Olympus? ( well, I remember once having run across some adaptation for Pentax )"
I know for sure that they can be used at a Canon EOS and I think also at Olympus 4/3 DSLRs.

"Which Leica/Contax can be had without spending a few 100s?"
Several Zeiss lenses and some Leica-lenses. Mostly the little slower lenses in the "normal" focal lengths (35,50,135mm).
The "slower" Leica lenses (with f2.8 ) are called "Elmarit" and the older ones often can be found for under € 300,-

"Would a Sonnar/Flektogon/Pancolar be a possibly cheaper but comparable alternative, maybe being on par with the Contaxes, just Leica being beyond?"
These lenses you refer to are originally Zeiss lenses or Zeiss Jena and they will performe almost as well as the expensive Leicas or new Zeiss lenses, but I think, if you want the very last bit of performance, you will have to pay for it.

Peterqd once has opened a thread in which we concluded that some "cheap" lenses are not that far away from very expensive ones. It depends how you want to use the pictures and if you really "need" the almost perfect performance or if 90% are enough. Wink

Last edited by LucisPictor on Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:54 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ooops, orio was a little faster. But at least we agree on the important points. Wink


PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:56 pm    Post subject: Re: beginner's questions: Contax? Leica? Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Trust only your eyes not the brand names.


This is it in a nutshell! I think we should vote this for our forum motto!


PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:58 pm    Post subject: Re: beginner's questions: Contax? Leica? Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
... Leicas are weak in the ultra wide angles...


Apart from the later version of the Elmarit 2.8/19 which is said to be a fantastic lens but unfortunately does not mount to a 5D.
Still, with my 350D, if somebody gave this lens to me, my heart would leap with joy!


PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi kuuan,
contax and leica is a expensive hobby
you can find good alternative for less money
this forum will help you find the good bargain

p.s: I read sometimes that some lens are better than my contax but I think it is a myth Laughing Rolling Eyes Wink


PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Andeas, do you understand the term "register distance" or why it's important? Before you start choosing lenses or before we can advise you, it's best to understand why some lenses will work on some cameras and not on others. Please also tell us what camera/s you want to use.

I think this thread will become a very useful one for people beginning to learn about which lenses and adapters to use. Thank you for asking the question! Smile


PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There is no Zeiss Contax for M42 because "Contax" refers to the mount. There are Zeiss ZS lenses, or "Zeiss screw", which is the same as M42.

A lot of Zeiss Contax lenses could be converted to M42, when the rear element is small enough to fit inside the M42 hole. That would take machining because there is no ready-made blank. There could be. Zeiss Contax lenses are not all the same diameter like Zuiko but there are two main types.

I don't know why but the best Zeiss lenses are not available in ZS(M42). Maybe because M42 was "communist" before it became the universal mount? If so, "slr" was also communist. Lens sex, is sex idealogical? Not in that sense.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BobDodds wrote:
There is no Zeiss Contax for M42 because "Contax" refers to the mount.


This is not correct. Contax is the name of a camera, and ironically, the very first Contax camera made, the Contax S, used to have the M42 mount - not just that, it was the very first camera to feature the M42 mount ! Twisted Evil Which is today incorrectly known as "Pentax M42" - while it should be defined "Contax M42" instead.
(Note:some say that is was Praktica the first camera with M42 mount. I am not a camera historian so I am unable to know what is true. I think that what is sure is that the two cameras were both released in 1949).

The fact that subsequent editions of the Contax camera adopted the bayonet as mount system, has nothing to do with the Contax name.

BobDodds wrote:
I don't know why but the best Zeiss lenses are not available in ZS(M42). Maybe because M42 was "communist" before it became the universal mount? If so, "slr" was also communist. Lens sex, is sex idealogical? Not in that sense.


M42 communist? This is the weirdest interpretation that I have ever heard! Laughing LIke I said, the M42 mount was born in West Germany, with the Contax S camera, and had a major success in Japan and USA thanks to the fact that Pentax (which by the way is short for "Pentaprism Contax") adopted it. So nothing communist about it, except for the fact that, like it often happened between the two Germanies, the western Contax S, and the following models Contax D, E and F, were immediately copied in East Germany by Pentacon, which created the Pentacon Z1, F, etc.

A few links on Contax S, Pentacon F and similars:

http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-28.html
http://anusf.anu.edu.au/~aab900/photography/cameras/contax.htm
http://www.praktica-collector.de/ContaxPentacon.htm

-


PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BobDodds wrote:
Maybe because M42 was "communist" before it became the universal mount? If so, "slr" was also communist. Lens sex, is sex idealogical? Not in that sense.


I'm not absolutely certain, but I have a feeling the SLR camera was invented before even Russia became a communist state, certainly decades before East Germany was formed. The first production SLR was the Ihagee Exacta of 1933.

It's not certain when the M42 mount was actually invented. Orio is right about the first production camera to use it, the Contax S in 1949. However Zeiss were developing an SLR a long time before the start of WW2 and it's not clear what mount they intended to use, as all the prototypes were destroyed during the war. The Zeiss factory was hit by the Dresden bombing and what was left was partially removed to Stuttgart by the Americans and the rest dismantled and removed to Kiev by the Russians. It must have taken a long time for the Jena plant to get back to full production after rebuilding, re-equipping and development of new designs. With this in mind, I tend to feel it's highly likely the M42 mount was actually planned before the war.

The Contax UK site has a very interesting page on Zeiss history:
http://www.contaxcameras.co.uk/history.asp


PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Another reason just to call something "eastern".

But if Zeiss protypted M42 before the war, why did western Zeiss not use it? It almost sounds cold-war idealogical again to say "because they concluded it was inferior". The only thing that M42 might not be able to do is accomodate huge rear elements like on 50mm and 55mm f1.2, 35mm f1.4, 21mm f2, 15mm f2.8. Cosina made a 55mm f1.2 in M42, and oddly it was f22 not f1.2 that was left off. Cosina probably made Porst 55mm f1.2 in K mount which has f22 but otherwise looks very much the same.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
BobDodds wrote:
Another reason just to call something "eastern".

But if Zeiss protypted M42 before the war, why did western Zeiss not use it? It almost sounds cold-war idealogical again to say "because they concluded it was inferior". The only thing that M42 might not be able to do is accomodate huge rear elements like on 50mm and 55mm f1.2, 35mm f1.4, 21mm f2, 15mm f2.8. Cosina made a 55mm f1.2 in M42, and oddly it was f22 not f1.2 that was left off. Cosina probably made Porst 55mm f1.2 in K mount which has f22 but otherwise looks very much the same.


The big advantage of bayonet over screw fitting is speed of changing lenses.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
BobDodds wrote:
But if Zeiss protypted M42 before the war, why did western Zeiss not use it?


Who knows? The development of the M42 Contax S took place while Zeiss was still a single commercial entity, with an office in Stuttgart and a production facility in Jena. There was no "iron curtain" at that time, maybe it was planned between them. Production in the west started later, after the curtain descended, with fixed leaf-shutter lenses. The Contax bayonet mount lenses were the result of the collaboration with Yashica much later in the early 70s.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
BobDodds wrote:

But if Zeiss protypted M42 before the war, why did western Zeiss not use it? It almost sounds cold-war idealogical again to say "because they concluded it was inferior".


Bob, bayonet was chosen for three main reasons:

1- like Peter said, speed
2- safety (it was perceived as safer than screw mount)
3- commercial

Of course #3 is the main, real reason. With custom bayonets (that can be copyrighted), the person who buys your camera will also be forced to buy your lenses, and not brand x lenses (or to reuse old lenses).

This is the same logic that is also behind the change from one bayonet type to another: PROFIT.

There is nothing ideological or let alone political about it. I think you are reading too many spy stories Wink

-


PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Three excellent reasons, but I think probably the main one is that a bayonet mount positions the lens on the camera far more accurately than a screw mount, where rotation is difficult to control. This allowed more simple and reliable communication of aperture settings from the lens to the camera for open-aperture metering, and paved the way for auto-focus and auto aperture control.

I'm sure you're right about No. 3. This can be the only reason why there is no standard, "universal", bayonet mount.

Last edited by peterqd on Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:48 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
Three excellent reasons, but I think probably the main one is that a bayonet mount positions the lens on the camera far more accurately than a screw mount, where rotation is difficult to control. This allowed more simple and reliable communication of aperture settings from the lens to the camera for open-aperture metering, and paved the way for auto-focus and auto aperture control,


Yes, that is true about the precise positioning, but don't forget that open-aperture metering (let alone "electric" program modes) came quite at a later time compared to the advent of bayonets, which preceeded it of at least 20 years.

-


PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
From all your answers the mount question became quite clear and the remarks about lens quality and their significance are enlightening.
Thank you all for sharing your knowledge, I hope that this info will be of interest to others as well.


***the following is more on the personal side***
( which, in case anybody wants me to, I shall delete later in order to keep the purely informative only )

Orio wrote:
....anyway, the differences amongst the lenses made by the best makers (which include also Nikon, Olympus, Zeiss Jena, Pentax, the Russians) are often a matter of particulars that would rarely surface, for instance, from a 10x15 photograph. Basically, the story is: the differences in price have a foundation. But, in order to really appreciate them, your photographing must be at a high skill level, and the products you are going to make, must be high-amateur or professional level. For instance, a poorly taken photograph with the best lens will look worse than a properly taken photograph with an inferior lens

Orio it was your sample photo with the 'CARL ZEISS Distagon 2/28 "Hollywood" - original Contax version' in the 'lens review' thread that had stunned me, had made me crave for a lens of that caliber and had prompted me to open this thread. Now you made me understand that it won't be the lens that makes this kind of photo and that I first should try develop my skills to do justice to cheaper but nevertheless very good lenses.

poilu wrote:
you can find good alternative for less money
this forum will help you find the good bargain

hopefully, but for now I better STOP buying lenses since I don't even have a camera for them yet. I still have a special liking for the old pre SMC Takumars and I am curious if they will be even easier and cheaper available in Japan. I shall arrive in Japan in abt. 2 months and also plan to buy a dSLR body then, so still a lot of time to decide which one it shall be. Certainly I also shall look out for Nikkors then...( German and Russians must better wait until I get back to Europe )

peterqd wrote:
Andreas, do you understand the term "register distance" or why it's important? Before you start choosing lenses or before we can advise you, it's best to understand why
also tell us what camera/s you want to use.

I have never researched what 'register distance' meant but was assuming that it refers to the distance between mount and film resp. sensor. - and that lenses designed for cameras with a shorter reg. distance cannot be used on cameras with a bigger register distance, resp. only with an optical adapter or else loosing the ability to focus to infinity. And that Canon and Olympus have the shortest reg. distance ( maybe also Minolta resp. Sony ) and that therefore the greatest range of lenses can be used since it is easy to build adapters that introduce the wider distance if a lens requires that.
Another point of compatibility must be the diameter of a mount. What is that called?

I am leaning towards Pentax. I only will buy an entrance level camera and the Pentax seems to offer more for less money than competitors. From the cameras I have handled so far I prefer the handling of the Pentax over e.g. the Canons. I'd love the smaller body of the Olys but shy away of the 4/3 system because it effectively doubles the range of the lenses instead of abt. x1.5. This to me seems to be a disadvantage for the use of MF lenses specially because of their limited offerings of wide lenses. I also find the deeper DOF of the 4/3 system a disadvantage since for me playing with shallow DOF is one of the attractions of going dSLR ( but please prove me wrong )
I had a Pentax K100D for trial during the last weekend and I found the use of M42 and K mount MF lenses quite easy. I like that the M42 > K mount adapter fits 'inside' the mount of the camera, that the registry distance of K mount and M42 lenses is exactly the same. ( that is if I understand what reg. distance means )
I did not like the cheap plastic feeling of it, but in this respect other makers may even fare worse. If I stay with the MF lens hobby I guess that eventually I will be either using e.g. a Spotmatic or an expensive dSLR with a better build.

Last edited by kuuan on Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:27 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:

Orio it was your sample photo with the 'CARL ZEISS Distagon 2/28 "Hollywood" - original Contax version' in the 'lens review' thread that had stunned me, had made me crave for a lens of that caliber and had prompted me to open this thread. Now you made me understand that it won't be the lens that makes this kind of photo and that I first should try develop my skills to do justice to cheaper but nevertheless very good lenses.


Not really. What I was trying to say is that the differences between lenses are often subtle. I have tried often blind tests to guess lenses. I usually guess them right, but I have a very trained eye and I am able to pick subtle differences. And yet, sometimes, it was VERY difficult to make a choice and pick a difference. Sometimes, I decided more because of a feeling, than because of an objectively measurable difference.

This means also that subjective liking plays an important role.

But the main point still is, the differences exist, but they are not as big as many people may think.
In the case of Hollywood Distagon, well, we are talking of a real champion lens, and a lot of my point was base on the excellent characteristic ( that the 2/28 shares with the 1.4/35) of being extraordinarily resistant to flare, and useable also without a lens hood.
But is is possible to buy a very good 28mm lens (such as the Distagon 2.8/28 ) for about 1/3rd of the price of the Hollywood, mount a EUR 10 lens hood on it, and have no flare problem whatsoever.
Then, for the very trained eye, the Hollywood may probably still be recognizeable and an edge above.

Since you often describe yourself as a beginner, searching for advices, I thought it was a good advice to give, to stress the point that often, the differences between lenses are smaller than the difference a good or bad use of a lens can make.

Which is another way to say, that the best investment, is always to refine one's shooting skills, because they will give a more visible concrete improvement than a high cost lens.

Of course, once someone has practiced photography enough to get to (or close to) the point of mastering shooting skills with ease, then the differences between lenses can play a further role in the improvement of the final result.

Hope it is more clear.

-


PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:
I have never researched what 'register distance' meant but was assuming that it refers to the distance between mount and film resp. sensor. - and that lenses designed for cameras with a shorter reg. distance cannot be used on cameras with a bigger register distance, resp. only with an optical adapter or else loosing the ability to focus to infinity. And that Canon and Olympus have the shortest reg. distance ( maybe also Minolta resp. Sony ) and that therefore the greatest range of lenses can be used since it is easy to build adapters that introduce the wider distance if a lens requires that.
Another point of compatibility must be the diameter of a mount. What is that called?

Perfect, sorry I had to ask but now we can get down to serious discussion.

I hope this chart is helpful for you. It shows the difference in register distances between modern DSLR camera mounts and various manual lens types. A negative number (red boxes) indicates infinity focus is not possible without a secondary lens, and positive numbers basically indicate the amount of packing needed between the camera and lens. It doesn't take account of any physical reasons why the lens can't be fitted - for instance the diameter of the bayonet.

As you see, there's a wider choice of lenses for Canon and Olympus cameras. In practice only M42 and K-mount lenses can be fitted to a Pentax camera. I believe it's possible to fit Praktica PB bayonet-mount lenses if you want to (possibly without locking), and also C/Y lenses like the Distagons, although some modification is necessary and they might need grinding down to achieve infinity. I don't advocate grinding lenses, and I'm sure you won't want to modify the camera!

Quote:
I am leaning towards Pentax. I only will buy an entrance level camera and the Pentax seems to offer more for less money than competitors.

I agree. And the K100D Super has even better features if you can afford it. I don't have any Nikon or C/Y lenses and I'm leaning toward a Pentax too, for the larger viewfinder and in-camera image stabilisation.

Quote:
I'd love the smaller body of the Olys but shy away of the 4/3 system because it effectively doubles the range of the lenses instead of abt. x1.5. This to me seems to be a disadvantage for the use of MF lenses specially because of their limited offerings of wide lenses.

Yes. And each pixel has to be magnified more than with larger sensors to achieve comparable print sizes, which in my mind equals less resolution. However, some of the pictures I've seen from Oly cameras are fantastic.

Quote:
I had a Pentax K100D for trial during the last weekend and I found the use of M42 and K mount MF lenses quite easy. I like that the M42 > K mount adapter fits 'inside' the mount of the camera, that the registry distance of K mount and M42 lenses is exactly the same. ( that is if I understand what reg. distance means )

That's right. I use this adapter on my ME Super and K2 film cameras. Even though the M42 lenses screw up tightly, there is some play between the camera and the adapter, which is a bit off-putting, but it functions OK.

Quote:
If I stay with the MF lens hobby I guess that eventually I will be either using e.g. a Spotmatic or an expensive dSLR with a better build.

Great! Smile


PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've just noticed the possibility of mounting Leica R lenses on a Nikon. Has anyone tried this, or does anyone know of adapters?


PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Richard_D wrote:
I've just noticed the possibility of mounting Leica R lenses on a Nikon. Has anyone tried this, or does anyone know of adapters?


Half a millimeter difference is too short to build an adapter. There are already infinity problems with Contax/Yashica on EOS and it's three times as much (1,50mm difference). I think the only way is a bayonet replacement.

-


PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Richard_D wrote:
I've just noticed the possibility of mounting Leica R lenses on a Nikon. Has anyone tried this, or does anyone know of adapters?


Half a millimeter difference is too short to build an adapter. There are already infinity problems with Contax/Yashica on EOS and it's three times as much (1,50mm difference). I think the only way is a bayonet replacement.

-


It would work if the Leica mount had a smaller diameter than the Nikon mount, just like these M42-Pentax-adapters that just are screwed around the M42 thread.
But as far as I know the Leica-R mount has a considerably bigger diameter than the Nikon mount, thus Orio is right.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Richard_D wrote:
I've just noticed the possibility of mounting Leica R lenses on a Nikon. Has anyone tried this, or does anyone know of adapters?


The register distance is the "most" critical facto.. but not the only one... The Leica R mount is very weird. The mount itself is 2-3 mm long. Even on EOS, it just reaches to infinity... And with my adapter, it seems, it doesnt...

But it looks like, Leica R system must be very sturdy.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
... there is no standard, "universal", bayonet mount.


Almost Pentax's bayonet became one beeing used in the '80, besides Pentax, by Chinon, Ricoh (with little ad-ons), Cosina, Topcon, (...and some chinese manufaturers) and many cameras manufactured by these were wearing different brands: Miranda, Exakta , Edixa, Quantaray, Hanimex, Soligor, Centon, Luxon, Vivitar, Revueflex, Agfa, Alpa, Porst, Sears, Sigma, ... all with K Pentax mount.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2