Group: Moderator
Post: 2,033 (561 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Jan 30, 2021 10:26:39 GMT
Posted: Jan 30, 2021 10:26:39 GMT
This is one of Yashica's finest short telephoto lenses from the early 1960s. It is the Tominon Super Yashinon-R 10cm f2.8 and was highly regard for portraiture. Tominon Super Yashinon-R 10cm f2.8There aren't too many of these around and it's a joy to find one with clean glass. There's oil on the blades but they open and close freely. A CLA is called for and then it's time to pop it onto a Pentamatic...
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 770 (71 liked)
Join date: August 2016
Status:
|
|
on Jan 30, 2021 15:51:14 GMT
Posted: Jan 30, 2021 15:51:14 GMT
That lens probably holds the record for the amount of characters inscribed inside the filter ring!
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,369 (301 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Jan 30, 2021 21:26:26 GMT
Posted: Jan 30, 2021 21:26:26 GMT
This reminded me that there's a custom adapter maker that has something for attaching Pentamatic bayonet mount lenses to Sony E mount bodies. www.ebay.com/itm/174330148196All I'd have to adapt would be the kit 5.5cm, which probably wouldn't warrant the cost and shipping to get one for regular use on digital. Unfortunately the 2 film bodies I've acquired won't capture anything more than air and oil.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 770 (71 liked)
Join date: August 2016
Status:
|
|
on Jan 31, 2021 0:55:59 GMT
Posted: Jan 31, 2021 0:55:59 GMT
Were there other Pentamatic adapters (made by Yashica or others) to allow the Pentamatic lenses on newer/later cameras? That was pretty typical when camera companies changed their lens mounts, so as not to disenfranchise their loyal customers.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,369 (301 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Jan 31, 2021 8:14:14 GMT
Last Edit: Jan 31, 2021 8:17:16 GMT by lumiworx
The only other adapter I remember seeing was an M42 to Pentamatic that I think was branded and sold by Yashica. I'm not sure when those entered the market - before, during, or after the bayonet was originally released. It's possible it was a way to open up the whole Pentamatic line as a Hail Mary pass to save their only SLR line at the time. According to the distance/sizes noted in the mounting chart at Cornell, the Pentamatic I/II bayonett had a registration distance of 43mm, and a throat size of 47mm... with the M42's distance at 45.46mm, and a throat of 42mm. That's not a lot of meat for an adapter, and might not be too different in mass to what an M42 to C/Y mount would be. Looking backwards, I personnally don't think Yashica having a bayonet mount should have been generally seen as a terrible idea, given that most lenses actually ended up with that type of mount as time went by. They certainly weren't the first bayonets on the market, and eventually everyone ended up with proprietary mounts anyway. Although, I haven't dug into one yet either, so I'm unsure of what, if anything, would have caused them to dump them and switch over to M42 if they saw them as 'flawed' or finicky to produce. I'd love to have seen a Yashica 100/105 in M42 or C/Y mount (that wasn't a macro), and from what I've read about the Tominon, it would have made a great starter to remount for the newer fittings.
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,033 (561 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Jan 31, 2021 11:46:16 GMT
Posted: Jan 31, 2021 11:46:16 GMT
Hi lumiworx, Don't forget the Auto Yashinon-DX 100mm f2.8 which is one of those non-macro M42 lenses to which you refer. It would have made a great ML lens.
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,033 (561 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Jan 31, 2021 13:25:37 GMT
Posted: Jan 31, 2021 13:25:37 GMT
This reminded me that there's a custom adapter maker that has something for attaching Pentamatic bayonet mount lenses to Sony E mount bodies. www.ebay.com/itm/174330148196All I'd have to adapt would be the kit 5.5cm, which probably wouldn't warrant the cost and shipping to get one for regular use on digital. Unfortunately the 2 film bodies I've acquired won't capture anything more than air and oil. I have just ordered a Pentamatic to m4/3 adapter from a Dutch website though on completion, I can see that the recipient of funds is from China. Luckily I was able to pay with PayPal so if this is any sort of a scam, I will get my money back but I have seen the same adapter for sale on the US Ebay site, so I have no doubt it exists. I'm keen to compare the M42 and Pentamatic versions of the 100 2.8; it might be interesting to extend that to include the Contax Zeiss 100 f2 and f3.5 lenses too. I don't have the Pentamatic/M42 adapter ring so I can't mount the Yashica lenses in the same body for a direct comparison.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 770 (71 liked)
Join date: August 2016
Status:
|
|
on Jan 31, 2021 14:17:20 GMT
Last Edit: Jan 31, 2021 16:41:00 GMT by xkaes
A quick look at EBAY reveals 14 PENTAMATIC adapters. All of them except one are for putting Pentamatic lenses on newer, digital cameras -- as far as I can tell. (That's very surprising to me since I would not have ever thought that there are enough Pentamatic lenses or users to warrant making so many adapters. One adapter stood out -- and makes complete sense. It is a YASHICA adapter to put Exakta lenses on Pentamaic cameras:
So there are Yashica Pentamatic adapters for Exakta and M42. Perhaps others? Leica/M39?
It makes me wonder, as well, why did Yashica ditch the Pentamatic bayonet mount -- at the same time that so many other camera makers were doing the opposite (Minolta, Nikon, Canon, Olympus)? It turned out to be a mistake for them -- and for Pentax. Mamiya, Fuji, and others.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,369 (301 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Jan 31, 2021 19:59:28 GMT
Last Edit: Jan 31, 2021 20:03:12 GMT by lumiworx
xkaes ... 16 of the 17 listed on ebay that you noted, all come from the same source, so I assume the same Pentamatic 'front end' is married to a variety of digital mounts on the rear side in much the same way that K&F or Fotodiox would do in one 'series' of their adapters for digital bodies. The 17th one listed is the OEM from Yashica that biggles3 mentioned - for adapting Exakta/Topcon bayonets to Pentamatic bodies. According to the first Pentamatic user manual, there were indeed 2 adapters offered for their film bodies - the Praktica/M42, and Exakta versions. There were none listed for adapting the Pentamatic lenses to other film body mount types, and I don't recall ever seeing them from any other manufacturers. A bit more digging turned up pauls Pentamatic page on yashicatlr.com, and it provides more than a few answers to when/why/who... I think it might be slightly more involved than the facts alone suggest, and it might be similar in some ways to smart phones versus flip-phones and cell vs wired, and even tape or digital answering machines. On the simpler side... There was a surge of technology spurting out at essentially the same time, when technology of the past (over the course of 2 Pentamatic model changes) offered only 3 preset lenses with no automation features, fitted by bayonets on quasi-automatic bodies, where no clear direction to the future was forthcoming from the maker. That might have left the buyers with no reason to buy, and Pentamatic stuff withered into dust. Badly underselling something new usually equals a disaster, so you switch or die... no matter what plans or intention they might have had. Yashica clearly felt some need to move to a proprietary mount since they actually produced and sold them, yet it included no reasonable purpose for being, except to sever the use of other maker's lenses on their bodies. Was there a push for licensing the mounts to 3rd party makers that was unrealistic or contested? Were there other automated designs in the pipeline that couldn't/wouldn't make it to production? I don't know if there are answers for those and other questions, but my gut tells me there were more than a few things wrong that never gelled into something tangible. I can't imagine the suits at Yashica not having an intention to grow the lens lineup before commiting to a mount change. It might be that management couldn't reach a consensus on what direction they needed to go, or there were other challenges other than optical or technical ones, and the outside world wasn't privy to what it was. Financial, or legal issues weren't the topics covered by the press in those days, until long after some issue exploded beyond repair.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 770 (71 liked)
Join date: August 2016
Status:
|
|
on Jan 31, 2021 20:40:51 GMT
Posted: Jan 31, 2021 20:40:51 GMT
You are right, all of those adapters are designed to put Pentamatic lenses on digital cameras -- which I find exceedingly odd. (It would be equally as odd to see adapters to put digital lenses on Pentamatic cameras.)
Biggles3 pointed out the M42 screw mount to Pentamatic adapter, and when I saw the Exakta mount to Pentamatic adapter, I had to point it out.
It looks extremely thin, but it's hard to tell from the picture.
At about the same time, Minolta developed its first SLR, the SR-2 with a new bayonet mount, and provided three adapters to allow the SR-2 (and later Minolta SLR cameras) to accept Exakta, M42, or M39 lenses). I assume that Yashica and Minolta were not the only ones providing adapters for their new bayonet mount cameras.
The seller of the Yashica Exakta adapter normally has high asking prices, but the Minolta Exakta adapter is also hard-to-find, and usually sells for a lot more!
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,369 (301 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Feb 1, 2021 0:31:50 GMT
Posted: Feb 1, 2021 0:31:50 GMT
Sorry... I just noticed I transposed what member mentioned which type of adapter, so with a massively red face I have to correct that... The M42 mention came from biggles3, and the Exakta from xkaes. My apologies for that blunder. Here's a sold item listing for the M42 version on ebay. I'd welcome a select few of the newer lenses released on digital to find their way into film-only mounts, but I've got a hunch there's zero chance I'll see that happen. Although a lot of the non-G lenses from Nikon digitals will fit on the oldest of their film cameras, I haven't been brave enough to try them that way. I'm sure Nikon digital lenses won't be the only ones that might fit in their native mount, but I couldn't hazard a guess on how they'd work, if they'd work at all. And biggles3 ... you're absolutely right about the DX 100mm, and I can't fathom why my mind continues to blank out on that one lens. I've set a new ebay saved search to remind myself to look. :)
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 770 (71 liked)
Join date: August 2016
Status:
|
|
on Feb 1, 2021 13:34:07 GMT
Last Edit: Feb 1, 2021 13:39:31 GMT by xkaes
Yes, there are lots of obstacles to using many (most?) digital lenses on film cameras. Just because an adapter was made, it does not mean it will work for your purposes. Lots of digital lenses are made for sensors much smaller than full-frame 35mm, and have very short flange focal lenses -- far too short for 35mm SLR's. Try putting a 16mm movie lens on a 35mm SLR, and see what you get!
Add to this mix that most digital lens functions are operated electronically, and you might not be able to focus the lens or adjust the aperture -- let alone determine the correct exposure.
I can see (kinda, sorta) why some people want adapters to put old Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Contax, Minolta, etc. lenses on their over-priced digital wonders -- they can't afford the digital lenses, and they already have a closet full of great, but old, lenses.
But are there that many digital camera users to warrant 17 different adapters to use the few Pentamatic lenses? Smells fishy to this old nose! Almost as odd as slapping a Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR lens on a Pentamatic camera.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,369 (301 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Feb 2, 2021 0:15:44 GMT
Posted: Feb 2, 2021 0:15:44 GMT
I would be speculating on the 'why' question of doing 16 digital variations or why someone would want to use one or any of them, and can only offer my own take on why I adapt lenses.
Of the several digital bodies I own, only one of them has more than the original kit lens it came with. My first digital SLR was a Nikon 5200, and with film in a very steady decline at the time (2013/14-ish), it felt like the only future option might be to outfit it with new glass to expand it beyond the less-than-spectacular zoom it arrived with, and hopefully end up with a usable kit in a digital world I wasn't happy about being almost forced to be in. On a whim (and for curiousity's sake), I got an NEX F-3, as a body only, so that I could cheaply (a $79 purchase at the time) try to reuse some film lenses with it that I'd acquired over the years, using the equally cheap (> $15) dumb adapters. If I was going to be pushed into digital, at least I could do it with lenses that had character and qualities beyond the criticly sterile crop of AF optics I was getting in native F mount.
There came a time when film started it's uptick again, and for the moment, it's holding it's head above water. I won't presume it will surge to it's previous popularity, and there are uses for digital workflow that do have some merit... so I'll continue to use each one while I can. Mirrorless cameras I now use have allowed for a massive amount of lenses to get tested (for even more use on either film or digital), that I otherwise may not have given a chance before. I've managed to find a lot of amazing optics - sometimes, in strange packages - and have learned more than I expected to in the process. I'd like to think I've become a better shooter with everything new I learn, and with every experiment I've tried.
A bit off the topic, but a bit relevant - at least for me. Selecting tools to use shouldn't invalidate something older or newer, or what's in or out of favor. If I'm a productive author, I doubt my editor would try to convince me to use a computer, 'cause I'm wasting time with my portable Smith-Corona typewriter, or a pencil or pen on paper, or even my phone or a tablet with a stylus. I wouldn't scold a painter because they use traditional brushes or pallete knives or 5-gallon buckets with paint, along with or instead of Photoshop; and I wouldn't dismiss a prolific musician for playing a Zither or Sitar, instead of a polyphonic synthesizer or an electric or upright piano. I'm driven to be creative, where the ends can justify the means I use. I'm just 'wired' that way.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 770 (71 liked)
Join date: August 2016
Status:
|
|
on Feb 2, 2021 2:06:11 GMT
Last Edit: Feb 2, 2021 2:14:10 GMT by xkaes
I too am a big fan and user of many adapters -- most factory made, but some home-made because no one else makes them. Like adapting a Minolta 16mm full-frame fisheye to take circular fisheye pictures on an RB67 film back. You won't find that on any camera store's shelf! Or how about adapting a Mamiya RB67 37mm f4.5 full-frame fisheye to take circular fisheye pictures on a 4x5 camera?
I've tried 35mm lenses on digital cameras, but find the restrictions too limiting -- even though the results can be great. It's just not nearly as easy as using 35mm lenses on a 35mm camera -- or using digital lenses on a digital camera. Adapters just can't connect 1960 gear to 2020 gear. It's like trying to use diesel in a gasoline engine.
So happy adapting to everyone. That's what evolution is all about.
|
|