Does Pentax make a 35mm adapter that works with a Nikon bayonet mount? or Can the adapter made for Pentax K mounts be modified "easily"? Is this a good idea? or not?

-- Douglas Pollock (dpollock@worldnet.att.net), August 01, 2000

Answers

Deron, there is a way to post your images but I don't have the expertise to inform you on this. Try contacting Tony Rowlett at rowlett@alaska.net. He has posted some shots on his LUSENET/Greenspun site called Leica Photography. Tony is the forum administrator for the site.

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), August 15, 2000.

Deron: I think you have misunderstood something I said about using 67 lenses on 35mm bodies. What I was saying was that when a P67 lens is used on a 35mm body, more paraxial rays will reach the film compared with the same lens used on the 67. In other words, the edge of the 67 film will not be as sharp as the edge of the 35mm film using the same 67 lens. It has long been known that 35mm lenses can outperform MF lenses. Why this is, I don't know. The designs are basically the same between the two formats, so there should be little difference. Theoretically, if two lenses were of the same design but one was designed for 35mm and the other was for MF, the MF should be sharper just because of the physics involved. When diameter of the optic is increased, resolution will increase when all else is equal. But, there is obviously more going on here than just diameter differences. What that is, I don't know. SR

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), August 21, 2000.

KenMar Camera has had an adapter listed for a long time in Shutterbug, and on their web site, www.kenmarcamera.com. It says "Zork Pentax 6x7-Nikon PC adapter, $399." The "PC" probably means that it adjusts for perspective control, but Zork may have one available that does not have PC capability. I don't think Pentax makes one for Nikon bodies, and someone else will have to address the modification possibilities. I called KenMar months ago, and they confirmed that with this adapter, P67 lenses can be used on Nikon bodies. Bob

-- Bobby Mahaffey (mahajen@prodigy.net), August 01, 2000.

Here is a response from Pentax: Sorry to say, Pentax Corporation does not produce an adapter to mount your lenses onto any other camera brand. We suggest you contact your local camera dealer for information regarding the availability of a third party alternative.

-- Douglas Pollock (dpollock@worldnet.att.net), August 03, 2000.

There is a firm in the UK, based in Luton I think, who will make just about any kind of adapter for anything as long as it is physically possible. I investigated them once and their prices were quite reasonable. It would not surprise me if they have what you are looking for in stock. It might be better if you don't want the shift option. Let me know if you are interested and I will look up their address and contact them. I do not have the info to hand at the moment.

Another option is just to get a secondhand Pentax 35mm body that fits the adapter that Pentax make.

Regards ...........Tony Cunningham

-- Tony Cunningham (cmserv@wxs.nl), August 06, 2000.

I got the following from Zoerk in Germany: With our adapter you can use all Pentax 67 lenses on your Nikon body, we have inside and outside mounts (for exemple for tele). All lenses are infinity focus. The normal adapter the costs are DM 300,-- (about the 1/2 in US$) and the adapter you can shift with your Pentax 67 lenses costs DM 600,--. We send all over the world, advance payment to our banking account no. If you send your address, we send with air mail all information with price-list. Regards Zoerk Phototechnic zoerk@aol.com

-- Douglas Pollock (dpollock@worldnet.att.net), August 07, 2000.

Why on earth would you want to put a huge P67 lens on a nikon or pentax? For the price of an adapter, you can pick up a couple of used lenses for a pentax 35mm or a nikon!

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@worldnet.att.net), August 07, 2000.

To Dennis in response to why an adapter:

Weight is a huge concern for me. I carry my LX body with my 67 all the time. If I can leave behind my equivalent 35mm lenses when I am hiking around the woods or streets, I save a lot of weight. (Or I can pack extra snacks.) Additionally, I am under the impression that 1) 6x7 lenses are built to more exacting standards and 2) the image is better when you use a 6x7 lens on a 35mm body because more parallel rays hit the film plane.

Lastly, you must be able to buy very inexpensive used lenses. My adapter cost $79. Not sure that a lens that is less than $79 is worth its weight...

-- Deron (dchang@choate.edu), August 08, 2000.

Well, I tested all of my p67 lenses and my nikkors and the p67 lenses on a 35mm body would be marginally less sharp than the nikkors. I would therefore conclude that 35mm enlargements would be sharper with the nikkors than the p67 lenses. Not a lot, but some.

The weight issue is a real concern, although if weight is an issue (like a trip to California two weeks ago, where I walked my legs off doing street photograpy), I take my compact nikons and lightweight lenses and shoot tech pan rated at 100 for the larger blow-ups (11x14 and 16x20) and t-max 100 at 320 for the smaller 8 1/2 by 11's. I've gotten some elegant, grainless 11x14 travel and street prints with these cameras/lenses and tech pan that would not be greatly improved with MF. My $0.02 worth.

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@worldnet.att.net), August 09, 2000.

I know that we are getting slightly off topic here, so this may require a different thread...

Gene:

I wonder if the image degradation that you see when you compare the 67 lens to the Nikkor lens has to do with alignment/fit issues related to the 67 to Nikon adapter. I just shot some comparison shots (at f4, 8, 16)using a Pentax SMC-A 2.8 macro 50mm, a Pentax SMC-M 1.4 50mm, a Pentax SMC-A 35-105 3.5 at 50mm, and a Pentax 67 SMC 4 55mm with the 67 to 35 adapter. Using my LX body and TMAX-100, I shot a complex and contrasty scene with a brick wall included. It will be fun for me to see which is the best standard for this kind of shot. I'll post my results when I print the 8x10s. (Steve, I don't suppose there is a way to post the actual images?)

-- Deron (dchang@choate.edu), August 11, 2000.

I don't use P67 lenses on my nikons. The comparison is based on objective lens tests using a resolution chart and the respective bodies. The best performance I can get from any p67 lens is about 80 lp/mm. Several of my nikkors can exceed 100 lp/mm at optimum aperature. On an 8x10, you won't see the difference. At 16x20, the difference may be obseravable, but the less enlargement to reach 16x20 for the 6x7 negative is the real difference and the whole reason to own MF.(IMHO)

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@worldnet.att.net), August 16, 2000.

Gene:

For the test results, I will be printing 8x10 blow ups of the central and corner areas of the negatives (essentially making the overall images 16x20).

I can tell the difference in terms of smoothness of the tones when I print an 8x10 from a 35mm vs. 6x7 neg. Looking from 3 feet away, however, it is difficult for me to see any difference.

Looking with a loupe at the negatives from my test, I do see that there is noticeably less detail in the images shot with the 55mm 6x7 lens than with the 50mm 1.4, 50mm Macro 2.8, and, amazingly, the 35-105mm 3.5 shot at 50mm. I am shocked by this discovery. I really thought that the MF lens was going to do better than all of the 35mm lenses.

-- Deron (dchang@choate.edu), August 16, 2000.

Here are the results of my lens testing. Keep in mind that this was a subjective resolution test. I did not use Air Force charts. I focused at about 10 feet on a very contrasty scene. I used TMAX-100 developed at 72 degrees for 7 minutes. I fixed for 10 minutes. I enlarged the image to roughly 16x20 and printed a 5x8 of the center region only. I did not (as origianlly planned) print the corners of the image because of limitations of my enlarger/work surface.

From best to worst: 50 1.4 SMC-M at f8 50 2.8 SMC-A Macro at f8 55 4 SMC-67 at f8 35-105 3.5 SMC-A at 50mm at f8 50 2.8 SMC-A Macro at f4 35-105 3.5 SMC-A at 50mm at f22 35-105 3.5 SMC-A at 50mm at f4 50 1.4 SMC-M at f4 55 4 SMC-67 at f22 50 1.4 SMC-M at f22 50 2.8 SMC-A Macro at f22 55 4 SMC-67 at f4

I was shocked to see that the 6x7 lens did so poorly and that the 35-105 3.5 zoom did relatively well (note that this is a high quality constant f3.5 lens). I think that I will be running this test again to see if I can replicate the results.

-- Deron (dchang@choate.edu), August 18, 2000.

Thanks for the edification, Steve. That is strange about 6x7 lenses not being as good as the equivalent 35mm lenses. So I may save weight in my pack, but I do lose a bit in terms of resolution. Bummer. So this begs the question: is an image taken with a 645 (with an 80mm lens) better than the same shot taken with a 35mm (with a 50mm lens)?

-- Deron (dchang@choate.edu), August 21, 2000.

You shouldn't expect MF lenses to resolve as well as top 35mm lenses. None of my other MF camera lenses (mamyia, hassie, rollei)perform any better. The large 6x7 negative more than makes up the differences. A 16 x20 in 6x7 using T-Max 100 is as good as an 8x10 in 35mm using tech pan. My 55mm (latest) has amazing sharpness and contrast. Just blows me away!

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@worldnet.att.net), August 22, 2000.

I'm a little late on the thread, but for future researcher's reference...

I am adapting some kit so I can use P67 lenses on a Nikon 35mm body primarily so that I can take advantage of the movements provided by my favourite Bronica bellows (came with an old S2A). The MF lenses provide plenty of coverage for this. Of course, I could also use the Bronica lenses, except that I want to sell them along with the rest of the unwanted Bronica equipment.

I also plan to use the bellows between Pentax 67 lens and body (the new Novoflex P67 bellows does not have any movements as far as I can tell).

Just to emphasize my point: for me, the only reason to consider using P67 lenses with a 35mm body is to use the movements of my P67- enabled bellows. This is also space/weight efficient since the P67 and 35mm kit goes around with me anyway.

-- Mike Hardman (mikehardman@ntlworld.com), March 31, 2002.