Pentax Adapting lenses on a Pentax DSLRs

[Petrochemist]

Despite the good results & prices of Pentax lenses, I've become a big fan of adapting lenses as well. Most of the time this is on one of my mirrorless cameras (Pentax Q, Panasonic MFT & Sony) but there are times when my SLRs work well too
Here's one of my earliest adapted lenses, used on the K100d (but shown here on a ME):

bellows IMGP2838 by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr

A 1930's Kodak 120mm f4.5 astigmat, mounted via a spare body cap & some bellows.
What lenses/mounts do other people adapt onto their K mount bodies?

 

[TNcasual]

I have my four Leica-R lenses with Leitax mounts, Elmarit-R 28 f/2.8, Summicron-R 50 f/2, Macro-Elmar-R 100 f/4 in both bellows and helicoid versions.

And depending on your definition of adapting, I also use old m42 Super Takumars, 28 f/3.5, 50 f/1.4, 105 f/2.8.

 

[Petrochemist]

I have my four Leica-R lenses with Leitax mounts, Elmarit-R 28 f/2.8, Summicron-R 50 f/2, Macro-Elmar_R 100 f/4 in both bellows and helicoid versions.

And depending on your definition of adapting, I also use old m42 Super Takumars, 28 f/3.5, 50 f/1.4, 105 f/2.8.

I was debating whether to include M42, I started using M42 lenses on PK bodies back in the 1980's, so they feel fairly native to me, but they do still count. I've added a lot more M42 lenses since then, a few of the very good.
I've not had the chance to play with R mount, and have never gone the route of a proper mount exchange such as Leitax provide. Do you think they live up to their reputation?

I have had a play with Leica M & LTM on my Sony but that's a different story that doesn't fit here.
I'm considering attempting my own variation on the mount swap, with a Nikon lens (that I've heard reports of it giving soap bubble Bokeh) My copy has a broken mount, but I don't shoot Nikon so swapping it over would suit me better. It may be a LONG time before I get round to it.

 

[TNcasual]

The Leitax mounts are solid pieces of machined metal. I don't have any issue with their quality. And David, the creator/seller, is outstanding to work with. He responds to questions/concerns usually very quickly. They are a bit pricy for a piece of machined metal, but I understand that they are essentially hand made to order. So the price seems right for what you get. Doing the actual replacements is really pretty easy. David has picture instructions on his site that really steps through the details well.

Some examples on the K1:

Leica Elmarit-R 28 f/2.8

Flickr Album

Leica Summicron-R 50 f/2

Flickr Album

Leica Macro-Elmar-R 100 f/4 (Bellows)

Flickr Album

Leica Macro-Elmar-R 100 f/4 (Helicoid)

Flickr Album

Edit: The Flickr albums have examples of the lenses used on mft as well as the K1. I have only had them Leitaxed for about 7-8 months now.

 

[TNcasual]

I've not had the chance to play with R mount, and have never gone the route of a proper mount exchange such as Leitax provide. Do you think they live up to their reputation?

I just realized that you were probably referring to the reputation of Leica glass, not the Leitax mounts.

With regards to Leica R glass, I think it's a bit complicated. The lenses are very good lenses. They probably are comparable to top end glass from other major competitors, Nikon, Olympus, Zeiss, etc. But as with most pre-digital SLR glass, pinpoint sharpness was not an engineering goal. There is more effort in color rendering and focus fall-off. That is were I think Leica glass displays its competence. While R lenses may not meet legendary M-Noctilux or Summilux levels, they are good, if not great lenses.

They do run a bit more price-wise than comparable lenses from other manufacturers. I am not completely certain they are worth the extra cost. But I am happy to keep what I have and use them with outstanding results (in my eyes.)

 

[Petrochemist]

I just realized that you were probably referring to the reputation of Leica glass, not the Leitax mounts.

With regards to Leica R glass, I think it's a bit complicated. The lenses are very good lenses. They probably are comparable to top end glass from other major competitors, Nikon, Olympus, Zeiss, etc. But as with most pre-digital SLR glass, pinpoint sharpness was not an engineering goal. There is more effort in color rendering and focus fall-off. That is were I think Leica glass displays its competence. While R lenses may not meet legendary M-Noctilux or Summilux levels, they are good, if not great lenses.

They do run a bit more price-wise than comparable lenses from other manufacturers. I am not completely certain they are worth the extra cost. But I am happy to keep what I have and use them with outstanding results (in my eyes.)

I was referring to both, and it seemed to me your reply cover both as well

You're images do show that they are good, but I always find it hard to judge when someone else is using kit, some photographers can make top quality kit look awful & others can get great images from junk.

Value for money is another thing that's difficult to access, as the value of money depends on how much of it you have.
I've known people in years past who would think nothing of spending £100 on a bottle of wine for the evening, when just £10 felt a distinctly extravagant to me.

I'm afraid however good they are I personally can't justify the expense, but that doesn't stop me admiring them & enjoying the chance when I'm allowed to try out someone else's.

 

[TNcasual]

I think the Leica R glass does just a bit of the work in making images look nice.

I lucked into a really good deal in getting three of my Leica R lenses. They aren't something I would probably go for otherwise.