Godfrey
somewhat colored
Indeed, the Pentax 43 is a very nice lens, but so are a host of others.
Honestly, though, you seem to already have all the equipment you need, it's all good stuff and you seem to like it. ON that basis: Forget about buying more equipment, spend your time learning to make photographs that you're satisfied with using the good equipment you already have.
G
I was responding more to the silliness of you saying "All I see from Godfrey is b&w, maybe it doesn't make good color images..." which, frankly, is just ridiculous. The amount of value in a change from 40 to 43 mm focal length is insignificant. Rendering is another matter ...I bought the Pentax lens specifically because I was familiar with it, just as I was/am very familiar with the Summicron-C 40, M-Rokkor 40 II, and Nokton 40 MC, and I prefer the Pentax rendering character in this specific instance. But you have to already have experience with the lens to say that, or you buy something in order to gain that experience and pay the price of that education in the purchase.
Honestly, though, you seem to already have all the equipment you need, it's all good stuff and you seem to like it. ON that basis: Forget about buying more equipment, spend your time learning to make photographs that you're satisfied with using the good equipment you already have.
G
agentlossing
Well-known
I've been here many times, and I think you're correct. It's hard to transition out of the idea that new, exciting or different gear can make work better, because often it does... for a little while. I think it provides a motivational spark that gets me out more, looking harder. But that's always fleeting, when the excitement of acquisition wears down.
WoodallP
Pragmatist Barnack lover
Hi Godfrey, seeing your comments about the IIIc size and how you use its viewfinder I was just wondering if you had ever tried it on a IIIg? The slightly increased height and the borders round the framelines may make it just a bit easier.
Dralowid
Michael
Nice to see that on another of his threads Godfrey is using an Elmar with his IIIc. These Lancia drivers know the value of a classic set up.
Oren Grad
Well-known
The Special is actually narrower but longer than the K-mount version. Per Pentax's specifications, maximum diameter of the Special is 55mm while the SLR lens is 64mm, while the length of the Special is 47mm but the SLR lens 27mm. This makes sense - on the one hand, the Special doesn't need the autodiaphragm and the autofocus coupling of the SLR lens, but on the other it does need extra tube length to fit the identical optical design to the shorter flange-to-film register of a Leica-mount camera. The Special is also quite a bit heavier - 230g vs 155g. Anyway, I have the Special as well, with the matching finder - it's sitting next to me as I write this. The finder is mildly annoying - the eyepiece has a rubbery surround that leaves smudges on eyeglasses.
I will try to attach a pdf of the Pentax home-market flyer for this lens - you may need a free font plug-in from Adobe to be able to see the text, which is in Japanese. The specs and the optical cross-section are at the lower-left on the back side. As the front of it says in the lower right corner, the production run was limited to 2000 units.
Attachments
Last edited:
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Well, I've never owned or had access to a IIIg... It's therefore difficult to conjecture. The lens will work fine on any Leica body if you use its supplied finder... I just didn't find it as good a fit as I'd hoped. I'd much rather use it with my M bodies, where it feels more of a proper fit and only barely occludes the viewfinder at all (using the 35mm frame lines; no occlusion at all with the 50mm frame lines).
The Elmar 5.0cm, the Color Skopar 50mm, 28mm, and (coming soon) 35mm suit the IIIc the way I like. Not much else to say about it...
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Interesting. Thank you for the brochure! I'd never seen one of those.
By the time I'd obtained the 43 Special, my 43 Limited was long sold so I never compared them next to each other. I just report how things feel in my hands, only rarely look at specifications. ... On a Pentax SLR, the FA43 feels small; on a Leica IIIc or M4-2, the Special feels large. The different shapes/sizings of the cameras change my perception of the lens' size, I'm sure.
I didn't get the 43 Special Viewfinder ... that's one of the ways I obtained it relatively inexpensively. I find a 35mm viewfinder frame does a good enough job for me when it comes to framing, since I know the 43's FoV pretty well. When I need precision framing, I fit it to the M10-M/-R and use Live View and the Visoflex 020 for ultra precise viewing.
G
Oren Grad
Well-known
Yes! And the Special feels pretty dense for its size, too.
I didn't get the 43 Special Viewfinder ... that's one of the ways I obtained it relatively inexpensively. I find a 35mm viewfinder frame does a good enough job for me when it comes to framing, since I know the 43's FoV pretty well. When I need precision framing, I fit it to the M10-M/-R and use Live View and the Visoflex 020 for ultra precise viewing.
The Voigtlander 40mm finder isn't so pretty as the Pentax finder, but it doesn't leave gunk on my glasses.
The Special is optically a good candidate to adapt to mirrorless cameras because the SLR-intended design is relatively sensor-friendly... but OTOH it only allows focus to around 3 feet, so the SLR version is more versatile in that respect. There are some M adapters with extra helical extension, but the one I bought and then immediately unbought had a helical drenched with lubricant, and I didn't want that sitting in front of a sensor. Oh, well...
Godfrey
somewhat colored
When I got mine, I immediately bought a low-diopter close-up lens to accommodate/reduce the 1m minimum focus distance. After a dozen years of using the lens, I find I've used that close-up lens twice ... LOL! So I'd call that pretty much a non-issue for me. I just figure that if I need a closer focusing lens, I've got a few other options already in my kit.
G