Ricoh slr lens

[lil dvl]

just curious to know if old ricoh slr lens would be compatible with any new digital slr bodys?

 

[ksmattfish]

Since it's K-mount it should fit on the Pentax DSLRs. I'm sure it won't work with most of the auto features, and there may be some other issues, but in general it should work.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Once upon a time in the south. I was looking for a solid 35mm pentax lens. I looked all over the local stores and one was none to be found at any price. Tons and tons of zoomers but no solids.

From out of somewhere and old guy, I used to buy stuff from because he gave good advice, came up with a ricoh 35mm solid lens. I paid about twice what it was worth I'm sure, but I stuck it on my wedding camera and off I went. That poor lens was abused more than any lens I ever owned and worked fine the whole time.

By the way the 35 or equivalent was the perfect lens for that kind of shooting. You cant work a fifty in a small room and a 28 is too wide so you get light drop off from the strobe. At least that's my opinion.

Of course that was then this is now. I know it will fit on the pentax dslr what it will do I have no idea.

 

[ksmattfish]

My first 35mm SLR was a Ricoh KR-5. It was a nice, basic SLR. They go for less than $30 on Ebay these days. A bargin for anyone interested in trying out a 35mm film SLR for cheap. I'm still printing from some of those negs; they still look good.

 

[oCyrus55]

I just acquired an old Canon AE-1. It's my first film camera, and it's old school. I have to go pick up some film for it and try it out. I don't want to try and change the subject lil dvl, but I have a similar question.

The Canon AE-1 has a a 50mm 1.8, and I don't have one of those for my digital. I did some research, and the Adorama adapter seems like the one adapter I should get if I do get one. Would it be worth it to spend $40 on the adapter, or should I just but the (I think) $80 new Canon 1.8?

 

[ksmattfish]

If the adapter was $20, I'd say go for it, but $40, I don't know....

The new 50mm f/1.8 is $70 brand new at B & H. A used one might not be much more than that adapter.

 

[Don Simon]

Before spending money on an adapter make sure you know what functionality you will have with an FD lens on an EOS body. I was under the impression that due to difference in spacing an FD lens on a EOS body will not focus at infinity. I think an adapter with a glass element (unlike Adorama's) would make it possible but I suspect that extra glass would degrade image quality. I'm unaware of any current digital cameras by any company that will allow the use of FD lenses with infinity focus without the adapter containing glass. Sounds like the autofocus 50mm is the best choice.

In response to the original question re a Ricoh lens, if it's Pentax K-mount then it will fit and focus on a Pentax dSLR with no trouble, however the metering functions may be limited. If the lens has an "A" on the aperture ring then it will meter normally, however if there is no "A" on the aperture ring then you will need to stop down with DOF preview when metering.

 

[Jeremy Z]

I just acquired an old Canon AE-1. It's my first film camera, and it's old school. I have to go pick up some film for it and try it out. I don't want to try and change the subject lil dvl, but I have a similar question.

The Canon AE-1 has a a 50mm 1.8, and I don't have one of those for my digital. I did some research, and the Adorama adapter seems like the one adapter I should get if I do get one. Would it be worth it to spend $40 on the adapter, or should I just but the (I think) $80 new Canon 1.8?

FWIW, I have a used-but-not-abused Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 on the block in the for sale forum. Less than $80, but in great shape. Have a look.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=68612

 

[Jeremy Z]

Boy did this thread get hijacked.

The Ricoh equipment was OK. It was kind of like a low-grade Pentax. I wouldn't touch a Ricoh body, but if Matt had good luck with it optically, I'd say it's a good bet. We had a lot of KR5s returned. We didn't carry Pentax, or I would've been selling K1000s. I tried to sell the Minolta X-700s instead; they were better cameras all around.

BTW, you can often get K1000s on ebay for $30. Why settle for a Ricoh?

I had a Yashica (FX Super?) manual SLR that took Carl Zeiss lenses; that was a good one, but I couldn't afford the lenses, hehehe.

As long as we're talking about defunct brands, what ever happened to Chinon? They used to be kind of big, back in the day. They started trying to be high tech, and got whupped when their price got close to Canon level. But they seemed OK...

 

[lil dvl]

good stuff, thanks for the help!

 

[ksmattfish]

We had a lot of KR5s returned.

But is that because there was a problem with the camera, or because some kid made fun of the user for not having one of the cool cameras? When I was in college, and when I taught photography at the local arts center, I noticed that folks would show up the first week with whatever they had (usually perfectly good), but within a week peer fashion pressure had them buying one of the big brand names. Ricoh is basic, well built gear, and it takes great Pentax glass.

Although I agree, if you can get a good K1000 for $30, I'd say go for it. Not because it's any better than the Ricoh, but they are cooler. I thought they were still going for $60 to $75.

Chinon wasn't any better or cooler than Ricoh. They got beat out by the cool brands, and went back to making office machines like Ricoh.

 

[mysteryscribe]

The very first slr I ever owned was a sears ricoh and I loved that camera but like Matt said it wasn't cool. The camera took pantax glass so in effect was a pentax once I put the lense on it.

It's one of the reasons I lost my brand fascination but you know a heck of a lot of photographers buy name brands to impress their clients. The russians made a lens with a nikon mount that the say was very close to a Nikon optically. I doubt that the mechanics were. The downfall of russian equipment as best I could tell was in the quality control. And of course there is no innovation as best I can tell. They just bought something took it apart and rebuilt it almost as good. Almost being the key word.

 

[Jeremy Z]

But is that because there was a problem with the camera, or because some kid made fun of the user for not having one of the cool cameras?

Ours (Ritz Camera, at the time) were returned because the film advance lever somehow either jammed or came disconnected internally.

The other one I was thinking of that took Zeiss SLR lenses was a Yashica FX3 Super. It was kind of like the Ricoh, but higher quality. The body quality still wasn't quite up to Pentax & Nikon levels, but it didn't feel as cheap as the KR5, and it took Zeiss T*-coated optics. As nice as that lens was, it wasn't any sharper or more contrasty than the basic Pentax SMC 50mm f/2.

 

[Jeremy Z]

It's one of the reasons I lost my brand fascination but you know a heck of a lot of photographers buy name brands to impress their clients.

I hadn't thought of this, mystery, but maybe I should have. Nikon & Canon are more recognizable to someone who doesn't know than Pentax. :meh: Oh well, I will just have to impress them with my images, THEN they will remember the name Pentax! :mrgreen: (assuming I get the job)

 

[ksmattfish]

Nikon & Canon are more recognizable to someone who doesn't know than Pentax.

Before digital Nikon and Canon may have been the professional choice for photojournalism, sports, and wildlife photography, but if you were shooting weddings, portraits, fine art, etc... you were using medium format film for your best work, and brands like Rollei, Pentax, Mamiya, Hasselblad, and Fuji. Nikon and Canon have never gone there.

Back when I was shooting weddings with film (only a few years ago) I had a guy approach me as I was setting up for the formal portraits. I was using a Hasselblad. He asked me if it was a Canon. I said, "No it's a Hasselblad." He kind of sneered, and said "Hmmph! I thought professionals used Canon.", and walked off. I was a complete hack in his eyes because I was using some no-name (to him) camera.

In 2002 I was still using a Pentax K-1000 and a Canon AE-1 for my 35mm shooting at weddings. Eventually the AE-1 crapped out, and I got a couple of Nikon FM2n's so I didn't have to carry different lenses. There were always guests who were toting Nikon F5's and top-of-the-line EOS 35mm SLRs, and I was doing my thing with a piddly K1000 (or at least an old, mechanical 35mm SLR, with no s****y vert grip!). I'm sure a few of them questioned my professionalism for using such amateur gear, but what did I care. I bet the brides had seen their photos at some point, but she still hired me.

EDIT: The censored word is "s-w-a-n-k-y".