Krasnogorsk K3 Lens on a DSLR

lawriejaffa

lawriejaffa

Veteran
Right so I lost a bet regarding a Krasnogorsk K3 lens (nothing new there) and im tasked with creating a mount that could let it work on a dslr (lets er mount it onto a nikon f mount for now)

I'm getting handed a lens to play with (some meteor zoom lens no doubt) and I'm quite aware of the nightmarish technical issue of trying to produce anything workable (with a 1.6 crop on the slr) and the um 16mm lens characteristic of the K3.

ie. impossible to focus - um ever! However, im going to come up with a bizarre and hilarious design (probably based on my own failed concept) but id love to hear any thoughts you might have, of theoritical optic construction which could allow it to achieve some kind of focus.

I will post an update on the focal length of the k3 lens itself tomorrow!
 
The Krasnogorsk uses a Pentax screw mount, which according to wikipedia, is also the Contax M42 screw mount.
 
The good news -- you could sort of do it to a Canon-mount camera, because M42->EOS adapters exist.

The bad news -- no way are you going to get that thing to focus on a Nikon. An M42->Nikon adapter exists, but it requires an optical element in the path, and the back of the Zenit lens is unquestionably going to impact that.

The worse news -- even if you got it to go on a Canon camera, the lens will stick so far into the body that the mirror would smack into it. Ain't gonna work.

The disastrous news -- evenif you got out some pliers and ripped the mirror out of the Canon, or if you removed the Nikon mount from the front of your Nikon camera and custom-manufactured an M42 mount on there -- the resulting image the lens would produce would be worthless. It would be an entirely black frame, with a little tiny image in the very center. Talk about vignetting -- at least 75% of your frame would be a vignette. That lens produces a standard-16mm image circle, so it's an 11mm circle of illumination. A "full frame" DSLR requires a 43mm circle of illumination, so the lens would only light up 1/16th of the frame. An APS-C DSLR requires about a 27mm circle of illumination, so... it's a pointless exercise.

Only thing you could do with that lens would be to put it on a GH2 in extended-teleconversion mode. That would work fine.
 
Why is that an uh-oh? The GH2 has no mirror so the deep extending portion of the lens won't cause problems with mirror boxes or optical elements in a M42->Nikon adapter, and the ETC mode will use a small-enough portion of the sensor that there won't be circular vignetting...
 
Only thing you could do with that lens would be to put it on a GH2 in extended-teleconversion mode. That would work fine.
Click to expand...

Aha! Well that would be the solution

Ian-T, lol despite my criticising the fanboy style of camera debates on the gh2 sub forum, ive nothing against the cam at all, im actually a dedicated panny user myself! hpx500, hvx200, with an af101 and gh2 on order...

Barry
Now the gh2 with the ext tv mode sounds like just the solution - at least to get a working version on the go, though the fun of the challenge (if it can be called fun) is to get it going on a Canon. Theres a few K3 lens lying about at my disposal, so deffo utilising one for gh2 and eventually will post footage up of that as i think that would be quite amusing to see.

With a t2i, lens removed, k3 lens wide/ placed against the mirror we get this,

lensn.jpg


Could a x2 magnifier theoritically work, if placed some distance between the camera mirror and back glass of the k3 lens? Just crudely placed before the mirror glass (with light obstructed around the camera) this was the very best focus that could be achieved! (I know this is all noobish, but as a bit of fun its quite cute to explore!)
 
Do you have the lens yet? I have one of these 16mm cams and the lens is...I would never use it with anything besides this camera. I love the camera. Wind up. Durable. Great camera. But the lens is its weakest feature. Not sure what kind of "look" you're going for, but when it's all said and done you'll probably just have some vague blurring. Also the lens is super long considering its not, ya know, telescopic or anything lol

GL!
 
Barry_Green said:
Why is that an uh-oh? The GH2 has no mirror so the deep extending portion of the lens won't cause problems with mirror boxes or optical elements in a M42->Nikon adapter, and the ETC mode will use a small-enough portion of the sensor that there won't be circular vignetting...
Click to expand...
LOL...Sorry Barry it was sort of an inside joke to lawriejaffa. But I understand your point.

lawriejaffa said:
Ian-T, lol despite my criticising the fanboy style of camera debates on the gh2 sub forum, ive nothing against the cam at all, im actually a dedicated panny user myself! hpx500, hvx200, with an af101 and gh2 on order...
Click to expand...
ha...I'm glad you have a sense of humor.
 
Hey there Chamber05! Yep your right the lens is hardly the cams most sophisticated feature (and yeah i completely love the camera) i actually used one as a prop in a wee promo i did years ago (show on an hvx200 with a brevis) http://exposureroom.com/8cdabbd819e349e9900df64a9bc684da/

The kind of look im going for is basically - 'fun curiousity' - i mean i know this is going to sound stupid, but sometimes i will work to a lens if it inspires something. For example, who isnt inspired to shoot something epic when they get an awesome new wide lens? In anycase, id even shoot from a jam jar if it gave me a unique look hehehe - hence the motivation for the K3. It will be a bit rubbish, but it'll be uniquely rubbish and i think we'd all share a little curiousity to see how it comes off.

I do have a sense of humour Ian-T, i mean you've seen in me in my panda suit right? http://exposureroom.com/c835c9fb3c5040639737796211b315a3/ I think im just the unintentional Armond White of dvxuser
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top