The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Not really something I could cobble to the G1

photoSmart42

New member
Some of the older Canon FD lenses have radioactivity as well - thorium specifically. The 35mm/2.0 for example is known to be radioactive (the ones that go to f/16). Also some of the FL lenses.
 

RichA

New member
Some of the older Canon FD lenses have radioactivity as well - thorium specifically. The 35mm/2.0 for example is known to be radioactive (the ones that go to f/16). Also some of the FL lenses.
Also some of the Pentax Takumar m42 mount lenses. I had the 35mm f2.0 and it was.
 
A

Abbazz

Guest
I have two copies of the Kodak Aero Ektar 178/2.5 lens. One is in its original barrel mount and one has been adapted to M42 mount with a focusing helicoid. The lenses are big and badly radioactive, but I don't think they are a major health threat. I just won't store them in my bedroom :D. Here's the one in M42 mount on my Pentax K10d (a rather big DSLR):



Here's a picture taken wide open at F/2.5:



100% crop:



Cheers!

Abbazz
 

RichA

New member
I have two copies of the Kodak Aero Ektar 178/2.5 lens. One is in its original barrel mount and one has been adapted to M42 mount with a focusing helicoid. The lenses are big and badly radioactive, but I don't think they are a major health threat.

Abbazz
Yes, they don't pose any health risks, they are bulky. Produce dreamy looking images as well, as yours show.
 
Top