Takumar club - Page 8

mcjm78 · 07-20-2008, 05:01 AM

Didn't see a lot of tak 200mm around... will contribute some from the weekend workout...

Arjay Bee · 07-20-2008, 05:45 AM

Adaptor instructions say (not that I always follow them) put adaptor on lens first then mount lens on body. But once the adaptor is on the body I will just leave it there and unscrew/screw the lenses onto the body/adaptor as needed.

Maybe its a safety thing in case of mounting badly - any thoughts?

Zewrak · 07-20-2008, 06:10 AM

Originally Posted by Arjay Bee

Adaptor instructions say (not that I always follow them) put adaptor on lens first then mount lens on body. But once the adaptor is on the body I will just leave it there and unscrew/screw the lenses onto the body/adaptor as needed.

Maybe its a safety thing in case of mounting badly - any thoughts?

Is it the Pentax genuine? If so, there is no problem having it in the camera. Don't know about thirdparty ones. Come to think of it, you cant take the lens off with the adapter if it is the genuine. You have to unscrew the lens before you take the genuine adapter off.

*Mike Cash* · 07-20-2008, 06:14 AM

I've never tried it, but it would seem to me that mounting the lens/adapter pairing to the body would be more awkward than just mounting the adapter by itself. I guess as long as the thing gets securely mounted it really doesn't matter. I just got the mistaken impression that you were doing this even when swapping lenses.

Click on the image to view it in a larger size

Pentax K20D
S-M-C Takumar 105/2.8

jake.astig · 07-20-2008, 09:05 AM

Taken with the Super Takumar 55mm F1.8 wide open mounted on an LX.

*Mike Cash* · 07-21-2008, 02:20 AM

Very nice photos, Jake. It is easy to see somebody is fond of Japanese liquor.

Pentax K20D
SMC Takumar 50/1.4
ISO800 1/25 @ about f4

jake.astig · 07-21-2008, 02:39 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Cash

Very nice photos, Jake. It is easy to see somebody is fond of Japanese liquor.

Thanks Mike. This was at our neighborhood Japanese restaurant.

the_snark · 07-21-2008, 05:03 AM

I don't claim that this is great photography or anything, just something a bit different (for here) and I find it interesting.

I just picked up some cheap extension rings for my 55/1.8. Inspiration and/or subject material seemed to be lacking, so I had a go at a kind of shot I've seen on watch forums (yes, there are forums that don't involve cameras).

This is a 3 second exposure at f5.6 (I think), 800 ISO, with all 3 extension tubes. The super luminova was given a good charge with a torch. I was going to say that the balance wheel of my watch oscillates at 3.5Hz and therefore the second hand moves 7 times a second... but that doesn't seem to tie in with the second image, which is a 100% crop and shows 19 different positions for the second hand during those 3 seconds. I think the explanation is that there is a very faint image on either end of the 19, making 21 total, which works - 7 per second. I remember doing something similar but cruder with a P&S camera to confirm the 3.5Hz when the watch was new. (I used to be a slight watch geek... now I've moved on

)

*jsherman999* · 07-21-2008, 09:13 PM

.

Picked up a couple lenses from a friend and an ex-co-worker the past couple days - a
Spotty and some Super Taks, and then later some more Super Taks and a Helios 44.

Since I already have a S-M-C Tak 135 & 200, I figured I'd sell the 150 f/4. After
taking a series of shots this aft/evening, I'm not so sure now.

Cropped:

d.bradley · 07-21-2008, 09:58 PM

OK I'll play...but all I own is takumars, so virtually every photo I've shot in the last couple of years has been "in the club" so this isn't exactly a stretch. One from each lens...

17/4 SMC Tak:

35/2 SMC Tak:

50/1.4 SMC Tak:

85/1.8 SMC Tak:

85/1.9 SMC Tak:

300/4 SMC Tak:

500/4.5 SMC Tak:

stevebrot · 07-21-2008, 10:11 PM

Well, there is a little change in my signature. Finally, I am authentic. Finally, after all these years I actually own a real honest-to-goodness Takumar. It was in the mail today when I got home from work. I paid more than I should have, but cosmetically it looks pretty good. Feels pretty good too.

Here is one of my first pictures taken this evening as the light was waning.

S-M-C Takumar 50/1.4

Well, that looks pretty good, I said to myself, so I took a few shots wide open at distance, but the results were really lousy.

The photos of neighbor's house were even softer than my Jupiter-9 at f/2.

I don't know if there is a problem with infinity focus or if there is some other issue. I will take some more pictures tomorrow and try to better characterize the problem. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Steve

*Canada_Rockies* · 07-21-2008, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by stevebrot

Well, that looks pretty good, I said to myself, so I took a few shots wide open at distance, but the results were really lousy.

The photos of neighbor's house were even softer than my Jupiter-9 at f/2.

I don't know if there is a problem with infinity focus or if there is some other issue. I will take some more pictures tomorrow and try to better characterize the problem. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Steve

Do you have the Pentax brand M42 adapter? If not, that could be your problem. The adapter should sit absolutely flush with the face of the bayonet mount so that the lens is touching the mount - otherwise you cannot focus to infinity.

stevebrot · 07-21-2008, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by Canada_Rockies

Do you have the Pentax brand M42 adapter? If not, that could be your problem. The adapter should sit absolutely flush with the face of the bayonet mount so that the lens is touching the mount - otherwise you cannot focus to infinity.

Yep, the official Pentax adapter in the green-backed plastic pouch. Works great with my other M-42 lenses.

*Canada_Rockies* · 07-21-2008, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by stevebrot

Yep, the official Pentax adapter in the green-backed plastic pouch. Works great with my other M-42 lenses.

Well, that's one idea down the tubes.

stevebrot · 07-21-2008, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by Canada_Rockies

Well, that's one idea down the tubes.

I took a close look at the back of the lens and was unable to find any obvious scratches. There is, however, a slight cloudiness that appears to be on the inner surface of the rearmost element right smack at the center of the lens. It is only visible in oblique light. Fungus? Botched CLA? I don't know, but the position is potentially poison.

I will do some additional tests tomorrow and a direct comparison with my other 50s. If it does not perform to par with my Rikenon 50/1.7 or my Pentax-M 50/1.7 (both reputedly inferior to the Tak), I will request a return trip to the seller.

Steve