| Author: | | Showing Reviews 1-15 of 27 | | Site Supporter Registered: November, 2011 Location: Citrus Hills, Fl Posts: 31
1 user found this helpful
| | Lens Review Date: December 14, 2011 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $70.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | | | Cons: | | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 6
Handling: 10
Value: 10
| |
Just recieved mine today, already taken a dozen or so pics with it. I LOVE this lens, I think its my favorite lens to date! Mine is the s-m-c version in EXCELLENT condition
Of course one person has to go against the grain, guess its me on this one. I actually find this lens easier to focus than the others that I have. I have a split screen from an me super right now, and it helps alot.
a shot to show it off:
100% crop:
 | | | | | Site Supporter Registered: October, 2010 Posts: 675
1 user found this helpful
| | Lens Review Date: October 23, 2011 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $50.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Compact, color rendering, sharpness. | | Cons: | Can't make starbursts...if that's a con.? | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 10
| |
Really nice lens. My copy is Super-takumar. Beaten up body, but optics is superb, no scratches nothing. Also it is still easy to focus, smooth as butter, as it should be.
I have taken this lens in many kind a shooting and It just keeps surprising me. Time after time. Nice FL to shoot, cheap. At dark scenes it makes some noise to picture though compared to my other lenses. So not so much for lo light beast, but you would not wait it from lens like this either 
Colors must be brought up once again. It is just incredible that how rich color you can have with this lens. Thinking that it is just Super, not SMC about 50+ years old! WOW.
I Think that you can buy this lens for cheaper that I did, but even for more money it is worth it.
Here is some pictures made with it.
  | | | | | Site Supporter Registered: November, 2010 Location: California Posts: 981
1 user found this helpful
| | Lens Review Date: August 28, 2011 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $99.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Sharp, neat, small, user friendly, nice bokeh, easy to focus | | Cons: | It is not superfast | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
| |
This lens is a small little gem that I carry around and does all kind of photos. One of the best Super Takumars ever. I have the Super Takumar, not the SMC and I do not miss the SMC, this lens does not have a problem with sun light at all.
Here are some of the photos taken with it. I will post more later.
Vito by Palenquero, on Flickr
Flores by Palenquero, on Flickr
Salvia by Palenquero, on Flickr
Pinkies by Palenquero, on Flickr
| | | | | New Member Registered: November, 2011 Posts: 1 | | Lens Review Date: December 5, 2011 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: N/A
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | light but sturdy, small, good contrast... | | Cons: | hard to focus, min f/16, dark lens... | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 6
Handling: 9
Value: 8
| |
This lens was given to me by my uncle, it is in perfect state, the focus ring is smooth as hell, it's sharp if you can obtain focus, but obtaining focus is a tad difficult even in low apertures, what is a shame, if not for this problem the lens would be a very nice one.
Even in bright daylight and wide open, it gives dark colors, making everything look gloomy, but has a very nice contrast even in the shadows.
I don't like the bokeh at all, probably because it only have 5 blades, the out of focus isn't smooth and almost all the shiny spots are cut in half or distorted.
My version only have f/16 as minimal, it is very small and light, the use of tripod is recommended if you tend to shake.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: April, 2010 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Posts: 404 | | Lens Review Date: July 22, 2011 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $90.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Compact, sharp, contrasty, beautiful colours | | Cons: | all manual | |
I bought this to use with my ancient Spotmatic, and I'm not disappointed at all.
With the M42 adapter it is just as good on my digital cameras.
Centre is sharp at f3.5, edges sharp at 5.6, critically sharp all areas at F8.
Safe to develop 6x4 and 10x8 at F3.5-5.6, can develop 11x16 at F8
I have a few 40year old Takumar lenses, and I'm confident they will see out my life expectancy of another 30 years.
Highly recommended.
| | | | | New Member Registered: June, 2009 Location: Phoenix, Arizona Posts: 3 | | Lens Review Date: July 11, 2011 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $35.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Sharp and Compact | | Cons: | None that I can think of | |
I tried this lens on Canon 5d and I thought it was an ok lens but the result turns out to be really sharp. I am quite surprise that this lens is really sharp even at its widest opening on full frame camera. I really recommend this lens for somebody who don't want to spend a lot of money on 35mm auto focus lens and want sharp lens.
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: June, 2009 Posts: 35 | | Lens Review Date: April 2, 2011 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $70.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Very sharp, excelent construction, low CAs | | Cons: | lack of auto anything | |
I have the last version of this lens, multicoated. Till a couple of days ago I wasn't able to get my hands on a good adapter to use it with my K5.
Finally got the original Pentax adapter, and the fit camera/adapter/lens is perfect. Feels like a Limited. I use it with a small metal 50mm hood, and the whole thing is perfect.
The lens is sharp but dreamy wide open. at 5,6 it's very sharp, and at 8/11 there's no difference with the m50/1.7. Not that there isn't any, it's just both lenses on a tripod at those apertures top the sensor, I think.
What's awesome about this lens, which I think is common to other 3.5 max aperture lenses, is what others already mentioned: a very even exposure. at good aperures exposition and sharpness are sweet and even all over, corner to corner. Low CAs, for landscapes it seems to be a winner.
One intangible quality: some lenses, like the kit lens, seem quite sharp, but I think it has to do with contrast, very contrasty lenses look sharp. This is quite the opposite, it looks creamy, but when you zoom in there are tons of subdued detail. This, for demanding applications like landscape, (when speed isn't really an issue anyway) produces very PS-friendly files. You can upres them and sharpen them A LOT. On the other side, very contrasty lenses react in very diverse ways, you get ugly stuff and artifacts, evident mushy corners, etc. This 35 with proper use produces window-like images, there's no local deterioration anywhere. And I'm starting to think in this era of feasible high ISOs the big aperture lenses produce too much unevenness in exposure and aberrations to compensate for an extra stop (let alone weight!)
The lens is a 10, or a 6, depending on how much you rely on auto settings.
One bad, one good thing: hard to switch lenses in the field, it works great in Av with the stop down switch, you open, focus, close down, shoot, and the red focus confirmation light is quite reliable, at least in my outfit.
This photo and the cropped corner sampled illustrate most aspects I'm talking about here.
 | | | | | Giveaway winner! Registered: December, 2007 Location: beantown Posts: 403 | | Lens Review Date: February 1, 2011 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $7.50
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Sharp, all metal | | Cons: | only in M42, sharper than DA 16-45 at 35 | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 10
| |
[FONT="Fixedsys"]Yes that was $7.50... don't hate me as I'm sure I've used up my luck for finding a billion in a paper bag...
Anyway... On my K20D it seems to be a sharp lens and for a Super-Takumar, it is a very well behaved lens in bright light. Some contrast loss was evident in a bright lit room, however, very minor compared outdoor light and thanks to its good contrast, it is hard to see right away. The issue with glare was easy enough to shield with a hand and then the slight loss cleared up. So a side to side test against my DA 16-45mm set at 35mm@f4 and the images looked sharper and cleaner with the Sup-Tak 35mm@f4. At 5.6, things start to get better. I am very happy with this lens.
The film test also backs the lens up![/FONT]
| | | | | New Member Registered: December, 2010 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 15 | | Lens Review Date: December 30, 2010 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $50.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Metal build body, nice feel of focus ring | | Cons: | I rarely use it | |
I like this lens because of typical Pentax Manual Lens which body is made of metal and nice touch of focus ring. I always go for 50mm so I rarely use it.
| | | | | New Member Registered: March, 2009 | | Lens Review Date: October 18, 2010 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: N/A
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | sharpness, low CA, contrast, small, build | | Cons: | | |
S-M-C Takumar 35/3.5
Probably the most ballanced 35mm Asahi-made M42 lens. Contrasty, sharp, low-CA.
On APS-C optical quality is quite comparable to good copy of Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35/2.4. Bokeh is a bit less smooth, but that's not a real problem for wide-open lens, which was designed for landscape photography.
Auto Takumar 35/3.5
I'd say, that Super/S-M-C Takumar is based on recalculated optical formula of the Auto Takumar. The earlier Auto Takumar performs slightly different. I'd say, that lateral CA is slightly lower, but sharpness in corners too.
Both f/3.5 Takumars don't contain radioactive elements (f/2 models do).
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: January, 2010 Location: Southern England Posts: 379 | | Lens Review Date: July 13, 2010 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: N/A
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Very, very sharp and is TINY! | | Cons: | At this focal length, accurate focusing is tricky. | |
(My copy is the S-M-C version.)
Superbly sharp lens - almost the sharpest I own (the Rikenon 50mm/f2 just about beats it). An absolute joy to have on the camera, because it's so small and light - almost pancake-like.
At 35mm focal length, accurate focusing is a real problem. If my experience with my K-m (K2000) is anything to go by, DSLR focus-assist facilities are (much) worse than useless, so be prepared for some very careful manual focusing. Best solution is to use a focusing screen with a focus aid (like a split-prism).
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: February, 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 2,200 | | Lens Review Date: June 15, 2010 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $50.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | very sharp, colors, small, sturdy, goooood-looking | | Cons: | | |
I can't believe this lens received grades of 6 and 7. For the price, it's a 10. I have the non-SMC version, and, as someone else said, from f5.6 it's as sharp as can be (and I mainly use it at 5.6 and 8) for street shots. Beautiful colors. Haven't noticed a lot of flare--perhaps mine is one of the later Super Taks, which are said to have some SMC even if not mentioned on the front ring.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: June, 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Posts: 13,942 | | Lens Review Date: March 27, 2010 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: N/A
| Rating: 9 |
|
This is a well built compact lens that is good for general landscape photography etc, especially on film. This review is for the Super Tak version prior to the S-M-C version. This is a good wide angle lens for film and a usable focal length on APS-c. If there is a downside it is the f3.5 maximum aperture. However, the 35mm f2 taks are a lot longer than this lens so its a trade off. I like its rendering. However, I prefer the Auto-Tak 35mm f3.5 to this lens because the Auto Tak 35mm f3.5 is smaller! The Tak 35mm f4 is also smaller.
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: August, 2009 Location: Lexington, KY Posts: 29 | | Lens Review Date: September 21, 2009 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $40.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Tiny & solid, rich colors, sharp, good flare resistance | | Cons: | Slow f/3.5, my copy has a strange defect | |
This is for a "minty" Super Takumar on a 1.5X crop digital.
A 35mm lens on a 1.5X crop DSLR is technically more like a normal lens, but the images from this lens look like they are cropped from a wide angle. Of course, they are... but it's the combination of rich colors, fine detail, and handling of depth of field that give it away. Despite the narrower angle of view, this is still a lens you want to stop down (to f/5.6-8) and shoot landscapes with. The colors are really outstanding for landscapes, easily the most intense of my many lenses, yet natural looking.
There's really nothing to complain about other than the slow f/3.5. Looking for a faster version of this lens, I purchased an f/2 S-M-C. It is actually better than the f/3.5 for general use, but the f/3.5 colors are much stronger -- I still use it where that's what I want.
However, as the images above show, there is something odd about my copy: under just the right lighting, there is some "puffy" appearance at the edges of the glass inside the lens. Closer viewing reveals a crystalline pattern that looks more like what's left when salt water evaporates. At first, I figured this might be fungus or mold, then I thought it might be caused by an odd internal reflection off the mounting of the front element, which has an unusual angled shape at the edge where it is mounted. I next thought it might be a glue problem, but it isn't separation of a glued pair because the front element isn't a pair. Separation of edge black is a possible explanation, although there is no obvious paint-flake structure.
As of May 2011, it has been suggested to me that the problem is aluminum hydroxide (AlOH) caused by moisture reacting through flaws in the coating of the metal surface. This seems very feasible, because I've seen many people do overly wet cleanings of lenses. A little seepage is likely in such a case, and the cleaning fluid used (water?) easily could be held in contact for an extended period.
I'm still open to suggestions. In any case, the problem has no visible effect on images or even on the PSF, so I'm leaving it how it is.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: June, 2009 Location: San Diego, CA, USA Posts: 407 | | Lens Review Date: September 10, 2009 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: N/A
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Compact, lightweight, great build quality, flare resistance and sharpness, fantastic color saturation. | | Cons: | Slow max aperture and not a great lens for smooth bokeh. Not horrible in this aspect, but not fantastic. | |
My review is based on an Super-Multi-Coated version of this lens. I was given it for free by a fellow photographer who shot Nikon and couldn't find a use for it. It started me off on M42 and Takumars, and it's given me some of the sharpest shots I've ever taken.
Skies are deep blue, greens are vibrant, and reds and oranges and yellows really pop with this lens. It's got great micro-contrast, so stonework and tree bark really look alive and detailed. I use it on a Canon 40D and a Spotmatic, and I like the FOV it gives on the Spotmatic more, but I haven't processed any rolls of film so I can't say beyond what the digital files show, which is nothing short of superb.
My only complaints would be the slow max aperture, being that I shoot at dusk or night a lot, and the it's not mind-blowing in it's bokeh rendering. Easy to work around the first point by using a tripod, and easy to work around the second by tailoring your shots to give the best results with the tools you are working with (stop down and watch your OOF highlight areas...).
Overall, I'd gladly pay $100 for this lens versus $350 for the Canon 35mm f/2.0, even though the latter has AF, auto aperture and is a decent bit faster.
| | |
;)
;)
;)
