|
|
|
S-M-C/Super Takumar 28mm F3.5
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
Average Rating
|
|
93% of reviewers
|
$42.27
|
8.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Description:
|
The Super version of this lens came in three productions: an early and a late first model, and a second model. The first model featured a slightly differently designed distance scale than the second model.
The first model has a filter diamteter of 58mm and the early version has a smallest aperture of f/22 whereas the late version only reaches f/16. The aperture ring of the early model has fine ribs, the late version coarse ribs.
The second model takes 49mm filters and go to f/16, and was later issued as a Super-Multi-Coated version.
Pictured to the left is the first model, early version; in the center the second model; to the right the Super-Multi-Coated version of the second model.
Variants:
1962: Super-Takumar 1:3.5/28 - first model, early version - refer first picture above
| Weight | Diam x Length | Filter Size | Min. Focus | Max. Magnification | | 260 g | | 58 mm | 40 cm | | | Diagonal FOV (APS-C) | Horizontal FOV (APS-C) | | Min. Aperture | Max. Aperture | | 55 degrees | 46 degrees | | f/22 | f/3.5 | | Diagonal FOV (24x36) | Horizontal FOV (24x36) | | Diaphragm | Optical Construction | | 75 degrees | 65 degrees | | Automatic | 7 elements, 6 groups |
1965: Super-Takumar 1:3.5/28 - first model, late version
| Weight | Diam x Length | Filter Size | Min. Focus | Max. Magnification | | 260 g | | 58 mm | 40 cm | | | Diagonal FOV (APS-C) | Horizontal FOV (APS-C) | | Min. Aperture | Max. Aperture | | 55 degrees | 46 degrees | | f/16 | f/3.5 | | Diagonal FOV (24x36) | Horizontal FOV (24x36) | | Diaphragm | Optical Construction | | 75 degrees | 65 degrees | | Automatic | 7 elements, 6 groups |
1966: Super-Takumar 1:3.5/28 - second model - refer second pricture above
1971: Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 - refer third picture above
| Weight | Diam x Length | Filter Size | Min. Focus | Max. Magnification | | 218 g | | 49 mm | 40 cm | | | Diagonal FOV (APS-C) | Horizontal FOV (APS-C) | | Min. Aperture | Max. Aperture | | 55 degrees | 46 degrees | | f/16 | f/3.5 | | Diagonal FOV (24x36) | Horizontal FOV (24x36) | | Diaphragm | Optical Construction | | 75 degrees | 65 degrees | | Automatic | 7 elements, 7 groups |
The optics diagram above is for this model
|
|
|
|
|
Author
|
|
carpents
Pentaxian
Registered: September 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 1225
|
|
Review Date: Mon January 8, 2007
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $50.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, compact size/weight, overall image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Small-ish widest aperture
|
|
Simply a terrific lens that re-produces woderful textures in all its images. It is sharp all the way down to f/3.5 and is a small, light lens.
Chromatic aberration/purple fringing is very low, probably due to the relatively small f/3.5 aperture.
Obviously this isn't as good a low-light choice as the 28/2.8 lenses unless you're comfortable at high ISOs.
|
|
|
|
|
Finn
Pentaxian
Registered: February 2007
Location: Ames, Iowa
Posts: 988
|
|
Review Date: Sun March 4, 2007
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $50.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality, compact size, build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
speed
|
|
A wonderful, compact lens that produces beautifully sharp photos. The focus is smooth and precise, and the build quality is outstanding, like all the old Takumars. The only drawback is the small aperture wide open. This sometimes makes it difficult to focus precisely when using Av mode, because the diaphragm remains stopped down. A very small price to pay for such a great little lens.
|
|
|
|
|
Mechan1k
Pentaxian
Registered: June 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2556
|
|
Review Date: Mon May 19, 2008
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $88.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality, build quality, size
|
|
Cons:
|
speed
|
|
Going on the images above ... I have a late first version by the looks of things.
My first foray into M42 and manual lenses ... this is a very nice lins indeed ... the construction and build quality of this lens is superb. The focus ring is smooth (but not loose at all). The aperture ring clicks reassuringly throughout the entire range.
First images from this on my K10D was crisp wide open. Colours had nice saturation and great contrast (little to no PP was needed). Focus is sharp.
One thing that is a drawback is that in low-light it isn't the quickest. That's all that I can fault on it. Other than that ... it's a great lens and performs much better than I was expecting for the price.
I do recommend this lens though ... it is good value for money.
|
|
|
|
|
cousinsane
Site Supporter
Registered: February 2008
Location: madison
Posts: 215
|
|
Review Date: Thu May 22, 2008
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $65.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
build quality and center sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
slow, corner sharpness and vignetting wide open
|
|
I once owned the SMC version of this lens. Later got myself a K28/3.5 and decided to let this one go.
It really is a lovely little lens. I couldn't believe how compact it is when I first got it. The build quality is excellent and I enjoy the field of view of the 28mm focal length on APS sensor.
I did some non-scientific test of this lens vs the K28/3.5. I found that wide open both lenses show dark corners, which is probably common for all older wide angle lenses. Once stopped down the vignetting is gone.
Center sharpness is about the same but the K28/3.5 beats the Takumar hands down in corner sharpness. The Takumar looks a little warm or maybe you can say the K looks a little cool. I can't really tell cause my monitor is not calibrated.
At F3.5 the lens is on the slow side for a prime and manual focus can be a little difficult in darker places. But somehow I find myself using this lens mostly at hyper-focal length anyway.
Overall I think this lens is pretty good. Though I prefer my K28/3.5, it's a lot harder to come by than the Takumar.
|
|
|
|
|
JMS
Senior Member
Registered: October 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 273
|
|
Review Date: Tue June 3, 2008
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): None indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, good CA control, low distortion, like a TANK, good flare control
|
|
Cons:
|
M42
|
|
I like. Simple as that.
|
|
|
|
|
jamonation
Loyal Member
Registered: June 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 347
|
|
Review Date: Fri August 1, 2008
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $30.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Well-rounded IQ, cute, easy to use
|
|
Cons:
|
Lens hood uses a rotating collar mount (+/-)
|
|
Very pleased with this lens. Mine is the 2nd version Super Takumar (the one with the gold coloured coating).
Not much to add to what has already been said. Not as prone as other Super Takumars to flaring or fringing even in bright light or high contrast -- smallish f3.5 aperture helps with that.
It has a very wide hyper-focal range as well which is a definite advantage with digital since many digital only lenses aren't so much suited to deep hyper-focusing.
Bought mine for a song, $30, with the official lens hood and cases so that skews my rating up from an 8-8.5 to a 9 since I'm just tickled with anything stamped Asahi Pentax and Super Takumar 
Only drawback is the Takumar lens hood since it doesn't screw on. That being said, it is also a plus since the hood can be left mounted and filters/lens cap can be added or removed without having to unscrew it.
All around a terrific lens, I think with some practice it will proudly sit right along side my SMC-K 28/3.5 lens that cost 5x as much.
|
|
|
|
|
Nesster
Pentaxian
Registered: October 2006
Location: NJ USA
Posts: 3359
|
|
Review Date: Tue September 2, 2008
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $20.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Size/cute factor, IQ, good geometry
|
|
Cons:
|
speed
|
|
I have two copies, a Super and a S-M-C.
First the positives: sharp image, little geometric distortion, very good color.
The negative: slow max aperture.
I think the metal shade is way cool by the way, it twist locks over the barrel, leaving the filter threads open.
The intangible, or why I'm not as excited as I could be: In direct comparison to the SMC-A 28, I don't see any significant difference. The SMC-A is a 2.8 and has slightly better resolution. Color rendition is very similar. On this basis, I wouldn't say the Takumars have any real advantage... except for the coolness factor and the screw mount.
Based on my samples of Pentax 28's, the focal length is not typical of other Pentax lenses: the rendition is very high resolution but without the contrast bump and color pump many of the other lenses have. These are not Technicolor, which isn't a bad thing...
I love the focal length on both film and digital crop. These are excellent lenses capable of truly great photographs.
|
|
|
|
|
sveinmb
Member
Registered: September 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 99
|
|
Review Date: Wed September 17, 2008
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $25.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, great build quality, cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
f3.5
|
|
Got this one together with the Super Takumar 55/1.8 for $50. It's the late version Super Takumar.
For a 28mm I find it really compact, especially when you consider its age. Like the other Takumars the build is great and focusing accurate. My tests indicate that it is one of the sharper 28mm lenses available. It is rather slow at f3.5, but in most cases there wouldn't be much point in having f2.8 if images became a lot softer I guess.
As usual the coating is not as good as more modern versions and it seems to have a bit light falloff in the corners. The color rendition on my copy is quite cold compared to newer lenses. Perhaps even more so than my K-lenses. I've never really decided which one I prefer. The slightly bluish images from the 28/3.5 can be cool at times.
I think this is a must-have if you own a spotmatic or some other cool m42 camera. On more modern cameras it may have more competition. Although there are a lot of different 28s out there, not all are excellent performers. If you are willing to take the extra hassle of using a screwmount on your camera, this one may be a cool one to buy. It might be better to find the K-version and have wide open diaphragm while focusing. Optically I think they are pretty much the same. They are certainly both able to produce some great images.
|
|
|
|
|
Jewelltrail
Site Supporter
Registered: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 2186
|
|
Review Date: Wed September 24, 2008
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): None indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Very nice focus feel--high quality build--sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
This is a great little 28mm, even @ 3.5 wide open. The lens has such a polished look and feel to it, that it demands respect from that alone. I have an early version of the early versions. It was gifted to me by a family member who bought it brand new and cared for it religiously; the lens, except that its build somewhat dates it, appears brand new in all other respects. This says something about the original owner, but also about the Takumar quality as well.
If I could ask a little more out of the lens, I would ask for a bit more contrast. I am not a big fan of post-processing.
|
|
|
|
|
Bellakelpie
Junior Member
Registered: November 2008
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 33
|
|
Review Date: Sat December 6, 2008
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $27.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
Speed
|
|
There was a 4th version of this lens produced.
It was made between 1965 and 1966 and sold under the "Honeywell Pentax" name.
It is identical to the 1st version, taking a 58 mm filter, but the aperture only goes to f16.
The name ring says "Super Takumar" but the lens cap is marked Honeywell Pentax.
I have one of these. I have not yet tried it on a Digital body, but as far as a film lens goes, it is brilliant.
|
|
|
|
|
figmental1978
Pentaxian
Registered: February 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 630
|
|
Review Date: Sun February 15, 2009
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $25.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
small, light, cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
slow aperture
|
|
I'm usually a low light / shallow DOF shooter so I never really use my Super Multi Coated Takumar 28mm, and it's my loss. Although usually in my bag, I never tend to use it due to it's slow aperture but it can produce some high quality shots.
I want to test this lens on the street and landscapes to see where it can fit into my style of shooting, I love Takumar lenses and it's a shame I don' use this one more often.
|
|
|
|
|
titrisol
Pentaxian
Registered: December 2007
Location: ROTTERDAM/Quito and anywhere in between
Posts: 574
|
|
Review Date: Fri June 12, 2009
|
Would you recommend the lens? No |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): None indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
This is a so-so lens, I found the 3rd parties alternative even better.
There are tons of 28/2.8 lenses available which have better sharpness
|
|
|
|
|
ProfHankD
New Member
Registered: August 2009
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Tue September 22, 2009
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $40.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact, can be very sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
Distortion, corner softness (even on APS-C)
|
|
This reviews a "minty" Super Takumar tested on 1.5X crop APS-C digital.
I really like 28mm lenses, especially on full frame, but it isn't very wide on APS-C. That said, images look like a cropped 28mm wide-angle, not a 42mm normal, in terms of depth of focus and that "detail everywhere" look.
Sharpness is good wide open, but better around f/5.6-f/8. There is a mild color shift toward blue when stopped down on my Sony A350, but colors are generally good and I haven't seen flare yet. (One would expect flare problems given the flatness of the front element, but nope.) There is some distortion and corner softness (yes, even on APS-C); it's not bad, but it is worse than many 28mm lenses and might be pretty bad on full frame. Close focus also isn't very close.
Overall, I think the 35mm f/3.5 makes slightly better images.
That said, IQ is easily in the 7-8 range, the lens build quality is superb, and the lens is quite tiny for what it has to do. It's an easy lens to like, but probably not love.
|
|
|
|
|
Eaglerapids
Site Supporter
Registered: April 2007
Location: Idaho,USA
Posts: 1588
|
|
Review Date: Sat September 26, 2009
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): None indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
It's a Takumar:-)
|
|
Cons:
|
It's a tad hard to focus for me.
|
|
I was reading through the Takumar section and saw Bellakelpie's review. Hmmm I thought, something sounds weird about this. I checked my copy and sure enough I have the 4th version! But in my case I have the Asahi Pentax cap. Mine has 58mm threads and only stops down to f/16. I took a couple of pics. The second one has the filter that came with the lens when I bought it (hopefully readable) showing the 58mm threads.
 Click on the image to view it in a larger size
 Click on the image to view it in a larger size |
|
|
|
|
Blue
Site Supporter
Registered: June 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Posts: 6627
|
|
Review Date: Mon February 8, 2010
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $45.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact Size and build
|
|
Cons:
|
f3.5 is a bit slow
|
|
This is for the Super Tak that takes the 49mm filters. This lens is capable of good colors. The contrast is improved with the matching shade.
Note to people review the 28mm Taks: It is important that you specify which lens you are reviewing. The Super Tak with 58mm filter lenses have 7 elements in 6 groups while the 49mm filter Super Tak and S-M-C tak lenses have 7 elements in 7 groups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:49 AM.
|
;)
;)
;)
;)
