[namtot]

im sure this has been asked a million times, but i need help with a decision. im using 1.6 crop camera and i need a lens wider then what my 50mm is giving me. ive been researching for a week while waiting to get paid, and today is the day. these are the lenses im considering but im open to opinions from others.

takumar smc 28/3.5
takumar 35/3.5
pantax m 28/2.8

any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks in advance.

[Adam]

I'd go with the M, as it's newer and faster. However, if you're using a non-Pentax camera, wouldn't it be easier to adapt the screwmount lenses?

[Lowell Goudge]

in the list below, the issue really is do you want to use M42 mount lenses, and have stopped down metering in Av mode, or K mount lenses and use the green button to meter in manual mode.

The smc takumar 28mm F3.5 and takumar 35mm F3.5 are M42 lenses and need to be used with an M42 to K mount adaptor, the SMC-M 28 F2.8 is a K mount lens.

Of the 2 the SMC-M F2.8 is the best IMO as it is the fastest and is a K mount.

The 35mm will seem to be not very wide at all, as it is comparable to field of view to a 50mm when used on a film SLR.

even 28mm is not very wide, but to go wider in any lens you begin to pay a lot for it.

[namtot]

im using a canon 550d (i know i know) and im planning on buying a m42 adapter or k mount adapter depending on which way i go. honestly out of the 3 i listed i love what ive seen out of the 35mm (beautiful sharp images) my only concern is its slower then id like. all i really know about the 28/2.8 is that it has awesome specs, if someone can tell me how it performs compares to the two taks, to other lenses in the focal length and range id appreciate that, sorry if im asking for to much.

[Jimfear]

It seems you are looking for a "normal" lens to your DSLR. The lenses you list are all quite slow and I think you will have more use of a faster lens. I guess a Vivitar 28mm f/2.0 could be interesting, the Kiron made and the Komine made versions are both highly regarded. I haven't used the Komine but I own the Kiron and it is a nice lens, not very good in the corners but that doesn't matter when you are using a crop camera. Check out the "Vivitar 28mm" thread here on the forum if you are not sure how to recognise the different versions (there are quite a few).

If I'd have to pick from you list I'd skip the M28/2.8, have owned it and it is in my opinion a mediocre lens. The two others should be the same construction as the K28/3.5 and the K35/3.5, I'm not sure if they are the same but if they are these two should be very good lenses. The only thing missing is SMC coating.

[hangu]

The two others should be the same construction as the K28/3.5 and the K35/3.5, I'm not sure if they are the same but if they are these two should be very good lenses. The only thing missing is SMC coating.

Are they the same?

I recently got the K 35mm f3.5 and it is a very nice walk-around and landscape lens, albeit a bit on the pricey side. I frequently see the Super Takumar 35mm f3.5 go for $30 shipped. I've never bought much into the whole SMC > Super Tak coating thing, it can't possibly make that much of a difference, can it? I suspect the K version to have a different optical elements.

[Jimfear]

Are they the same?

I recently got the K 35mm f3.5 and it is a very nice walk-around and landscape lens, albeit a bit on the pricey side. I frequently see the Super Takumar 35mm f3.5 go for $30 shipped. I've never bought much into the whole SMC > Super Tak coating thing, it can't possibly make that much of a difference, can it? I suspect the K version to have a different optical elements.

Looking at the specifications the K35/3.5 could very well be the same, all versions have 5 elements in 4 groups and they look similar also. The K28 on the other hand is not the same, as the takumar versions have 7 elements in 6 groups or 7 elements in 7 groups depending, but the K28 has 8 elements in 7 groups.

I think SMC does give better contrast and colours, and less flare obviously. I'll have to do some tests between the K55/1.8 and the Super Tak 55/1.8, they look very much alike and are most probably the same construction.

[namtot]

i ended up going with the smc tak 28/3.5, focal length is equivalent to 44mm on aps-c whice is what i was looking for and from what ive read alot of people say its an awesome lens. i paid 100$ which is probably a little to much but seller says mint with lots of + feedback, i wanted smc as ive heard it produces great color punch, contrast, and reduces flair. and it comes with lens hood, case, and original caps. cant wait!!!

[Ira]

Are they the same?

I've never bought much into the whole SMC > Super Tak coating thing, it can't possibly make that much of a difference, can it? I suspect the K version to have a different optical elements.

You might be right and maybe I bought into a lie, but as someone who owns all Supers (save one), from the shots I see here, the SMC's seem to be superior. However, this varies from model to model (not individual lens to individual lens).

Another issue that's never mentioned is that we're talking about 40-year-old lenses here in many cases--and can the coating possibly survive this period of time and actually mean anything in 2010?

Like, what's the chemistry involved here?

I can't answer the question myself, having the honor of graduating from South Shore High School in Brooklyn in 1974 with the lowest final Chemistry grade of the entire school--40.

My deskmate was on the defensive line of the football team, and he beat me with a 45.

[hangu]

Looking at the specifications the K35/3.5 could very well be the same, all versions have 5 elements in 4 groups and they look similar also. The K28 on the other hand is not the same, as the takumar versions have 7 elements in 6 groups or 7 elements in 7 groups depending, but the K28 has 8 elements in 7 groups.

I think SMC does give better contrast and colours, and less flare obviously. I'll have to do some tests between the K55/1.8 and the Super Tak 55/1.8, they look very much alike and are most probably the same construction.

The lens review section shows that the K35 3.5 and Super Tak 35 3.5 have an identical number of elements and groupings. I've wondered, though, if there were a possibility that it could still be different in quality or glass type, etc...

You might be right and maybe I bought into a lie, but as someone who owns all Supers (save one), from the shots I see here, the SMC's seem to be superior. However, this varies from model to model (not individual lens to individual lens).

Another issue that's never mentioned is that we're talking about 40-year-old lenses here in many cases--and can the coating possibly survive this period of time and actually mean anything in 2010?

Like, what's the chemistry involved here?

I can't answer the question myself, having the honor of graduating from South Shore High School in Brooklyn in 1974 with the lowest final Chemistry grade of the entire school--40.

My deskmate was on the defensive line of the football team, and he beat me with a 45.

You need to stop being so hard on yourself.

[mz-3]

From the three, I would select M 28/2.8.