Yeah, I got it bad......

**Eaglerapids** · 11-10-2007, 11:01 PM

Since I got a pretty good deal on a SMC K-mount 200/4, I figured it needed it's Super-Takumar predecessor to keep it company:-).

This picture was taken with the SMC Takumar 50/1.4. I haven't had a chance to shoot with it a whole lot and at first I tried f16 to get a lot of DOF. The pictures were terrible! What the heck. Is the lens a really bad copy? It sure looks nice. But when I backed off into the middle ranges (f5.6-f8) it showed it's stuff. It's a very nice lens also but my copy doesn't do f16 at all. Well, I mean it does but diffraction is really bad.

Mike Cash · 11-11-2007, 01:43 AM

One can never have too many Takumars lying around.

**Eaglerapids** · 11-11-2007, 08:15 AM

I went on a little binge in the last couple of weeks. I'm waiting on the 135/3.5. The guy said it was a Super-Takumar but the picture is of a Super-Multi-Coated Takumar. He didn't specifically say the pictures were of the actual lens but, of course, I'm hoping:-). I'll be happy if it's the Super, though, if it's in as good a shape as the description.
I will now have the Super-Takumar 28/3.5, the SMC Takumar 50/1.4, the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135/3.5 (I hope), and the Super-Takumar 200/4:-).
It's about time for the eagles to show up on Lake Coeur d'Alene and I still don't have a Pentax 300mm in any flavor:-( and I'm running out of money. I'm still looking for a good deal......
My Sigma 70-300 might have to be good enough this year but I want a Pentax 300mm.

11-10-2007, 11:01 PM	#1
Eaglerapids Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Idaho,USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,619	Yeah, I got it bad...... Since I got a pretty good deal on a SMC K-mount 200/4, I figured it needed it's Super-Takumar predecessor to keep it company:-). This picture was taken with the SMC Takumar 50/1.4. I haven't had a chance to shoot with it a whole lot and at first I tried f16 to get a lot of DOF. The pictures were terrible! What the heck. Is the lens a really bad copy? It sure looks nice. But when I backed off into the middle ranges (f5.6-f8) it showed it's stuff. It's a very nice lens also but my copy doesn't do f16 at all. Well, I mean it does but diffraction is really bad.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
FA 31mm Limited assembled in Vietnam - bad QC or bad luck.	Voe	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	64	03-03-2010 05:44 PM
Night Fisheye At A Nightclub = Yeah Yeah!	Christopher M.W.T	Post Your Photos!	28	12-10-2009 10:09 PM
Streets Oh yeah that one...	bbluesman	Post Your Photos!	6	09-30-2009 05:51 AM
Tamron Adaptall... Bad lens or bad adapter	Okami	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	05-01-2008 06:52 PM
LBA? Oh yeah...	Alvin	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	04-20-2007 05:49 PM

11-11-2007, 01:43 AM	#2
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	One can never have too many Takumars lying around.

11-11-2007, 08:15 AM	#3
Eaglerapids Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Idaho,USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,619 Original Poster	I went on a little binge in the last couple of weeks. I'm waiting on the 135/3.5. The guy said it was a Super-Takumar but the picture is of a Super-Multi-Coated Takumar. He didn't specifically say the pictures were of the actual lens but, of course, I'm hoping:-). I'll be happy if it's the Super, though, if it's in as good a shape as the description. I will now have the Super-Takumar 28/3.5, the SMC Takumar 50/1.4, the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135/3.5 (I hope), and the Super-Takumar 200/4:-). It's about time for the eagles to show up on Lake Coeur d'Alene and I still don't have a Pentax 300mm in any flavor:-( and I'm running out of money. I'm still looking for a good deal...... My Sigma 70-300 might have to be good enough this year but I want a Pentax 300mm.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search