Super Takumar 35mm f/3.5 vs 35mm f/2

henrikknutsson · 02-23-2015, 12:52 AM

Hello!
i am wondering which m42 lens to purchase, the super takumar 35mm f/3.5 or the super takumar 35mm f/2. Do you guys have any recommendations?
Thanks.

sterretje · 02-23-2015, 02:27 AM - **1 Like**

Maybe reading the reviews might help: Pentax M42 Screwmount Wide-Angle Primes - Lens Reviews and Specifications - SLR and Interchangeable Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

Dartmoor Dave · 02-23-2015, 02:28 AM - **1 Like**

Hi Henrik. To make things even more complicated, there are two completely different versions of the Super Takumar 35mm/2.0. The first version is a big heavy lens with a 67mm filter ring, and the second version is much smaller with a 49mm filter ring. The one I own is the 67mm version, so that's the one I'll be talking about here.

The short answer is easy: if you can get hold of the 35mm/2.0, just grab it and never let it go. It's a truly great lens.

The problem is that the 35mm/3.5 is a great lens too. At first glance, people often prefer the results from the 3.5. It has a slightly more saturated and contrasty colour rendering than the 2.0, and it has quite strong edge contrast that gives it a feeling of super-sharpness. If you want to blow people away with their first look, the 35mm/3.5 is a lens that can do that.

The 2.0 is a much more subtle lens. The colour rendering is more natural and there's less of an immediate "Wow!" factor. The 2.0 doesn't over-emphasise the edge contrast, so at first glance it can seem less sharp than the 3.5. It's only when you compare the two lenses at 100% and stopped down a bit that you realise that the 2.0 actually resolves more fine detail than the 3.5. The 2.0 aims for fine micro-contrast and a sense of three-dimensional realism, while the 3.5 aims for high edge contrast and a sense of extreme sharpness.

Pixel peepers would not want to use the 2.0 wide open. Personally I'm not a pixel peeper, so I use it wide open quite happily.

If you want to see some excellent examples with all the different versions of both lenses, have a look through the Takumar Club here on Pentax Forums: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/31601-takumar-club-886.html

Jonathan Mac · 02-23-2015, 02:53 AM - **1 Like**

I had v2 of the f/2 (not the version that Dartmoor dave has) and I have the SMC 35/3.5 too. The 35/2 I didn't have for very long. The colour and contrast from it was nice and sharpness in the centre, wide open was not bad. The problem was that the edge sharpness was never really acceptable, even stopped down. As I already have the M series 35/2 (which is optically better), I decided to sell the Takumar. I also have an M42-mount Vivitar 35mm f/2.8 which optically is better and just as well built, though it's a stop slower and a bit larger.

The 35/3.5 on the other hand is optically fantastic. Colour and contrast are amazingly good and it's very sharp across the frame even wide open. The down-side is that it's slow, which makes focusing on a DSLR very difficult, even with a Katzeye screen installed.

I'd say the 35/3.5 is certainly worth having. The version 2 of the 35/2 is not worth the price it usually sells at.

osv · 02-23-2015, 10:32 AM - **1 Like**

the 35/3.5 is a winner on crop, lotta bang for the buck, but it's a bit weak on the sides on ff, not the most optimal choice for shooting landscapes on ff.

02-23-2015, 12:52 AM	#1
henrikknutsson Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Halmstad Photos: Gallery Posts: 27	Super Takumar 35mm f/3.5 vs 35mm f/2 Hello! i am wondering which m42 lens to purchase, the super takumar 35mm f/3.5 or the super takumar 35mm f/2. Do you guys have any recommendations? Thanks.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Wanted - Acquired: Super Takumar/SMC Takumar 35mm f/3.5, Macro Takumar 100mm f/4, Jupiter 9 85mm f/2	fretlessdavis	Sold Items	3	07-07-2013 04:38 PM
Pentax DA 35mm 2.4 vs Takumar 28mm 3.5 vs Zeiss Flektogon 35mm 2.4 vs 18-55 AL	-kb-	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	07-01-2013 04:25 PM
For Sale - Sold: Super-Multi-Coated Takumar lenses: 17mm f/4, 35mm f/3.5, 105mm f/2.8 (Worldwid	Nick Siebers	Sold Items	26	08-27-2010 07:00 PM
For Sale - Sold: FS: Super Takumar 35mm f/3.5, Vivitar 28mm f/2.5, 2x teleconverters	igowerf	Sold Items	2	11-14-2007 02:44 PM

02-23-2015, 02:27 AM - 1 Like	#2
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	Maybe reading the reviews might help: Pentax M42 Screwmount Wide-Angle Primes - Lens Reviews and Specifications - SLR and Interchangeable Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

02-23-2015, 02:28 AM - 1 Like	#3
Dartmoor Dave Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Dartmoor, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,890	Hi Henrik. To make things even more complicated, there are two completely different versions of the Super Takumar 35mm/2.0. The first version is a big heavy lens with a 67mm filter ring, and the second version is much smaller with a 49mm filter ring. The one I own is the 67mm version, so that's the one I'll be talking about here. The short answer is easy: if you can get hold of the 35mm/2.0, just grab it and never let it go. It's a truly great lens. The problem is that the 35mm/3.5 is a great lens too. At first glance, people often prefer the results from the 3.5. It has a slightly more saturated and contrasty colour rendering than the 2.0, and it has quite strong edge contrast that gives it a feeling of super-sharpness. If you want to blow people away with their first look, the 35mm/3.5 is a lens that can do that. The 2.0 is a much more subtle lens. The colour rendering is more natural and there's less of an immediate "Wow!" factor. The 2.0 doesn't over-emphasise the edge contrast, so at first glance it can seem less sharp than the 3.5. It's only when you compare the two lenses at 100% and stopped down a bit that you realise that the 2.0 actually resolves more fine detail than the 3.5. The 2.0 aims for fine micro-contrast and a sense of three-dimensional realism, while the 3.5 aims for high edge contrast and a sense of extreme sharpness. Pixel peepers would not want to use the 2.0 wide open. Personally I'm not a pixel peeper, so I use it wide open quite happily. If you want to see some excellent examples with all the different versions of both lenses, have a look through the Takumar Club here on Pentax Forums: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/31601-takumar-club-886.html

02-23-2015, 02:53 AM - 1 Like	#4
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,911	I had v2 of the f/2 (not the version that Dartmoor dave has) and I have the SMC 35/3.5 too. The 35/2 I didn't have for very long. The colour and contrast from it was nice and sharpness in the centre, wide open was not bad. The problem was that the edge sharpness was never really acceptable, even stopped down. As I already have the M series 35/2 (which is optically better), I decided to sell the Takumar. I also have an M42-mount Vivitar 35mm f/2.8 which optically is better and just as well built, though it's a stop slower and a bit larger. The 35/3.5 on the other hand is optically fantastic. Colour and contrast are amazingly good and it's very sharp across the frame even wide open. The down-side is that it's slow, which makes focusing on a DSLR very difficult, even with a Katzeye screen installed. I'd say the 35/3.5 is certainly worth having. The version 2 of the 35/2 is not worth the price it usually sells at.

02-23-2015, 10:32 AM - 1 Like	#5
osv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: So Cal Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,080	the 35/3.5 is a winner on crop, lotta bang for the buck, but it's a bit weak on the sides on ff, not the most optimal choice for shooting landscapes on ff.