Would a Tele-Takumar-Takumar 400 be a good astro or nature/bird lens?

bladerunner6 · 08-27-2015, 02:59 AM

Someone local has the Tele-Takumar version of this lens for sale, along with some other gear that I don't need.

Tele-Takumar/Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 400mm F5.6 Reviews - M42 Screwmount Extreme Telephoto Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

I see that it has some CA according to some users.

Any opinions on this?

Thanks.

**marcusBMG** · 08-27-2015, 07:17 AM

I haven't had an opportunity to make a comparison with the takumar but I have tried a number of vintage 400mm MF lenses, and my impression from the reviews here is that the tak isn't particularly better than the best of those though it is a more sophisticated 5 element design and a bit faster at f5.6 than the typical f6.3's. Price then becomes a primary consideration, I wouldn't pay several times more for the tak.
IMO best of the f6.3's is the tokina RMC/variants. However (apart from the T4 versions by soligor/vivitar) that's fixed mount and PK versions are not so easy to find (M42 ok). The very vintage tokyo koki 400mm, like the 400mm f6.3's generally, is variable in quality, I have had one good one, branded hanimex, that was pretty much as sharp as the tokina rmc, and one bad one, a prinz-galaxy, that I sold on quick. The classic soligor 400mm chrome eared is usually ok too.
And I should mention my favourite vintage 400mm the tamron nestar.

Overall I would remark that your expectations for any of these lenses needs to be realistic!

pathdoc · 08-27-2015, 08:57 AM

Depends on what sort of astro you want it for. For stars, one would think wide-angle would be more the go unless you're specifically interested in a particular bit of sky. If what you want is the moon, OTOH, that's another matter.

bladerunner6 · 08-27-2015, 09:13 AM

Thanks for the input, everyone.

Yes, my expectations are realistic. I do know that this a budget, old lens.

As for the subject, I as thinking the moon and maybe a few bright nebula or galaxies.

I will just have to see if he will sell it cheap enough.

Thanks.

G and T · 08-27-2015, 11:41 AM

Lenses for Astro and lenses for nature/birding require different attributes. Birding and nature will require sharpness,well controlled for CA and purple/green fringing and be good with OOF highlights.
Astro doesn't require the same, its biggest attribute should be its light gathering ability and you wont have to worry about OOF highlights!
I have many high end lenses across different mounts but my best Astro lens is one of the cheapest, a Tokina mirror lens, for light gathering they can't be beaten for the low prices they command.
Most astronomical telescopes use the same mirror technology for this light gathering ability with its smaller lighter form. As good as a mirror lens is for Astro I wouldn't use it for anything else, those
OOF dohnut bokeh rings are just awful.

Glenn

Quicksand · 08-27-2015, 04:45 PM

bladerunner6, I posted one of those reviews in the review thread you linked, back in 2009. Yikes! I had a K20d at the time.

Re-reading the review, I think I pretty much stand by it. It's . . . an OK lens. Focusing is difficult, particularly handheld, but that's true for all long MF lenses.

If I needed or wanted a fairly inexpensive 400mm lens I think I'd buy it again, but over the course of time I have discovered that I almost never use it. Not because it's bad, but because my style rarely has me reaching for anything longer than my 77mm Limited.

On odd occasions I have used it for a solar eclipse or the transit of Venus. I'll see if I can track down a couple of photos to post.

In recent months I have thought about selling it but I haven't taken the steps to list it.

bladerunner6 · 08-27-2015, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Quicksand

bladerunner6, I posted one of those reviews in the review thread you linked, back in 2009. Yikes! I had a K20d at the time.

Re-reading the review, I think I pretty much stand by it. It's . . . an OK lens. Focusing is difficult, particularly handheld, but that's true for all long MF lenses.

If I needed or wanted a fairly inexpensive 400mm lens I think I'd buy it again, but over the course of time I have discovered that I almost never use it. Not because it's bad, but because my style rarely has me reaching for anything longer than my 77mm Limited.

On odd occasions I have used it for a solar eclipse or the transit of Venus. I'll see if I can track down a couple of photos to post.

In recent months I have thought about selling it but I haven't taken the steps to list it.

Any astro photos with it would be useful for me to see.

That is my primary use for it.

Thanks.

Quicksand · 09-02-2015, 05:11 PM

Sorry for the late reply. I don't have any (traditional) astro shots with this lens because I haven't had any tracking mechanism to use with it (I picked up a K-3 II only very recently) and at 400mm any non-tracking shutter speed would have to be unusably short.

But I do have this Transit of Venus shot from 2012, which was taken on my K-5 with the Tele-Tak 400 shot through two layers of aluminized mylar "emergency blanket" material held onto the end of the lens with a rubber band. Even so, it was 1/8000s at something like f/11.

If this isn't a good indicator of image quality, what is?

08-27-2015, 02:59 AM	#1
bladerunner6 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 2,080	Would a Tele-Takumar-Takumar 400 be a good astro or nature/bird lens? Someone local has the Tele-Takumar version of this lens for sale, along with some other gear that I don't need. Tele-Takumar/Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 400mm F5.6 Reviews - M42 Screwmount Extreme Telephoto Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database I see that it has some CA according to some users. Any opinions on this? Thanks.

08-27-2015, 07:17 AM	#2
marcusBMG Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: North Wales Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,868	I haven't had an opportunity to make a comparison with the takumar but I have tried a number of vintage 400mm MF lenses, and my impression from the reviews here is that the tak isn't particularly better than the best of those though it is a more sophisticated 5 element design and a bit faster at f5.6 than the typical f6.3's. Price then becomes a primary consideration, I wouldn't pay several times more for the tak. IMO best of the f6.3's is the tokina RMC/variants. However (apart from the T4 versions by soligor/vivitar) that's fixed mount and PK versions are not so easy to find (M42 ok). The very vintage tokyo koki 400mm, like the 400mm f6.3's generally, is variable in quality, I have had one good one, branded hanimex, that was pretty much as sharp as the tokina rmc, and one bad one, a prinz-galaxy, that I sold on quick. The classic soligor 400mm chrome eared is usually ok too. And I should mention my favourite vintage 400mm the tamron nestar. Overall I would remark that your expectations for any of these lenses needs to be realistic! Last edited by marcusBMG; 08-27-2015 at 09:03 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Takumar-A 2x tele converter	tromboads	Sold Items	8	08-19-2015 05:39 AM
What would be a good macro or close-up lens for me? (Details inside)	Frog_Botherer	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	38	02-17-2014 10:26 AM
Just Scored a Tele Takumar 200mm F5.6 and a Tele Takumar 300mm F6.3!	Colorado CJ	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	01-22-2012 05:53 PM
Would Pentax SMC 100-300mm f4.7-5.8 be a good airshow lens for a Canon T2i?	ImperfectSense	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	04-04-2010 12:56 PM
What would be a good lens to get for a wedding?	creoleart	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	68	08-01-2009 08:49 AM

08-27-2015, 08:57 AM	#3
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Depends on what sort of astro you want it for. For stars, one would think wide-angle would be more the go unless you're specifically interested in a particular bit of sky. If what you want is the moon, OTOH, that's another matter.

08-27-2015, 09:13 AM	#4
bladerunner6 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 2,080 Original Poster	Thanks for the input, everyone. Yes, my expectations are realistic. I do know that this a budget, old lens. As for the subject, I as thinking the moon and maybe a few bright nebula or galaxies. I will just have to see if he will sell it cheap enough. Thanks.

08-27-2015, 11:41 AM	#5
G and T Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Langwarrin Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 382	Lenses for Astro and lenses for nature/birding require different attributes. Birding and nature will require sharpness,well controlled for CA and purple/green fringing and be good with OOF highlights. Astro doesn't require the same, its biggest attribute should be its light gathering ability and you wont have to worry about OOF highlights! I have many high end lenses across different mounts but my best Astro lens is one of the cheapest, a Tokina mirror lens, for light gathering they can't be beaten for the low prices they command. Most astronomical telescopes use the same mirror technology for this light gathering ability with its smaller lighter form. As good as a mirror lens is for Astro I wouldn't use it for anything else, those OOF dohnut bokeh rings are just awful. Glenn

08-27-2015, 04:45 PM	#6
Quicksand Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Central Ohio (formerly SF Bay Area) Posts: 1,519	bladerunner6, I posted one of those reviews in the review thread you linked, back in 2009. Yikes! I had a K20d at the time. Re-reading the review, I think I pretty much stand by it. It's . . . an OK lens. Focusing is difficult, particularly handheld, but that's true for all long MF lenses. If I needed or wanted a fairly inexpensive 400mm lens I think I'd buy it again, but over the course of time I have discovered that I almost never use it. Not because it's bad, but because my style rarely has me reaching for anything longer than my 77mm Limited. On odd occasions I have used it for a solar eclipse or the transit of Venus. I'll see if I can track down a couple of photos to post. In recent months I have thought about selling it but I haven't taken the steps to list it.

08-27-2015, 06:45 PM	#7
bladerunner6 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 2,080 Original Poster	Originally posted by Quicksand bladerunner6, I posted one of those reviews in the review thread you linked, back in 2009. Yikes! I had a K20d at the time. Re-reading the review, I think I pretty much stand by it. It's . . . an OK lens. Focusing is difficult, particularly handheld, but that's true for all long MF lenses. If I needed or wanted a fairly inexpensive 400mm lens I think I'd buy it again, but over the course of time I have discovered that I almost never use it. Not because it's bad, but because my style rarely has me reaching for anything longer than my 77mm Limited. On odd occasions I have used it for a solar eclipse or the transit of Venus. I'll see if I can track down a couple of photos to post. In recent months I have thought about selling it but I haven't taken the steps to list it. Any astro photos with it would be useful for me to see. That is my primary use for it. Thanks.

09-02-2015, 05:11 PM	#8
Quicksand Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Central Ohio (formerly SF Bay Area) Posts: 1,519	Sorry for the late reply. I don't have any (traditional) astro shots with this lens because I haven't had any tracking mechanism to use with it (I picked up a K-3 II only very recently) and at 400mm any non-tracking shutter speed would have to be unusably short. But I do have this Transit of Venus shot from 2012, which was taken on my K-5 with the Tele-Tak 400 shot through two layers of aluminized mylar "emergency blanket" material held onto the end of the lens with a rubber band. Even so, it was 1/8000s at something like f/11. If this isn't a good indicator of image quality, what is?