The Angry Photographer reviews "hot" Takumar lenses.

pathdoc · 10-14-2016, 06:08 AM

Optically and build quality-wise he has nothing but the highest praise for them, particularly the 50/1.4.

Super and SMC Tak 50mm f/1.4

You Tube

Super Tak 55mm f/2

You Tube

Complete with the sweet sounds of Geiger counters going absolutely crazy.

Fat Albert · 10-14-2016, 07:10 AM

High praise indeed. I've never heard of this guy before.

**bobbotron** · 10-14-2016, 07:47 AM

I have a non thoriated (?) 55mm SMC m42 f1.8 takumar. You can pry that lens from my cold dead hands. :P

pathdoc · 10-14-2016, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by bobbotron

I have a non thoriated (?) 55mm SMC m42 f1.8 takumar. You can pry that lens from my cold dead hands. :P

I have the f/2 versions in both SMC (late model) and Super, and I agree.

Ken Pimontel · 10-14-2016, 09:45 AM - **4 Likes**

Originally posted by pathdoc

I have the f/2 versions in both SMC (late model) and Super, and I agree.

Word.

**chuck_c** · 10-14-2016, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by dcshooter

Dude is wrong on several points:

Thank you dcshooter for the clarification on those points.

Don't you just love it when those youtube yahoos have those epiphany moments about the quality of Pentax products, both past (Takumar) and present. Something of which most of us here are already aware.

Na Horuk · 10-14-2016, 12:00 PM

Seems like a fun guy. But I want to hear some more opinions. I know these lenses are highly popular on these forums, but there are so many 50mm - 55mm primes. Are these ancient primes really so good? So much better than a DA 50mm f1.8, speaking purely about optics? Or a Rikenon 50mm f1.4 XR, Zeiss Planar? I'm sure there are differences in character, but it is difficult to say one is "best" by a large margin, no?
I'm genuinely wondering. I love old lenses, I use an M 50mm f1.7 and its pretty great. And I enjoy an Industar 50-2, Helios 44-2. But the guy in the video gives so much praise its almost like the lens morphs the very landscape in front of it!

pathdoc · 10-14-2016, 12:20 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Na Horuk

But the guy in the video gives so much praise its almost like the lens morphs the very landscape in front of it!

If I wanted to be a real cynic, and also not completely serious, I'd say that he's been in Nikon so long that using a Takumar has opened his eyes to what a good lens is all about.

The original 8-element 50/1.4 was (according to its profile here) designed to topple the Planar as the best lens in existence, which it reportedly did, then they had to go to the 7-element version because of the horrendous cost (a loss on every lens sold), and I think the thorium doping might have been introduced to try to make the 7-element version perform as well as its predecessor.

I find the DA50/1.8 a competent lens, but there is something subjective about my Taks that beats it every time and also it doesn't have an aperture ring so I can't use it to full effect on my film cameras.

rrstuff · 10-14-2016, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Na Horuk

Seems like a fun guy. But I want to hear some more opinions. I know these lenses are highly popular on these forums, but there are so many 50mm - 55mm primes. Are these ancient primes really so good? So much better than a DA 50mm f1.8, speaking purely about optics? Or a Rikenon 50mm f1.4 XR, Zeiss Planar? I'm sure there are differences in character, but it is difficult to say one is "best" by a large margin, no?
I'm genuinely wondering. I love old lenses, I use an M 50mm f1.7 and its pretty great. And I enjoy an Industar 50-2, Helios 44-2. But the guy in the video gives so much praise its almost like the lens morphs the very landscape in front of it!

I had the 55mm F1.8 SMC Tak and DA 50mm F1.8. I think the DA50 is a bit sharper wide open, stopped down they are similar. Flare control is better on the new one, and I think bokeh is a bit better on the old one. I still gave the old lens 9 or 10 in reviews, because the images that come out of it are very nice. When stopped down, I printed a 20x30 print, taken at dusk, which is sharp at close inspection. It's a very good lens for just 25 bucks.

---------- Post added 10-14-16 at 12:45 PM ----------

Regarding the youtube video, I found this guy to be often incorrect and sometimes a bit rude in his remarks. Dcshooter mentioned a few examples of the latter. Another one I remember was a video in which he argued that all the improvements in dynamic range and high iso performance are due to signal processing. He did so with a great conviction, while not mentioning hardware improvements, such as backlit sensor that increased the relative size of a photosensitive element.

jwc77 · 10-14-2016, 01:09 PM

I have owned a pretty good number of 50's through the years. I currently have the DA *55 which is an amazing modern autofocus lens with beautiful rendering. But there IS JUST SOMETHING about the feel/experience/rendering of the taks (especially the 50s and 55s and even my SMC 135 f2.5) that is just unique. They feel so right in the hands and they take pictures unlike that of many modern lenses. I guess they just have a special quality about them in my opinion. I wouldn't ever let go of my collection of taks. They are a permanent fixture on my K-01.

Originally posted by Na Horuk

Seems like a fun guy. But I want to hear some more opinions. I know these lenses are highly popular on these forums, but there are so many 50mm - 55mm primes. Are these ancient primes really so good? So much better than a DA 50mm f1.8, speaking purely about optics? Or a Rikenon 50mm f1.4 XR, Zeiss Planar? I'm sure there are differences in character, but it is difficult to say one is "best" by a large margin, no?
I'm genuinely wondering. I love old lenses, I use an M 50mm f1.7 and its pretty great. And I enjoy an Industar 50-2, Helios 44-2. But the guy in the video gives so much praise its almost like the lens morphs the very landscape in front of it!

**monochrome** · 10-14-2016, 05:13 PM

I've accumulated quite a large number of normal Tak's over the last twenty years. Most came with a camera I wanted. Some were left in a box on my front porch by friends, like babies left in baskets on the steps of an orphanage. A few like the 8-element and the Auto-Tak Zebra I pursued.

My observation / contribution to the thread , , , there are plenty of Planar normals from the era that render fabulous images. Comparison is often a matter of taste, not quality of final image.

Honestly though - nothing feels like a grooved-ring Takumar in actual use. No other normal is such a sensual pleasure to use. I have had optically perfect Takumars CLA'ed simply to get 40 more years out of fresh helicoid grease. They're that good.

reeftool · 10-15-2016, 07:16 AM

I'm so thrilled that he instills fear in potential buyers of this lens. If you drop this in your house, you're totally screwed.

It's one of the finest lenses ever made but.....

It keeps the prices down!

There are lots and lots of mildly radioactive products we use every day. Remember the good old days of television when we were bombarded with radiation from some of the tubes in our electronics? How did we survive?

I suppose I could go live out in the woods somewhere but, OH NO! Those Coleman Lanterns are radioactive as hell too!

audiobomber · 10-15-2016, 08:05 AM

Most of you have probably read this article by Mike Johnston in 2009: My Favorite Lens - Luminous Landscape

I just watched the video. That voice, that laugh, the misinformation. He should change his name to the Annoying Photographer.

**ChrisPlatt** · 10-15-2016, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by reeftool

There are lots and lots of mildly radioactive products we use every day.

Radioactive consumer products:
http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/consumer%20products/consumer.htm

Chris

reeftool · 10-16-2016, 06:00 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by ChrisPlatt

Radioactive consumer products:
http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/consumer%20products/consumer.htm

Chris

The list left out a lot of naturally radioactive food such as bananas, potatoes, carrots, or any food high in potassium. Many wells in Sartatoga County. NY are mildly radioactive due to radium deposits. The world famous springs of Saratoga are radioactive enough that there are warning signs not to drink more than a small amount every week. I'm not sure of the quantity off the top of my head but it isn't much. I don't worry because it tastes like crap but some people drink lots of it, bathe in it because they say it has "healing powers" and yes, some of the springs do glow in the dark.

I just mention all this because every so often the radioactive lens hysteria comes up. It's like they think Takumar lenses shoot out death rays or something every time you take a picture.

10-14-2016, 09:45 AM - 4 Likes	#5
Ken Pimontel Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 42	Originally posted by pathdoc I have the f/2 versions in both SMC (late model) and Super, and I agree. Word. Attached Images

10-14-2016, 05:13 PM	#11
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	I've accumulated quite a large number of normal Tak's over the last twenty years. Most came with a camera I wanted. Some were left in a box on my front porch by friends, like babies left in baskets on the steps of an orphanage. A few like the 8-element and the Auto-Tak Zebra I pursued. My observation / contribution to the thread , , , there are plenty of Planar normals from the era that render fabulous images. Comparison is often a matter of taste, not quality of final image. Honestly though - nothing feels like a grooved-ring Takumar in actual use. No other normal is such a sensual pleasure to use. I have had optically perfect Takumars CLA'ed simply to get 40 more years out of fresh helicoid grease. They're that good. Last edited by monochrome; 10-14-2016 at 05:26 PM.

10-15-2016, 08:05 AM	#13
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Most of you have probably read this article by Mike Johnston in 2009: My Favorite Lens - Luminous Landscape I just watched the video. That voice, that laugh, the misinformation. He should change his name to the Annoying Photographer. Last edited by audiobomber; 10-15-2016 at 08:18 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Takumar 135mm f/2.5 or "Why fast lenses are so frustrating!"	jadedrakerider	General Photography	13	07-27-2016 10:36 PM
Exposure accuracy of "A" lenses on older film bodies ("K" series)	Lititz	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	05-26-2015 01:59 AM
Dear, "i...i" and "r....t" on ebay, bidding on the 50-135mm lenses	mee	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	64	02-07-2015 07:25 PM
Optical differences between Pentax "K", "M", and "A" lenses	6BQ5	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	31	01-10-2014 01:02 PM
Hot: The Online Photographer puts K20D in top 10, better image quality than D300"	cateto	Pentax News and Rumors	28	06-18-2008 07:16 AM

10-14-2016, 07:10 AM	#2
Fat Albert Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 966	High praise indeed. I've never heard of this guy before.

10-14-2016, 07:47 AM	#3
bobbotron Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: Ottawa, ON Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,349	I have a non thoriated (?) 55mm SMC m42 f1.8 takumar. You can pry that lens from my cold dead hands. :P

10-14-2016, 08:17 AM	#4
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381 Original Poster	Originally posted by bobbotron I have a non thoriated (?) 55mm SMC m42 f1.8 takumar. You can pry that lens from my cold dead hands. :P I have the f/2 versions in both SMC (late model) and Super, and I agree.

10-14-2016, 11:47 AM	#6
chuck_c Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Westerville, OH Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,588	Originally posted by dcshooter Dude is wrong on several points: Thank you dcshooter for the clarification on those points. Don't you just love it when those youtube yahoos have those epiphany moments about the quality of Pentax products, both past (Takumar) and present. Something of which most of us here are already aware.

10-14-2016, 12:00 PM	#7
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Seems like a fun guy. But I want to hear some more opinions. I know these lenses are highly popular on these forums, but there are so many 50mm - 55mm primes. Are these ancient primes really so good? So much better than a DA 50mm f1.8, speaking purely about optics? Or a Rikenon 50mm f1.4 XR, Zeiss Planar? I'm sure there are differences in character, but it is difficult to say one is "best" by a large margin, no? I'm genuinely wondering. I love old lenses, I use an M 50mm f1.7 and its pretty great. And I enjoy an Industar 50-2, Helios 44-2. But the guy in the video gives so much praise its almost like the lens morphs the very landscape in front of it!

10-14-2016, 12:20 PM - 1 Like	#8
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381 Original Poster	Originally posted by Na Horuk But the guy in the video gives so much praise its almost like the lens morphs the very landscape in front of it! If I wanted to be a real cynic, and also not completely serious, I'd say that he's been in Nikon so long that using a Takumar has opened his eyes to what a good lens is all about. The original 8-element 50/1.4 was (according to its profile here) designed to topple the Planar as the best lens in existence, which it reportedly did, then they had to go to the 7-element version because of the horrendous cost (a loss on every lens sold), and I think the thorium doping might have been introduced to try to make the 7-element version perform as well as its predecessor. I find the DA50/1.8 a competent lens, but there is something subjective about my Taks that beats it every time and also it doesn't have an aperture ring so I can't use it to full effect on my film cameras.

10-14-2016, 12:39 PM	#9
rrstuff Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Pasadena, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,126	Originally posted by Na Horuk Seems like a fun guy. But I want to hear some more opinions. I know these lenses are highly popular on these forums, but there are so many 50mm - 55mm primes. Are these ancient primes really so good? So much better than a DA 50mm f1.8, speaking purely about optics? Or a Rikenon 50mm f1.4 XR, Zeiss Planar? I'm sure there are differences in character, but it is difficult to say one is "best" by a large margin, no? I'm genuinely wondering. I love old lenses, I use an M 50mm f1.7 and its pretty great. And I enjoy an Industar 50-2, Helios 44-2. But the guy in the video gives so much praise its almost like the lens morphs the very landscape in front of it! I had the 55mm F1.8 SMC Tak and DA 50mm F1.8. I think the DA50 is a bit sharper wide open, stopped down they are similar. Flare control is better on the new one, and I think bokeh is a bit better on the old one. I still gave the old lens 9 or 10 in reviews, because the images that come out of it are very nice. When stopped down, I printed a 20x30 print, taken at dusk, which is sharp at close inspection. It's a very good lens for just 25 bucks. ---------- Post added 10-14-16 at 12:45 PM ---------- Regarding the youtube video, I found this guy to be often incorrect and sometimes a bit rude in his remarks. Dcshooter mentioned a few examples of the latter. Another one I remember was a video in which he argued that all the improvements in dynamic range and high iso performance are due to signal processing. He did so with a great conviction, while not mentioning hardware improvements, such as backlit sensor that increased the relative size of a photosensitive element.

10-14-2016, 01:09 PM	#10
jwc77 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Rolla, MO Posts: 269	I have owned a pretty good number of 50's through the years. I currently have the DA *55 which is an amazing modern autofocus lens with beautiful rendering. But there IS JUST SOMETHING about the feel/experience/rendering of the taks (especially the 50s and 55s and even my SMC 135 f2.5) that is just unique. They feel so right in the hands and they take pictures unlike that of many modern lenses. I guess they just have a special quality about them in my opinion. I wouldn't ever let go of my collection of taks. They are a permanent fixture on my K-01. Originally posted by Na Horuk Seems like a fun guy. But I want to hear some more opinions. I know these lenses are highly popular on these forums, but there are so many 50mm - 55mm primes. Are these ancient primes really so good? So much better than a DA 50mm f1.8, speaking purely about optics? Or a Rikenon 50mm f1.4 XR, Zeiss Planar? I'm sure there are differences in character, but it is difficult to say one is "best" by a large margin, no? I'm genuinely wondering. I love old lenses, I use an M 50mm f1.7 and its pretty great. And I enjoy an Industar 50-2, Helios 44-2. But the guy in the video gives so much praise its almost like the lens morphs the very landscape in front of it!

10-15-2016, 07:16 AM	#12
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,554	I'm so thrilled that he instills fear in potential buyers of this lens. If you drop this in your house, you're totally screwed. It's one of the finest lenses ever made but..... It keeps the prices down! There are lots and lots of mildly radioactive products we use every day. Remember the good old days of television when we were bombarded with radiation from some of the tubes in our electronics? How did we survive? I suppose I could go live out in the woods somewhere but, OH NO! Those Coleman Lanterns are radioactive as hell too!

10-15-2016, 08:07 AM	#14
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,694	Originally posted by reeftool There are lots and lots of mildly radioactive products we use every day. Radioactive consumer products: http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/consumer%20products/consumer.htm Chris

10-16-2016, 06:00 PM - 1 Like	#15
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,554	Originally posted by ChrisPlatt Radioactive consumer products: http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/consumer%20products/consumer.htm Chris The list left out a lot of naturally radioactive food such as bananas, potatoes, carrots, or any food high in potassium. Many wells in Sartatoga County. NY are mildly radioactive due to radium deposits. The world famous springs of Saratoga are radioactive enough that there are warning signs not to drink more than a small amount every week. I'm not sure of the quantity off the top of my head but it isn't much. I don't worry because it tastes like crap but some people drink lots of it, bathe in it because they say it has "healing powers" and yes, some of the springs do glow in the dark. I just mention all this because every so often the radioactive lens hysteria comes up. It's like they think Takumar lenses shoot out death rays or something every time you take a picture.