[rdeloe]

I have the Super Multi Coated Takumar 35/3.5 and it's quite decent at f/8 and f/11 adapted to a Sony A7. At f/5.6 and wider it's not great.

The K 35/3.5 gets great reviews in the review database. The SMC Pentax-A 35mm F2.8 also seems well liked by reviewers.

I'm wondering whether or not the K and A 35mm lenses are strong performers wider open (f/5.6 and wider). Does anyone have experiences to share, especially in direct comparison to the Takumar 35/3.5?

Thanks! Rob

[gofour3]

I have the Super Multi Coated Takumar 35/3.5 and it's quite decent at f/8 and f/11 adapted to a Sony A7. At f/5.6 and wider it's not great.

The K 35/3.5 gets great reviews in the review database. The SMC Pentax-A 35mm F2.8 also seems well liked by reviewers.

I'm wondering whether or not the K and A 35mm lenses are strong performers wider open (f/5.6 and wider). Does anyone have experiences to share, especially in direct comparison to the Takumar 35/3.5?

Thanks! Rob

The K35/3.5 and the S-M-C Takumar 35/3.5 will have similar optics, however the K Series lens will have the full SMC coatings.

I also have the K35/2 and the K35/3.5 is better optically.

Phil.

[RKKS08]

35mm lenses which are very sharp over the frame fully open are rare, and expensive.
Very good reputation you will find with Zeiss (East Germany, Flektogon, and West-Germany, Distagon). The Distagon you may sometimes also find named differently from Voigtländer and Rollei (identical optics, probably except the coatings). The ECB Fujinon-W mentioned by dcshooter plays in the same league. I also often heard praising of an Olympus Zuiko. All these lenses were available in M42, the Distagon also with PK (so I think).

But back to your problem with the Takumar:
Some time ago, another PF member opened a thread to ask which Pentax lenses are sharp without degradion when used fully open.
I remember stevebrod named the Takumar 3.5/35mm!

So either

• stevebrod was wrong
• you got a lemon
• there is something you are doing wrong

What can be done wrong with a 35mm lens?

• If you shoot fully open for reasons other than wanting small DOF, it may be because you need the amount of light. In this case, your exposure time may also tend to be longer than wanted - can cause slightly unsharp results on pixel level..
• There was never a problem to manual focus with analog cameras - but they had big bright viewfinders and split screens. With APS-C and smaller, darker viewfinders suddenly even some experienced photographers found it difficult to manually nail focus precisely. This seems to be a problem mainly with lenses in the range between 30-35mm. I guess the reason is that longer lenses support nailng focus better because of the narrower DOF, and with even shorter lenses accurate focussing is not so important anyway. But this effect is not the same with all lenses, it obviously depends on how a lens is rendering slightly out of focus areas. Specially the Zeiss lenses are famous for their "3D" effect, which also makes manual focussing a lot easier. Automatic LV focussing is effected the same way, as contrast measuring will be easier and more precise with "3D"-effect lenses.

[paulh]

I have the Super Tak 35/3.5 and the A35/2.8 and love them both. The A35 is a bit sharper wide open. This was taken at f/2.8 on the A35/2.8:

[rdeloe]

Thanks gofour for reminding me about the lineage of the K35/3.5 and the S-M-C Takumar 35/3.5. As soon as I read your comment I remembered that this point is noted in the lens review database. For coatings alone I don't think I need to switch as I always use a hood and am careful about flare and ghosting.

RKKS08, I couldn't find that link to the stevebrod comment. It's possible I have a lemon. You never know what these old lenses have been through. I just repaired a K28/3.5 that I thought was a lost cause; it was simply a loose element that required a bit of tightening. I'm confident it's not my technique; in addition to real world testing, I've tested it from a tripod against my standard ISO 12233 test chart group under carefully controlled conditions. The likeliest suspect is the adapter; remember I'm adapting these to a Sony A7, a sensor it surely was not designed for. A different adapter is on its way and that may improve things.

And paulh, good to hear the A35/2.8 is a bit sharper wide. It looks great in your picture.

At the end of the day, I paid very little for my little Tak and I should be grateful it works as well as it does!

Thanks all. Rob

[normhead]

If memory serves me well, there are also tow versions of the 35 3.5 , one that Pentax lost money on that is rare, and the one I own, probably the one you own, which is not as good, and missing one element. But the lens was preferred by about 30% of the viewers in one poll I ran. Imagine how good the good version

Sorry I didn't have any more primes.


---------- Post added 11-17-16 at 09:51 PM ----------

In this poll here, unfortunately shot on APS-c
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/312892-your...mm-images.html
The super Tak was favoured by 33% of the vote in a blind test, and based on my images appeared to be the sharpest at the edges, but I don't have a lot of all-star lenses.

However, as the number of votes for each will show, what people prefer is personal taste. If you ask any person which is the best image odds are, they won't like the lens you like most. So when someone says one lens is better than another, they mean "for their personal taste".

[southlander]

I have a copy of the M35/2. After a CLA to rid it of oil on the aperture blades and what I suspect was a bit of oil deposited on the glass, I quite like this lens. I used it a while back also on a Sony A7. On full frame at wide apertures, it has good centre sharpness out to about 2/3rds of the way to the edge of the image and then noticably softer, but absolutely fine for the sort of composition that member paulh posted into this thread. There is an improvement in centre sharpness between F2 and F2.8, particularly perceptually as a result of improved contrast. Good sharpness across the frame at typical landscape apertures of F5.6 or F8.


The use of an lens adapter I agree throws in a new uncontrolled variable. A slight lack of parallelness in the two adaptor faces can potentially produce poor results akin to lens element misalignments. Roger at LensRental I think tested a number of adapters and found observable test bench impacts in nearly all cases. How severely these might affect results in practical field use is another question of course.


For the M35/2 on APS-C, I would estimate that the fall off in wide aperture sharpness away from the centre would be very much at the extremes of the frame.


I rather like the M35/2 rendering (noting that I shoot RAW on APS-C and process to my personal taste). The Sony A7 tests I made were Jpegs as my version of Lightroom doesn't handle A7 RAW files but the starting Sony Jpegs I thought were quite good.

[stevebrot]

I remember stevebrod named the Takumar 3.5/35mm!

Don't know who stevebrod is, but I can't say I ever said anything about the Auto Tak/ST/SMC/S-M-C 35/3.5 except maybe that it is well-regarded on this site. I have never owned or shot with one.


Steve

[TrevorA]

Hello Rob

In your review of this lens you said it was easy to fix. I bought one based on the reviews on this forum and have tested it on a Sony A7Rii full-frame camera, via a Fotodiox Tilt/Shift adapter. First results are very pleasing.

However, I would like to get inside it to see if it could be adapted for a Pentacon Six mount, for which I would need to get it about 3.5mm further back than now (for infinity focus).

I took off the black plate at the back (4 screws). I then removed the 6 screws that hold the shiny chrome plate that has the three lens mounting lugs or tabs, but couldn't get it off.

Any advice from you or other forum members would be appreciated.

My aim to explore feasibility; I don't have machining tools or skills, but if it appears that there is space to do what I am after, I would pass it on to someone with the appropriate skills and experience. It could then be easily mounted onto Pentax 645 cameras via a Pentacon Six to Pentax 645 adapter, which is reportedly not hard to find (I have one on order, presumably held up in Customs). In this conversion I would expect to lose automatic aperture, but am prepared to accept that, as I use stop-down metering both on film cameras and on my digital camera.

Many thanks for any assistance!

Trevor

[kypfer]

I have a small selection of 35mm lenses, but to be honest, if ever I want/need one, it's almost invariably the EBC Fujinon-W 35mm f/1.9 that I fit. I've had it since the '80's, when screw-mount lenses were deemed "passé" and could be picked up for peanuts and I've never really needed to look for anything else. The auto-aperture coupling tab has needed to be filed off for full functionality on my Pentax and the auto-aperture pin has needed to be locked in ... but I wasn't considering selling it anyway so I'm not really worried about "value"

[Lowell Goudge]

I have SMC tak 35/2 and an M35/2. This make me think I should play wide open with both

[rdeloe]

Hello Rob

In your review of this lens you said it was easy to fix. I bought one based on the reviews on this forum and have tested it on a Sony A7Rii full-frame camera, via a Fotodiox Tilt/Shift adapter. First results are very pleasing.

However, I would like to get inside it to see if it could be adapted for a Pentacon Six mount, for which I would need to get it about 3.5mm further back than now (for infinity focus).

I took off the black plate at the back (4 screws). I then removed the 6 screws that hold the shiny chrome plate that has the three lens mounting lugs or tabs, but couldn't get it off.

Any advice from you or other forum members would be appreciated.

My aim to explore feasibility; I don't have machining tools or skills, but if it appears that there is space to do what I am after, I would pass it on to someone with the appropriate skills and experience. It could then be easily mounted onto Pentax 645 cameras via a Pentacon Six to Pentax 645 adapter, which is reportedly not hard to find (I have one on order, presumably held up in Customs). In this conversion I would expect to lose automatic aperture, but am prepared to accept that, as I use stop-down metering both on film cameras and on my digital camera.

Many thanks for any assistance!

Trevor

Hi Trevor. There's a comment in a review that's coming back to haunt me!


I have an SMC Pentax-A 645 35/3.5 that I'm using on my GFX 50R tilt-shift outfit. The one I referred to in that review was the one I used years ago with my Sony A7R and Mirex adapters. As I recall, I had to get in there to find and re-attach a screw that had come out and was rattling around. I remember it wasn't very difficult to get to where I needed to be, but I honestly can't remember enough about it to answer your questions. Looking at mine didn't refresh any memories unfortunately.


All I can offer are a couple general tips, which may not be use to you.

• Use JIS screw drivers. If you're using a standard Phillips, there's a very good chance you'll strip out the heads. Replacing those screws is very hard.
• Watch out for ball bearings and springs. It's always a good idea to work inside a shallow box of some kind, preferably white.
• Are you making lots of pictures from different angles as you go? That has saved me on a few times.

If you decide to proceed with a mount replacement, SK Grimes is a shop you should contact. They can do anything relating to lens mounts.


Where are you planning to use this lens -- on your Sony A7RII? If so, why do you need to change the mount?

Rob

[TrevorA]

Thank you, kypfer, for your suggestion. I will investigate the 35mm Fujinon 1.9 lens for 35mm “full-format” use.

Rob
Thank you for letting me come back to “haunt” you about a post you made five years ago, if I remember correctly. Thank you, also, for all the good, practical tips.

I was not familiar with SK Grimes, and will investigate.

Using this lens on the Sony A7Rii is an interesting bonus for me, but the real aim is to use it on “6×6” (2¼” square) film format, if it adequately covers the format, which is, strictly-speaking, 54mm × 54mm. If it does the job, it would be the widest rectilinear lens for this format and I would be keen to use it principally on a Pentacon Six, if making a suitable mount is possible.

[pepperberry farm]

Hello Rob

In your review of this lens you said it was easy to fix. I bought one based on the reviews on this forum and have tested it on a Sony A7Rii full-frame camera, via a Fotodiox Tilt/Shift adapter. First results are very pleasing.

However, I would like to get inside it to see if it could be adapted for a Pentacon Six mount, for which I would need to get it about 3.5mm further back than now (for infinity focus).

I took off the black plate at the back (4 screws). I then removed the 6 screws that hold the shiny chrome plate that has the three lens mounting lugs or tabs, but couldn't get it off.

Any advice from you or other forum members would be appreciated.

My aim to explore feasibility; I don't have machining tools or skills, but if it appears that there is space to do what I am after, I would pass it on to someone with the appropriate skills and experience. It could then be easily mounted onto Pentax 645 cameras via a Pentacon Six to Pentax 645 adapter, which is reportedly not hard to find (I have one on order, presumably held up in Customs). In this conversion I would expect to lose automatic aperture, but am prepared to accept that, as I use stop-down metering both on film cameras and on my digital camera.

Many thanks for any assistance!

Trevor

the lens mentioned above is a different 35mm lens than the 645 A lens you are needed assistance with....

[stevebrot]

Using this lens on the Sony A7Rii is an interesting bonus for me, but the real aim is to use it on “6×6” (2¼” square) film format, if it adequately covers the format, which is, strictly-speaking, 54mm × 54mm. If it does the job, it would be the widest rectilinear lens for this format and I would be keen to use it principally on a Pentacon Six, if making a suitable mount is possible.

You should be able to determine the diameter of the image circle with the lens off-camera. There may also be a published specification. It may be adequate for 6x6, but it is hard to say. The 10mm difference in frame diagonal is signficant. FWIW, it seems a shame to rework a valuable lens to a dead mount, just my opinion.


Steve