[cyberjunkie]

Every time I find positive reviews, or just simple opinions, about the SMC Pentax f/3.5 35mm (the last time was yesterday, when @monochrome answered to my question about his wonderful collection of K series primes, expressing his deep appreciation for the 3.5/35mm), I remind myself that I already own so many 35mm primes. To this day, I resisted, but I'm sure that if I ever find one in good condition for a very nice price, I'd be very tempted
If this forum was not tempting enough, today YouTube brought to my attention (of course I'm an open book to their algorithms) a nice review of Pentax and Takumar 35mm objectives. I keep repeating I own enough 35mm primes, but watching the video fueled my LBA a little more, with new ideas...
It's one of the best reviews I watched so far. Nice location, no newbie hype, no terrible errors, decent pics, and a very good choice of lenses (from a very early Takumar to the FA).
I own no early Takumars, and only one Auto Takumar, but I think most of them are beautiful. A close view of them is worth watching the video, IMHO.
The idea of pitting such old lenses against much modern ones is also interesting.

Here is the URL:

You Tube

You Tube

cheers

Paolo

[IgorZ]

Interesting video. I'll have to watch it. There are at least 2 lenses that I'd like to get... Thanks for rekindling my LBA...

[monochrome]

@cyberjunkie I haven’t watched the entire video yet but the intro part about the lenses is interesting. Of the lenses reviewed, I have the Auto-Tak 35/3.5, the S-M-C Tak 35/3.5 and the K35/2. I had the FA35/2 but sold it when I bought the FA31 Limited. Of course as mentioned I also have the K35/3.5, and also the DA35/2.8 Macro.

There’s no question that I have at, far too many lenses to even begin to claim any sort of justification for owning them. AFA 35mm goes, I really like the focal length and each lens has a place for use on one of my cameras. If it would ever stop raining and warm up just a bit I will take my K-1 and all the 35’s to the Botanical Garden for some real world image making.

[gofour3]

Good stuff and thanks for posting!

Though I'm not sure about the K35/2 turning yellow and being radioactive. It's older M42 brother reportedly was, then again since the K35/2 & SMC Takumar 35/2 have the same optical design I guess it could be possible.

Phil.

[jbinpg]

Thanks for this, Paolo. It is quite clear from the video that the coating on the SMC-M lens made a huge flare resistance difference from its older siblings. Each has their charm, of course. You should feel lucky to have such a choice.

[monochrome]

Good stuff and thanks for posting!

Though I'm not sure about the K35/2 turning yellow and being radioactive. It's older M42 brother reportedly was, then again since the K35/2 & SMC Takumar 35/2 have the same optical design I guess it could be possible.

Phil.

Not sure the K35/2 used Thoriated glass (thorium oxide) like the SMC Tak 35/2 (which has been reported to be mildly radioactive). Some people claim the K50/1.4 is also radioactive (like the SMC Tak 50/1.4). Not sure about that one either.

[Ronald Oakes]

Very nice video. I have all but two of these. I noticed there was no SMC-A 35mm in there ?

[cyberjunkie]

Good stuff and thanks for posting!

Though I'm not sure about the K35/2 turning yellow and being radioactive

Mine is not yellowed.
It's the last K series I purchased, and I postponed any meaningful testing till I get back to Italy, but I remember I didn't notice any major yellowing.
So IF it has radioactive thorium glass, it was either already de-yellowed, or the glass barely turned color.

Of all the lenses tested, based on the pics shown in the video, I prefer the Super Tak and the FA. Though, given the strong limits of a heavily compressed YouTube video, the differences don't stand out as much as they would in print (or in full res on a huge computer monitor).
All YouTube reviews, even the best ones, share this common problem. The quality of the videos is a powerful equalizer. All subtleties disappear.

A sidenote:
I don't think the M version (2.8/35mm) is the best all-rounder. In the review the FA version constantly overexposes.
With no PP the exposure is not averaged. That should be taken into account.
I owned the M long long time ago, and I sold it during the eighties to buy the Pentax-A 2/35mm.
Can't say it was not a good lens, but I never missed it.
Of all the 35mm objectives I own today, the FA is the best Pentax, second only to the amazing Samyang 1.4/35mm (I mostly do low light or night photography, so I might be partial..)

cheers

Paolo

[gofour3]

Mine is not yellowed.
It's the last K series I purchased, and I postponed any meaningful testing till I get back to Italy, but I remember I didn't notice any major yellowing.
So IF it has radioactive thorium glass, it was either already de-yellowed, or the glass barely turned color.

Yep same here my K35/2 is not yellowish either and I've had it for almost 10 years.The only K Series lens I've heard having that issue is the K50/1.4 and as before my K50/1.4 copy does not.

Phil.

[Just1MoreDave]

The irony of the radioactive comments is where he took the shots, around Moab, Utah. In fact one of his subjects is a cleanup project for tailings from a uranium mine.

[zzzxtreme]

My super takumar 35mm f3.5 is sharper than my nikon 20mm f3.5, nikon 24mm f2.8, nikon 50mm f1.4, konica 50mm f1.4, sigma 19mm dn art, sony fe 28-70mm. Only the nikon dx 40mm macro can match it.

I actually prefer single coated for colour, and multicoated for b&w.

Yes, super tak 35mm is truly a gem

[Ketsuppi11]

He mentions that slow aperture blades doesn't bother him. In what usage slow aperture blades are not a problem?
Asking because my lovely K35/2 just recently got this problem.
Thanks

[Just1MoreDave]

He's using the lens on a Sony, so the aperture ring is all he needs.