[GUB]

so f1.4/f2 focused to infinity is actually stuff I quite like doing

If you need infinity then that is not the way - but it would barely alter your close up performance and further close up is only an extension tube away.

[GUB]

I don't think any of these lenses could achieve that dreamlike result of the Velvet. Maybe if I broke out a jar of vaseline!!
Bokeh comparisons with different focal lengths - PentaxForums.com

[BruceBanner]

Wow that shot is inspiring. Made me want to go out and try the method - but then I thought about it and couldn't see what I would gain with doing it with the 50 1.4. I think the difference is the infocus areas of the 1.4 at 1.4 is sharp whereas I am guessing it is dreamy like with the velvet. I suspect the velvet is bringing something to this image that a Tak can't do.

Well yes and no, I wouldn't write off the concept or idea. Did you know (for example) that the KP has a unique and dedicated Aperture Bracketing mode that makes aperture stacking really quite easy?

This is a shot with the KP and HD DA 20-40;



This image is comprised of F10 (very centre of the flower), F6.3 (petals) and f4 (bokeh/background). Handled well it will give anything a good additional degree of separation from the background, and this was a macro and moving flower so not the easiest of things, hard to believe but a portrait might actually be easier to pull this off than this macro flower shot.
So yeah, fun results can be had with even 'normal' lenses, it just takes some time to learn how to PP it well, my first attempts at this stuff were not quite as good as this.

I don't think any of these lenses could achieve that dreamlike result of the Velvet. Maybe if I broke out a jar of vaseline!!
Bokeh comparisons with different focal lengths - PentaxForums.com

(thanks for the link, will have a look at that in a bit.)

[GUB]

Once more I love the effect. But here the DoF of the flower at that angle and magnification is a challenge and so is my dogs eye / nose to a lesser degree. I can see the point of a 2 - 3 image stack. But in your lovely model shot I suspect you would gain nothing (with fast old glass) because it is a simple thin plane of focus required. What your model shot has that is great is the quality (not sharpness) of the in-focus area.

[kernos]

Just want to say that your wedding photos are really good. The Velvet 56 seems all kinds of lovely too. Do you have a plan for the 8 lens Tak?

[BruceBanner]

Just want to say that your wedding photos are really good. The Velvet 56 seems all kinds of lovely too. Do you have a plan for the 8 lens Tak?

Thank you

Really, from what I have seen with the Tak it might be what I replace with the Velvet 56 (and possibly seek out a Velvet 85 instead as I don't like to double up on similar focal lengths). My only real gripe with some of the lensbaby stuff is that it can be too powerful an effect, the swirl too intense etc. Some lenses like the Sol45 I think shine best in a negative space approach. So with the Tak, although not a 'special effect' lens I have seen plenty of images that show it can render (especially at the very wide open apertures) uniquely, it feels like it could be a more 'adult' version of a lensbaby type lens where subtlety is the key point.
With all lenses it takes me awhile to get to know a lens, know where it works etc. I saw for example it CA is very bad wide open, not an issue if you plan to monochrome the shot, but I have seen lovely subject isolation at 2.8, it feels like it acts a little like a FA ltd in this regard.
Excited to finally have one, it's working it's way across the globe to me as I type

[WillWeaverRVA]

I usually just leave the adapter screwed on my Takumar 135mm at all times since I don't have a M42 camera.

[kcjonez]

I purchased a Tak 50 a few years back that the seller had permanently fixed a Pentax adapter to with super glue. Permanently except after a few months the Tak unscrewed from the adapter when I was removing it from the camera. Now I have the Takumar and the adapter lol.

[y0chang]

Don't buy the The cheap knockoffs , I bought one and it was just a pain to remove. I was at one point really worried it would never come off. The Pentax one is hard to find but worth it.

[kernos]

Just a small note on adapters. The Pentax adapter works fine for Pentax lenses but will not work on m42 lenses that require depressing an aperture pin. So, if you want to use Russian or German m42 lenses you might consider looking for an adapter that does that job. The two other alternatives are supergluing the aperture pin in a depressed position or performing surgery on the lens itself to free up the aperture control. I do agree that removing 3rd party adapters can be a pain though, so plan accordingly.

[BruceBanner]

Just a small note on adapters. The Pentax adapter works fine for Pentax lenses but will not work on m42 lenses that require depressing an aperture pin. So, if you want to use Russian or German m42 lenses you might consider looking for an adapter that does that job. The two other alternatives are supergluing the aperture pin in a depressed position or performing surgery on the lens itself to free up the aperture control. I do agree that removing 3rd party adapters can be a pain though, so plan accordingly.

Good to know, thanks.

Well I ended up making an offer (and getting it accepted) on a genuine Pentax Adapter never used just opened on ebay, $90AUD all up, cheaper than $130AUD from Pentax direct. Interestingly the Amazon.co.uk link that had an adapter going for 18.67 quid has shot up to 56quid or something now... odd. Maybe he saw the traffic to that item and bumped the price up lol

[BruceBanner]

Thought I would give a little update.

I now own two M42 lenses, the 50/1.4 (8 element) and a Tak 135/3.5. I also own two m42 adapters, an official Pentax one ($90AUD) and a cheaper $10AUD chinese one with the disassembly tool (I paid $10AUD for it as it was local aus stock with a quick turnaround for postage).

To begin with I had the Tak 50 and official Pentax adapter. People were right that you could unhook it fairly quickly with finger/nail, however the unscrewing of the lens just takes too long for event work, so I removed the spring from the official adapter and just screwed the lens on tight to it (no glue). This is enough to hold things in place, and when rotating the lens+adapter in place, although it doesn't 'click' it still feels like it tightens up its grip at that last twist, enough to feel confident it would not untwist and screw off. Its basically a really nice snug and tight fit where I feel comfortable to use it like that, which means it dismounts quickly for events as well.

Incomes the Tak 135 and the cheaper m42 adapter. Nothing wrong with the lens here, but man the adapter is bad, even when clicked into place (spring included) it just 'wobbles', and once you screw the lens on you have as secure but wobbly lens, it makes aperture changing awful, focusing horrendous, that lovely smooth barrel that they are known for having just goes right out the window...

So I took the spring off, and now the lens + cheap adapter won't even bit or hold in place at all, it would literally just rotate out of place with no force whatsoever...

These adapters are night and day difference, and that really saddens me, because it appears a good adapter is an expensive one which in turn then increases the price and value of these cheaper lenses. I possibly overpaid for the tak 135 in the first place ($110AUD), to spend $90AUD again just to get a good adapter makes its appeal drop massively...

I don't know if all m42 adapters are like this, or just that I got a particular bad one, but I can't continue to shell out $4-10 constantly hoping to land a good one...

Such as shame, it's actually really put me off the idea of investing in more M42 glass...

[GUB]

Thought I would give a little update.

I now own two M42 lenses, the 50/1.4 (8 element) and a Tak 135/3.5. I also own two m42 adapters, an official Pentax one ($90AUD) and a cheaper $10AUD chinese one with the disassembly tool (I paid $10AUD for it as it was local aus stock with a quick turnaround for postage).

To begin with I had the Tak 50 and official Pentax adapter. People were right that you could unhook it fairly quickly with finger/nail, however the unscrewing of the lens just takes too long for event work, so I removed the spring from the official adapter and just screwed the lens on tight to it (no glue). This is enough to hold things in place, and when rotating the lens+adapter in place, although it doesn't 'click' it still feels like it tightens up its grip at that last twist, enough to feel confident it would not untwist and screw off. Its basically a really nice snug and tight fit where I feel comfortable to use it like that, which means it dismounts quickly for events as well.

Incomes the Tak 135 and the cheaper m42 adapter. Nothing wrong with the lens here, but man the adapter is bad, even when clicked into place (spring included) it just 'wobbles', and once you screw the lens on you have as secure but wobbly lens, it makes aperture changing awful, focusing horrendous, that lovely smooth barrel that they are known for having just goes right out the window...

So I took the spring off, and now the lens + cheap adapter won't even bit or hold in place at all, it would literally just rotate out of place with no force whatsoever...

These adapters are night and day difference, and that really saddens me, because it appears a good adapter is an expensive one which in turn then increases the price and value of these cheaper lenses. I possibly overpaid for the tak 135 in the first place ($110AUD), to spend $90AUD again just to get a good adapter makes its appeal drop massively...

I don't know if all m42 adapters are like this, or just that I got a particular bad one, but I can't continue to shell out $4-10 constantly hoping to land a good one...

Such as shame, it's actually really put me off the idea of investing in more M42 glass...

I bought 10 cheapos for $2 - $3 each and had 2 or 3 less than ideal ones. Rather than loose they came up tight before the lens was upright. But the lens base was hard up against the camera mount surface and that is what matters.

EDIT Oh and your135mm may be successful with a noninfinity adapter (A millimeter of extra lens registration distance won't make as much difference as on the 50.) And internal adjustment may correct it.
The non infinity adapters are cheap as on Ali Express.

[BruceBanner]

I bought 10 cheapos for $2 - $3 each and had 2 or 3 less than ideal ones. Rather than loose they came up tight before the lens was upright. But the lens base was hard up against the camera mount surface and that is what matters.

EDIT Oh and your135mm may be successful with a noninfinity adapter (A millimeter of extra lens registration distance won't make as much difference as on the 50.) And internal adjustment may correct it.
The non infinity adapters are cheap as on Ali Express.

So you're saying maybe just buy more? hehe... maybe...

[GUB]

I dunno about these Taks when under pressure to perform at a wedding though. Especially the 135 when you have the FA 77 and the Velvet. That last portrait with the Velvet was pretty stunning and I reckon you need to prove to yourself that you can produce an as viable special effect with the Tak 50.
And that is from someone who gets a real buzz out of using his Taks -- but never under pressure.
Auto tak 85mm 1.8 at f4 I think. Informal shot this afternoon with the K-1