[carlb]

I've found someone selling a collection of Takumars. It covers a good range of focal lengths and the price seems reasonable. I have a good collection of modern lenses already but I'm thinking about buying these mainly for something a bit different. I've read a number of the reviews here and they're helpful. I'm just looking for points of view from people who might own and use Takumars as to whether you think they add something different to your photography and if it's worth having a few in one's arsenal.

In the end I know it depends on me and what I want to do photographically but I just thought I'd throw it out there to get the views of those with first hand experience.

[swanlefitte]

You should check out this thread.
Takumar club - PentaxForums.com
They are nice lenses. A nice solid manual lens has its personality in a way different to modern lenses.

[CarbonR]

I am currently selling my Takumar collection (for now on french media), that was ranging from 15 to 1000mm including some rare ones (for ex. Takumar 83/1.9 ans 100/3.5 M42). I've partially replaced them with modern manual lenses (Irix, Samyang, Laowa). Why ?
- Some of the Takumar are just collectors lenses that are easily outpassed by other lenses (first example in mind is the 35/4 which is less sharp, slower, and 4x more expensive than the 35/3.5)
- Some of the Takumar, despite being extremely good lenses of their age, are now sometimes outpassed by modern lenses sold new ate the same prices.
- Some of them were outpassing themselves : my goal was to have each optical formula so I had for exemple two 135/3.5, two 150/4...
- Too many lenses in very narrow ranges, for example there is no significative difference between 135/3.5 and 150/4.
- It is very risky to go out with pure collector lenses because any damage would be irreplacable.
- It was too many money "stored" in lenses for me and too many volume.


I kept some Takumar that cannot be replaced by other lenses (like 58/2.4, 58/2, 83/1.9 because of their special bokeh, 1000/8 because no other modern sharp cheap lens exists). The other lenses are mainly replaced by Samyang, which are bigger, brighter, often sharper but without the Takumar feeling (focus, construction quality), and for wide angles by Irix (11mm on FF is wiiiiiiiiiiide). I am more zen when I go out with the modern ones, if I damage one, it cost money but I can replace it immediately at fixed price. I am very happy to had all of these Takumar and they still have the best feeling about manual focus I could experience. If I had no money/volume problem, I would probably have kept all of them. I think that the final question is "how many money do you want to spend in your toys ?". If you wan Takumars, get Takumars. You just have to set your limits : lenses to use ? Beautiful lenses ? All of them ?

[GUB]

I use almost exclusively manual focus lenses including Takumars.
A couple of days ago I mounted a F50 mm 1.7 autofocus lens so my wife could take some pictures of me (actually doing some work for a change). (I chose the autofocus because I knew she wouldn't focus correctly) I have left the lens on and took a few shots today and absolutely hated the experience. I had to re-remember how to selectively focus the shot.
The point is I don't consider mastering the old glass as well as using the modern stuff is particularly compatible - two different approaches.
I have so many old Takumar duplicates I could easily sell them and kit myself out with some limited primes.
But i feel that would compromise my journey with the remaining old glass. And you may think that I mean that the new glass would show the old stuff up but that is not the case. It is about two different styles of photography.
And don't believe that the old stuff is not up to the task - old primes more than hold their own against modern zooms.

[Cerebum]

OK, those weren't the replies I was expecting. I have a number of Takumars and love them all. Check out this YouTube Chanel by Simon's utak

Simon's utak - YouTube

Great and extremely informative

My take on switching from limited primes to vintage glass is it freshens me up and stops me getting stale. You can always buy them and re sell the ones you don't like, there is a healthy market for takumars

[Dartmoor Dave]

I used to shoot almost exclusively with Takumars and was very vocal about my love of them. Then last year I gave them all away to charity during an episode of illness, and now I'm left with nothing more than an 18-55mm kit zoom until my bank account recovers.

And you know what? It turns out that the effect on the way my photos look has been negligible. I'm still photographing the same things in the same light as I would have done with my Taks, and with careful processing I'm able to get results that look almost indistiguishable to the way they would have done with my old lenses.

What I miss about my Taks is the process of shooting with them -- the direct sense of engagement that you get from working completely manually with such well-crafted tools. So if I ever do pick up some Taks again, it'll be entirely about the process of using them rather than believing that they'll make any really significant change to the look of my photos.

[GUB]

I used to shoot almost exclusively with Takumars and was very vocal about my love of them. Then last year I gave them all away to charity during an episode of illness, and now I'm left with nothing more than an 18-55mm kit zoom until my bank account recovers.

And you know what? It turns out that the effect on the way my photos look has been negligible. I'm still photographing the same things in the same light as I would have done with my Taks, and with careful processing I'm able to get results that look almost indistiguishable to the way they would have done with my old lenses.

What I miss about my Taks is the process of shooting with them -- the direct sense of engagement that you get from working completely manually with such well-crafted tools. So if I ever do pick up some Taks again, it'll be entirely about the process of using them rather than believing that they'll make any really significant change to the look of my photos.

I think that is why I like using my old lenses wide open or close to it. It gives a point of difference the kit zoom can't replicate.

[JensE]

I can't really speak about Takumars, but manual lenses in general (I use some Carl Zeiss Jena glass occasionally). For the most part, I agree to @Dartmoor Dave; but I keep coming back to two lenses because of @GUB's point: They do render in a way that I like and that my other lenses in that focal range can't replicate. My recommendation would be start with very common good quality lenses/focal lengths (e.g. 35/3.5, 55/1.8, 135/3.5 or 2.5), which are no worse quality-wise and a lot cheaper than hyped more rare lenses. They usually have been built in larger numbers because of their versatility, so you'll be able to cover a good range of photographic situations and immerse yourself in the manual process- without breaking the bank. The rest will become clear from what you will have learned.

[Dartmoor Dave]

I think that is why I like using my old lenses wide open or close to it. It gives a point of difference the kit zoom can't replicate.

I agree completely, and with @JensE too. The Takumar that I'm really missing owning is the 17mm fisheye, as it did something that I can't possibly replicate with the kit zoom. It will be item 1 on my must-buy list if I ever do start using Taks again. Although, to be honest, if money was no object I'd buy the whole lot of them again just for the pure tactile pleasure.

[kypfer]

A selection of Takumars at a reasonable price? Go for it! Provided you don't spend too much you can always sell them on if you really don't like them and you'll have benefited from the experience.


I've only got three (Super) Takumars, acquired with a Spotmatic in a local auction, and, to be honest I use them only rarely.
However, as others have commented, using manual lenses, especially primes (of which I have far too many), when you've got to "know what your doing" and put in a bit more effort to get the framing "just right", is totally satisfying

[Lowell Goudge]

I have 3 sets of lenses.

Modern AF lenses, primarily zooms for every day shooting and some specific uses like wildlife

K mount manual focus lenses because that’s how I started, along with some newer acquisitions that I use because they are special(a fisheye for example)

M42 screw mount lenses, because they are fun.

Over time I have acquired about 60 lenses, if you average that over my photographic life it is 1.5 lenses per year,

I each kit, I cover quite a range.

AF lenses 10mm -20 mm (cropped sensor lens) though to 400 mm all with zooms plus a DA560

K mount lenses 8 mm fisheye, through 1000mm with a lot of primes, plus 3 zooms (only the 8mm fisheye is a cropped sensor lens)

M42 lenses from 16mm fisheye through 300 mm

The kits are a mix of Pentax and third party lenses,

Why so many, it’s fun to play with older lenses, and while new lenses may be technically superior, many times what makes an image is the flaws of the equipment, not the perfections. I like using the older lenses, and taking my time to shoot, and older lenses do force you to take your time. I normally go out with a shoulder bag and 2-3 primes at a time with specific focal length ranges. Using primes makes you start to think in terms of focal lengths and perspectives you have , where as zooms can make you (or perhaps allow you) to be lazy and ignore in some cases the best perspective because you zoom the image to fit, as opposed to thinking and moving.

Why M42 and K mount kits. It’s because I’m lazy. I have one body with a defect in the mount where the lens locking pin mechanism has failed, so my M42 adaptor is permanently installed, and it is easier to change screw mounts than swap between k and screw mounts. Virtually all of my primes are fast, faster than my zooms, which is a feat because my AF zooms cover 28-200 mm at F2.8. I will with either MF kit take the same approach

With few exceptions I paid less than$50 for any of the MF lenses I own, and for about half of them less than $20

You can easily justify $20-$50 on a lens even if you use it once,

[Topsy]

I have two look at my lenses as belonging to two categories: creative and exact.

The creative ones cannot be replaced by a modern lens due to their rendering quirks/personality.

My Takumars go into the "exact" category for me (28/3.5, 35/2.5, 150/4, 200/4).
I believe my usage of them could be replaced by a modern lenses, but I wouldn't because these beat modern ones on price and I enjoy manual lenses more. But personally, purely from an image quality perspective, I'm pretty sure I could replace them with something modern.

[Jonathan Mac]

If you want to play with old manual lenses then the Takumars are a good place to start. I'm not sure that buying a whole collection when you don't even know if you enjoy manual lenses is a good idea though. Still, if the price is reasonable then you shouldn't lose much, if anything, if you sell them on later. Just make sure that you know how to check if the lenses are working OK or not.

[northcoastgreg]

It really depends on what you're trying to achieve in your photography. Generally speaking the differences between vintage lenses and modern lenses is greater or smaller depending on aperture, focal length, and the type of light you throw at them. Modern lenses tend to have a larger sweet spot and are excellent at more focal lengths, apertures, and in more challenging light. But old lenses like Taks will likely give you more unique images --- something that looks a bit different, and sometimes more than a bit different than what the vast majority of photographers are capturing with modern lenses.

The only Tak I've ever owned and used is the Tele-Takumar 300/6.3. It's got some rather strange aberrations, but it renders in very "special" way. I also own K-mount versions of the 35/3.5 and 200/4. The 35/3.5 is almost as sharp and contrasty as a modern lens, but it does not render colors as accurately (which is part of its charm), and is, of course, it's "slow" for a prime lens. I don't find the 200mm to be all that sharp but it certainly creates unique images. I don't use these lenses any more, but if I were seeking for a unique, artist look in my photography the Taks would be a legitimate option.

[DonV]

Carl,
You have had great creative perspective and advice from experienced and avid photographers.
If you want a different perspective, tell us the exact number and models of the lenses and the approximate lot cost.
Then you will get real dollar advice.