Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-07-2009, 11:43 AM   #16
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,468
The 'Auto-Takumars' aren't *uncoated:* they're just not 'SMC-multicoated.' Probably single-coated.

This isn't always a bad thing: a lot of single-coated lenses give great monochrome, for instance. (I've got that 135 2.5 and it also gives great subtle color under the right conditions. Most of the advantages of multicoating lie in in that they consider fewer conditions adverse. With something like a 135, put a nice big hood on there and it probably won't often be a problem. My only regret about mine is that a fairly long lens is often where I'd prefer to not have to work around the lack of an 'A' setting on the lens.

A lot of the *zooms* gave the 'takumar bayonet' range a pretty bad rep: they felt *terrible,* the quality was pretty bad, and non-multicoated zooms, particularly of the wide-to-tele variety, are just no bargain.

09-07-2009, 12:40 PM   #17
Veteran Member
Eaglerapids's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Idaho,USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,588
QuoteOriginally posted by Mike Cash Quote
.....then somebody explain to me why on earth anybody wouldn't want this lens.
Well Mike:
1. It's not AUTO FOCUS
2. It's made out of metal, much heavier than modern plastic lenses.
3. You have to hit the green button to meter, much to slow.
4. It has an extra auto/manual lever thingy, what a pain.
5. You could shoot in AV mode, true, but then the VF gets kinda dark and you STILL have to manual focus.
6. You have to mess around with an adapter, ugh.
7. It's almost like you have to know something about photography to use the damn things.
8. There is "something about" some of the pictures when you use these lenses, the way colors are rendered, hard to explain the textures, they are different, who wants that?



:-)
09-07-2009, 12:43 PM   #18
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteOriginally posted by Eaglerapids Quote
Well Mike:
1. It's not AUTO FOCUS
2. It's made out of metal, much heavier than modern plastic lenses.
3. You have to hit the green button to meter, much to slow.
4. It has an extra auto/manual lever thingy, what a pain.
Auto-Takumars have no auto/manual lever thingy just an aperture reset lever thingy. its manual only. semi-auto on a screwmount body.
5. You could shoot in AV mode, true, but then the VF gets kinda dark and you STILL have to manual focus.
6. You have to mess around with an adapter, ugh.
7. It's almost like you have to know something about photography to use the damn things.
8. There is "something about" some of the pictures when you use these lenses, the way colors are rendered, hard to explain the textures, they are different, who wants that?



:-)
great list. who would want this lens?
09-07-2009, 01:23 PM   #19
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,468
QuoteOriginally posted by Eaglerapids Quote
Well Mike:

8. There is "something about" some of the pictures when you use these lenses, the way colors are rendered, hard to explain the textures, they are different, who wants that?



:-)
Me! Really!

09-07-2009, 01:27 PM   #20
Veteran Member
Mike Cash's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,952
QuoteOriginally posted by Eaglerapids Quote
Well Mike:
1. It's not AUTO FOCUS
2. It's made out of metal, much heavier than modern plastic lenses.
3. You have to hit the green button to meter, much to slow.
4. It has an extra auto/manual lever thingy, what a pain.
5. You could shoot in AV mode, true, but then the VF gets kinda dark and you STILL have to manual focus.
6. You have to mess around with an adapter, ugh.
7. It's almost like you have to know something about photography to use the damn things.
8. There is "something about" some of the pictures when you use these lenses, the way colors are rendered, hard to explain the textures, they are different, who wants that?



:-)
Wrong on #3, #4, and #6.
09-07-2009, 02:26 PM   #21
Veteran Member
Fixcinater's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 409
QuoteOriginally posted by Mike Cash Quote
Wrong on #3, #4, and #6.


Ssshhh, let's keep these things cheap!
09-07-2009, 04:55 PM   #22
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4
Original Poster
Thanks Everyone

So it seems that there is a consensus that these lenses aren't a lost cause, and that people may actually want them. This brings me back to me original question: what can I expect to get for these lenses (55mm Auto-Takumar 1:2, and 2 135mm Takumar 1:3.5). They are all in good condition, and the optics are clear. I'll like to unload these soon, I have other equipment on my wish list. Any guesstimates? Thanks again, ya'll are quite helpful!
09-08-2009, 04:50 AM   #23
Veteran Member
Mike Cash's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,952
QuoteOriginally posted by Stephanie Quote
So it seems that there is a consensus that these lenses aren't a lost cause, and that people may actually want them. This brings me back to me original question: what can I expect to get for these lenses (55mm Auto-Takumar 1:2, and 2 135mm Takumar 1:3.5). They are all in good condition, and the optics are clear. I'll like to unload these soon, I have other equipment on my wish list. Any guesstimates? Thanks again, ya'll are quite helpful!
May I make so bold as to suggest you use them yourself? At least try them? It is not without good reason that many of us are addicted to these things.

09-08-2009, 05:00 AM   #24
Veteran Member
geauxpez's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Atlanta
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,197
QuoteOriginally posted by Eaglerapids Quote
Well Mike:
1. It's not AUTO FOCUS
2. It's made out of metal, much heavier than modern plastic lenses.
3. You have to hit the green button to meter, much to slow.
4. It has an extra auto/manual lever thingy, what a pain.
5. You could shoot in AV mode, true, but then the VF gets kinda dark and you STILL have to manual focus.
6. You have to mess around with an adapter, ugh.
7. It's almost like you have to know something about photography to use the damn things.
8. There is "something about" some of the pictures when you use these lenses, the way colors are rendered, hard to explain the textures, they are different, who wants that?



:-)
Ooooh -- these lenses sound like rubbish to me. Not worth a dime.
09-08-2009, 05:48 AM   #25
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteOriginally posted by geauxpez Quote
Ooooh -- these lenses sound like rubbish to me. Not worth a dime.

exactly. now go spread the word.
09-08-2009, 10:24 AM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Western Missouri
Posts: 429
QuoteOriginally posted by Eaglerapids Quote
Well Mike:
1. It's not AUTO FOCUS
2. It's made out of metal, much heavier than modern plastic lenses.
3. You have to hit the green button to meter, much to slow.
4. It has an extra auto/manual lever thingy, what a pain.
5. You could shoot in AV mode, true, but then the VF gets kinda dark and you STILL have to manual focus.
6. You have to mess around with an adapter, ugh.
7. It's almost like you have to know something about photography to use the damn things.
8. There is "something about" some of the pictures when you use these lenses, the way colors are rendered, hard to explain the textures, they are different, who wants that?



:-)
Well, this list knocks a lot of folks out of the running for these lenses so that's good.

We can all agree the SMC stuff certainly helps reduce the effects of direct flare, and in one of the Pentax brochures I've collected they even claim lens hoods are simply not necessary for SMC lenses, but I'm still curious about the positive affect on true contrast. Can anyone say that under strictly controlled lighting conditions their shots taken with SMC lenses show dramatically improved colors vs. their shots with older single and multi-coated lenses? One photographer's saturated is another photographer's loud. I keep jokingly telling myself that contrast is overrated so maybe I'm right?
09-08-2009, 10:35 AM   #27
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteQuote:
I keep jokingly telling myself that contrast is overrated so maybe I'm right?
to an extent yes. as long as the photo isn't severely lacking contrast, it can always be bumped while doing PP. of course most would like to "get it right" in camera, but for the most part, contrast bumping is an essential part of PP, even with SMC lenses. I myself, love contrast. whether its from the lens or PP afterward. I shoot pretty much nothing but B&W film, and most of my digital photos are B&W converted. so contrast is my best friend. and I don't find my Auto-Takumars lacking in this department.
09-08-2009, 11:47 AM   #28
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,201
QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
christ mike, what are trying to do? your going to drive up the prices.... glad I got mine already.
That's what I was thinking!
09-08-2009, 12:01 PM   #29
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,845
QuoteOriginally posted by Mike Cash Quote






Both of those are from the Auto-Takumar 55/2. Click on the photo of the dragonfly to check out a larger version.....then somebody explain to me why on earth anybody wouldn't want this lens.
These are great shots
09-08-2009, 04:07 PM   #30
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by raymeedc Quote
You are correct, coating increases contrast..... Newarts was a little unclear in his explanation.
As an English student I'll have to butt in and say that Newart's "reduces ... loss of contrast" construction is perfectly valid!

I just shot a roll with a three-element lens on a folder -- uncoated for certain. I wonder how that'll look like.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, k-mount, lenses, pentax lens, slr lens, takumar
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Super-Multi-Coated Takumar lenses: 17mm f/4, 35mm f/3.5, 105mm f/2.8 (Worldwid Nick Siebers Sold Items 26 08-27-2010 07:00 PM
Super Multi Coated TAKUMAR alanworland Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 07-28-2010 08:20 AM
For Sale - Sold: Super-Takumar 28mm f/3.5; Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135mm f/2.5 (US) deadwolfbones Sold Items 1 07-11-2010 09:08 PM
SMC Takumar VS Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 50/1.4 RolloR Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 05-08-2010 06:38 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:55 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top