Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-09-2009, 12:42 AM   #31
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteQuote:
I just shot a roll with a three-element lens on a folder -- uncoated for certain. I wonder how that'll look like.
outside in the sun? without a lens hood? it will be lacking contrast. im sure you (or whoever does the job) can fix that to some extent during development.

09-09-2009, 09:02 AM   #32
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
Here are some actual photos made with uncoated lenses - the first two are 4 element, the last a 3 element lens. While chances are the contrast will be low - especially if the lens originally was inexpensive - the finer lenses of the era have quite natural contrast to my eye.


Voigtlander Bessa 66, Skopar 75mm uncoated.


Certo Super Sport Dolly, Xenar 75mm uncoated.


Certo Super Sport Dolly, Victar 75mm

Note that with single coating and no coating, you tend to get light bloom (saying it positively) aka veiling haze (saying it negatively). It is this veiling flare that creates the low contrast in certain lighting situations.

I used this property to (I think) good effect:

The above Xenar


Single coated Xenon 50mm in a Kodak Retina IIa
09-09-2009, 12:15 PM   #33
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
Nesster,

Did they ever coat Victar lenses?
09-09-2009, 12:42 PM   #34
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
You know, I don't know! Assuming they still called them Victar (and not Meritar) post war, perhaps they were coated. I'll have to consult the lens vademecum...

09-09-2009, 12:51 PM   #35
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
You know, I don't know! Assuming they still called them Victar (and not Meritar) post war, perhaps they were coated. I'll have to consult the lens vademecum...
The reason I ask is that I have a 42m 50mm f2.8 Victar. I didn't even think there was such a thing until I got this one. I was expecting it to have the elusive adapter.

Edit: It doesn't appear to be coated.
09-14-2009, 10:16 AM   #36
Site Supporter
grhazelton's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Jonesboro, GA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,788
I am fortunate to have my father's Asahiflex IIa and its 50mm f3.5, a 35mm, and the 83mm f1.9. These lenses ARE coated, although not multicoated. And sharp they are!
09-14-2009, 01:28 PM   #37
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by grhazelton Quote
I am fortunate to have my father's Asahiflex IIa and its 50mm f3.5, a 35mm, and the 83mm f1.9. These lenses ARE coated, although not multicoated. And sharp they are!
You are fortunate! Not only to you have an exquisite piece of photographic history, it belonged to your father. It hard to beat that.
09-14-2009, 05:08 PM   #38
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains
Posts: 53
Not everyone is shooting digital. My SMC 135 is one of my main macro's,I use it,or a Novoflex 100 as my main bellows lenses,and on the auto bellows or tubes the 135 is extra nice. I'd shot a lot with older glass,even a funky little Zeiss Tessar and an Asunama 199,single coat, and the SMC helps. i'd often used a hood and polarizer,so unwanted flare,saturation were somewhat manageable but .....I dunno...I just LIKE that SMC 135. I use it on my 42 bodies mainly,but have adaptered the bellows outfit onto K bodies also. For "medium macro" I have a 100 4.0 Macro Tak in K mount,and the handy SP 35-80 Tamron. Shooting on a M42 body,Pre-Set or non auto is a pain...but if adaptered to a DSLR...Preset can be a plus.

Old Taks...like the old German glass, can have "quirks" that are not "accurate" but have charachter,this kind of makes for a "niche" appeal. So does price. The early Tak's are NOT what I'd prefer for general use,and a "student",even using a M42 body is better off picking up some glass on ebay.

Digi adapt? Well.....that's different. With some fancy zooms goint at $400-$1000,I could see a shooter picking up a batch of old M42 stuff at $10-50 a lens just to get some "fresh" approach.

Nesster's Steetlamp shot is a great example as it's the flare that's the whole soul of the shot. I'd doubt some modern kit lens could make a simple shot like that be special. Light...not things...is what the camera really sees and yet that's underappreciated by average photographers.

I used to enjoy a 400 slide film marketed as Focal ( K Mart)...real grainy with deep but not bright color. My 300 4.0 Siggy has a "macro" ring that does allow closer focus...but is almost an adjustable soft focus...the combo got pics that had sort of a French Impressionist feel,in how the light and grain and color renditions were a bit mutated. On Macro tubes the 300 got even more "peculiar"


Last edited by Ron Redwood; 09-14-2009 at 05:33 PM.
09-15-2009, 04:50 PM   #39
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the present
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,870
Withdrawn.

Good luck with the sale.

woof
09-16-2009, 02:43 PM   #40
Site Supporter
robbiec's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cork, Ireland
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,206
I've an Auto Takumar 135 f3.5, they are built fantastically well. It's a lens you could display as a piece of engineering art



No where near as impressive as Mike's but the colours and tones are completely spot on.... + if you look at the wall in the full sized photo it has nice bokeh as well :-)

Last edited by robbiec; 09-17-2009 at 03:19 PM.
09-16-2009, 02:55 PM   #41
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,648
Damn it Nesster!! I really thought I had the LBA under control and then you posted those shots. Being a wedding shooter I now have a few images in my head that could be done with a lens like this. The 3rd and 4th shots have given me some ideas.

Back to lens hunting once more......
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 12:10 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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