[Dan James]

A couple from last week with the 20mm (xposted).

Dave your shots with the 20mm keep encouraging me to look out for one again, even though I need to sell off some lenses (not Takumars!). Though the DA 21mm is also very appealing - I couldn't justify that and a Tak 20mm... Decisions!

Andrew is right; Takumars are addictive! Here is an image of my growing collection, which currently comprises:

Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 35mm f3.5
Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 50mm f4.0
Super-Takumar 55mm f1.8
Takumar 105mm f2.8 Preset Model 2
Super-Takumar 150mm f4.0
Tele-Takumar 200mm f5.6 Preset

Lovely range here, I must take a shot of mine (in common with you I have an 35/3.5 (Auto), Super 55/1.8 and preset 105/2.8).

[tim60]

Dave your shots with the 20mm keep encouraging me to look out for one again, even though I need to sell off some lenses (not Takumars!). Though the DA 21mm is also very appealing - I couldn't justify that and a Tak 20mm... Decisions!

Interesting linguistic use: you refer to lenses and Takumars as different kinds of things.

[pathdoc]

Though the DA 21mm is also very appealing - I couldn't justify that and a Tak 20mm... Decisions!

If you need AF and you shoot APS-C only- DA21.

If you can do without AF and want something which will work on a K-1 without cropping - Takumar 20.

[Dan James]

Interesting linguistic use: you refer to lenses and Takumars as different kinds of things.

Tim, interesting observation, yes they are indeed in a class of their own! In my experience of maybe 100-150 vintage lenses (M42, Pentax K, Olympus OM, Canon FD, Konica AR, Minolta SR/MC/MD, Contax/Yashica C/Y...) in the last few years the Takumars have felt better built and smoother to use than any others, and optically give me results I'm very happy with on my K10D and Samsung GX-1s (Pentax *ist DS2 clone), as well as on film. Some of the Minolta Rokkors came close, and many Pentax K, M and A series I've used (and still have) are lovely too. But the Takumars with the metal focusing barrels (I'm not so keen on the SMC ones with rubber waffle grip) are my favourites.

[tim60]

Tim, interesting observation, yes they are indeed in a class of their own! In my experience of maybe 100-150 vintage lenses (M42, Pentax K, Olympus OM, Canon FD, Konica AR, Minolta SR/MC/MD, Contax/Yashica C/Y...) in the last few years the Takumars have felt better built and smoother to use than any others, and optically give me results I'm very happy with on my K10D and Samsung GX-1s (Pentax *ist DS2 clone), as well as on film. Some of the Minolta Rokkors came close, and many Pentax K, M and A series I've used (and still have) are lovely too. But the Takumars with the metal focusing barrels (I'm not so keen on the SMC ones with rubber waffle grip) are my favourites.

I liked them when I started collecting them. Ended up with:
ST 20/4.5
ST 24/3.5
ST 28/3.5 58mm
SMC T 35/2
SMC T 35/3.5
AT 35/3.5
ST 50/1.4
SMC T Macro 50/4
ST 55/2
ST 55/1.8
ST 85/1.9
SMC T Macro 100/4
ST 105/2.8
SMC 120/2.8
ST 135/3.5
ST 135/2.5
ST 150/4
SMC T 200/4
Tak 200/3.5 preset
ST 300/4
TTak 300/6.3 preset


And I only have four other lenses in England with me - Osawa 80-205, Pentax SMC 50/2, Tamron 28-50, Rubinar 1000/10 mirror.


Almost all the work is done by the Taks because I like them and the experience of using them. Can be a challenge to focus, but my eyesight improved when I came to England. Much lower stress job - nominally the same as before but less stress and more satisfying.

[Dan James]

If you need AF and you shoot APS-C only- DA21.

If you can do without AF and want something which will work on a K-1 without cropping - Takumar 20.

Thanks for the advice.

I don't need AF - I only have one AF lens, the DA 35/2.4, and use that manual focus.

Yes I mostly use APS-C - a K10D, its clone the Samsung GX10 and their little sibling the Samsung GX-1S.

Occasionally my Sony NEX but increasingly less since I got the Pentax DSLRs.

Occasionally film but again not much since I got the DSLRs.

I love Taks but also have been very impressed with the DA 34/2.4's performance. So I'm thinking the DA 21mm will be similarly impressive.

Anyway I have to sell off some others before I consider anything new!

[3doorsofsun]

Here are some more Tak work from me, taken today (55/1.8). Addiction is growing

[Orbus]

Here are some more Tak work from me, taken today (55/1.8). Addiction is growing

Not to worry, 3doorsofsun, it's a "healthy" addiction. Nice shots!

[Andrew_Oid]

The 35mm f2 Takumar gets some bad press for being soft wide-open, so I pulled mine out to investigate. I suspect that most of the "softness" may be due to an extremely shallow depth of field at f2 and due care not being exercised in focusing. Anyway, some shots from this morning. The first two got no post processing. The third is a crop of the second and similarly got no PP. The fourth was cropped a bit and PP'd. The fifth was taken at f4, cropped a bit, and PP'd.

[Dartmoor Dave]

The 35mm f2 Takumar gets some bad press for being soft wide-open, so I pulled mine out to investigate. I suspect that most of the "softness" may be due to an extremely shallow depth of field at f2 and due care not being exercised in focusing.

Those are well within my own personal boundaries of what I'd consider sharp enough wide open, and they also show off the lens's beautiful colour rendering very well. As you say, a lot of the online reviews of the 35mm/2.0 (and other manual focus lenses) tend to blame the lens for being unsharp, when actually the reviewer has clearly missed focus in the examples posted.

Actually, your post has raised a question that I often wonder about when I'm looking at photos online. Why do people want their photos to look so much sharper than reality itself, with a hard-edged, over-defined look that simply isn't there in the actual world? Shouldn't it be enough for photographs to be just about as sharp as reality itself? And about as colourful and contrasty as reality too, come to think of it?

(Just to be clear: I'm not accusing you or any other Takumar Club member of wanting an un-natural amount of sharpness. But it's definitely something that I've noticed out there in the wider online photographic world.)

[Jonathan Mac]

The 35mm f2 Takumar gets some bad press for being soft wide-open, so I pulled mine out to investigate. I suspect that most of the "softness" may be due to an extremely shallow depth of field at f2 and due care not being exercised in focusing. Anyway, some shots from this morning. The first two got no post processing. The third is a crop of the second and similarly got no PP. The fourth was cropped a bit and PP'd. The fifth was taken at f4, cropped a bit, and PP'd.

Those all look pretty soft to me, very much like the photos produced wide open by my 35mm f/2 Tak (49mm version) in the time that I owned it. It was a lovely lens to use but disappointing in sharpness and overall IQ, especially wide open (except in the very centre).

[rangi]

So far the preset Takumar 200mm f/3.5 is an absolute champ. I may have a dud copy of the 200mm f/4 Super-Takumar.





Wide open!

[Andrew_Oid]

I liked them when I started collecting them. Ended up with:
ST 20/4.5
ST 24/3.5
ST 28/3.5 58mm
SMC T 35/2
SMC T 35/3.5
AT 35/3.5
ST 50/1.4
SMC T Macro 50/4
ST 55/2
ST 55/1.8
ST 85/1.9
SMC T Macro 100/4
ST 105/2.8
SMC 120/2.8
ST 135/3.5
ST 135/2.5
ST 150/4
SMC T 200/4
Tak 200/3.5 preset
ST 300/4
TTak 300/6.3 preset


And I only have four other lenses in England with me - Osawa 80-205, Pentax SMC 50/2, Tamron 28-50, Rubinar 1000/10 mirror.


Almost all the work is done by the Taks because I like them and the experience of using them. Can be a challenge to focus, but my eyesight improved when I came to England. Much lower stress job - nominally the same as before but less stress and more satisfying.

I have a good collection of Takumars as well, an SMC 20mm f4.5, an SMC 24mm f3.5, 2x SMC 28mm f3.5, an auto 35mm f3.5, a super 35mm f3.5, an SMC 35mm f3.5, an SMC 35mm f2, an SMC 50mm f1.4, a preset macro 50mm f4 (1:1), a super macro 50mm f4 (1:2), a super 55mm f1.8, an auto 55mm f2, an auto 55mm f2.2, an SMC 85mm f1.8, a preset 105mm f2.8, a preset 135mm f3.5 (black and silver version, 46mm filter), a preset 135mm f3.5 (all black version, 49mm filter), an SMC 135mm f3.5, a preset 200mm f3.5, and an SMC 200mm f4. I've been collecting for 40 years or so, and I think I'm finished. There are some other nice Taks, but they're out of reach. (Anyone have an Ultra-Achromatic-Takumar 85mm f4.5 for sale cheap?)

[tim60]

The 35mm f2 Takumar gets some bad press for being soft wide-open, so I pulled mine out to investigate. I suspect that most of the "softness" may be due to an extremely shallow depth of field at f2 and due care not being exercised in focusing. Anyway, some shots from this morning. The first two got no post processing. The third is a crop of the second and similarly got no PP. The fourth was cropped a bit and PP'd. The fifth was taken at f4, cropped a bit, and PP'd.

There is a big difference, I find, between pictures which are lens soft and those out of focus. The latter are very disappointing. Happens to me reasonably often, although not especially with that lens. Also much less now that up to 2015, my eyes were bad then because my job was exceptionally stressful. Now work is much better, new job actually doing things that are more serious and important, and my eyes got better.

[tim60]

So far the preset Takumar 200mm f/3.5 is an absolute champ. I may have a dud copy of the 200mm f/4 Super-Takumar.





Wide open!

What makes you think your 200/4 is not good?

I presume the pictures shared were the 3.5.