[tim60]

That is one of its other interesting properties - a pseudomacro [that word is allowed, both roots are from Greek] lens.

[paulh]

I think you've definitely got the Tak 20 look going on with that one, Paul. It's one of those things that I can't define in any objective way. . . but I know it when I see it.

The term I think of is "smooth sharpness" if that makes sense. It's something I noticed with the rendering of my ST105/2.8, and even my F35-70 zoom as well. The sharpness doesn't jump right out at you, but on closer examination, the details are all there. Microcontrast without hard edges...?

Monster in the woods - Tak 20 again:

[Dartmoor Dave]

The term I think of is "smooth sharpness" if that makes sense. It's something I noticed with the rendering of my ST105/2.8, and even my F35-70 zoom as well. The sharpness doesn't jump right out at you, but on closer examination, the details are all there. Microcontrast without hard edges...?

I think "smooth sharpness" is a good way of putting it. It's something that was very visible when I compared the 35mm/3.5 with the 1st version 35mm/2.0. At first glance the 3.5 looked much sharper because it gave higher contrast edges, but when I looked closer I could see that the 2.0 had more "real" sharpness and more detail. My personal feeling is that I want my photos to look about as sharp as the real world looks and no sharper, and so that "smooth sharpness" effect is exactly what I like in a lens.

[rangi]

Auto-Takumar 55mm f/2



I would have been quite happy with this photo if I had nailed focus on the angel. Oh well.



Again missed focus on one of her eyes. I was pleased with this photo otherwise.


SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8

[ivanvernon]

I went to the park looking for flowers to photograph but didn't find many. This one was photographed at f16 and close to MFD. Cropped. "Orchids"

Very nice. By the way, I notice you are posting from Thailand. I enjoy the country and have carried out several UN business/economic missions there. Have you ever taken photos at the Royal Palace Museum in Bangkok? Please keep up your postings.

[Erictator]

The term I think of is "smooth sharpness" if that makes sense. It's something I noticed with the rendering of my ST105/2.8, and even my F35-70 zoom as well. The sharpness doesn't jump right out at you, but on closer examination, the details are all there. Microcontrast without hard edges...?

Monster in the woods - Tak 20 again:

I think the word you are looking for is resolution... What most people see as sharpness, is probably more like a combination of resolution, contrast & micro contrast. I'm not even sure sharpness is a singular term in relation to lens output. I really think it is a combination of factors that give us what we call sharpness. Even the Bokeh of a lens contributes to apparent sharpness.

Just to keep on subject - I have a mint Tak 35mm f2.0, and I have to admit, I haven't tried it much on digital other than a couple of quick test shots when I got my *istD years ago. I have used my Tak 17mm fisheye a fair amount and like it both natural and de-fished on the K-1. Surprisingly sharp lens. This post has motivated me to put my Tak 35mm f2 in the bag for the next outing.

Eric

[pathdoc]

Normally when we LBA victims reach for an f/1.4 lens we do it for the wide-open, razor-thin DOF; after all, what else is it for if not that? Sometimes, though, we go for the flip side of the coin. Here's the Super Tak 50/1.4 (the hot version) stopped all the way down to f/16.

I claim creative use of flare.



Cross-posted from Single in December, Day 1.

[Andrew_Oid]

Very nice. By the way, I notice you are posting from Thailand. I enjoy the country and have carried out several UN business/economic missions there. Have you ever taken photos at the Royal Palace Museum in Bangkok? Please keep up your postings.

Hi Ivan.
I've lived in Thailand for a total of about eight years, beginning in 1980 when I came with a friend enroute to Bali or Nepal (We hadn't decided.), felt I had landed on a different planet, lost my friend, and ended up staying for nearly two years, eight months of that in Koh Samui, which was undeveloped at the time. Twenty five years later, I came back for another two year stay, all in Bangkok, my favorite city. Nearly four years ago I retired, and here I am again.
When you say "Royal Palace Museum" are you referring to the Grand Palace? If not, I don't think I know it. If so, I have photographed there but during the film era and all of my film is gone. I avoid the place these days because it's always mobbed with tourists.
I've noticed that for myself some countries are more photogenic than others with India perhaps being the top of the list. I've never found Thailand particularly interesting as a subject for photography which is why I take so few street scenes. (That might change.) But I'm here, and very happily so, and will keep posting.
I hope you had a chance to see more of the country than Bangkok when you came here. Maybe you have some pictures to share?
And I appreciate your interest. Thank you.

[Jonathan Mac]

Auto-Takumar 55mm f/2



Again missed focus on one of her eyes. I was pleased with this photo otherwise.

I'd say this photo embodies the sentiment that a photo doesn't need to be pin sharp to be wonderful. I'd say that's an excellent portrait despite the (very slightly) missed focus. I find the 55mm Takumars to be superb portrait lenses, they have a great rendering for that use.

[ivanvernon]

Hi Ivan.
I've lived in Thailand for a total of about eight years, beginning in 1980 when I came with a friend enroute to Bali or Nepal (We hadn't decided.), felt I had landed on a different planet, lost my friend, and ended up staying for nearly two years, eight months of that in Koh Samui, which was undeveloped at the time. Twenty five years later, I came back for another two year stay, all in Bangkok, my favorite city. Nearly four years ago I retired, and here I am again.
When you say "Royal Palace Museum" are you referring to the Grand Palace? If not, I don't think I know it? If so, I have photographed there but during the film era and all of my film is gone. I avoid the place these days because it's always mobbed with tourists.
I've noticed that for myself some countries are more photogenic than others with India perhaps being the top of the list. I've never found Thailand particularly interesting as a subject for photography which is why I take so few street scenes. (That might change.) But I'm here, and very happily so, and will keep posting.
I hope you had a chance to see more of the country than Bangkok when you came here. Maybe you have some pictures to share?
And I appreciate your interest. Thank you.

I saw mainly Bangkok and Pattaya, but had chance to visit in home of my friend in Bangkok. Grand Palace must be same as what I had known as the Royal Palace Museum--an ancient royal residential area filled with highly decorative buildings. My photos--of temples, the Grand Palace area, and food street scenes along with typical tourist areas--are long gone I am afraid This was back in the 1980s with my old Pentax-Sears clone, but I still have some of the lenses! I enjoyed my interactions with the people of Thailand, and can easily imagine that it would be a pleasant place to pass the days of ones life.

It is nice to be in contact with you, and to keep up with your photographic work.

Kind regards.

[skierd]

I'd say this photo embodies the sentiment that a photo doesn't need to be pin sharp to be wonderful. I'd say that's an excellent portrait despite the (very slightly) missed focus. I find the 55mm Takumars to be superb portrait lenses, they have a great rendering for that use.

My thoughts exactly, it's a great shot.

[tim60]

I'd say this photo embodies the sentiment that a photo doesn't need to be pin sharp to be wonderful. I'd say that's an excellent portrait despite the (very slightly) missed focus. I find the 55mm Takumars to be superb portrait lenses, they have a great rendering for that use.

I saw the picture a couple of days back on my phone - not a good tool for looking at pictures. Under those conditions the DOF will not allow both eyes to be in focus, and better to get one than to get both out of focus because the nose is in focus. I liked the overall result.

[Andrew_Oid]

I wanted to photograph something, and this is all I had at hand.
Shot at f16. "The Hand Not Holding the Camera"

[tim60]

I wanted to photograph something, and this is all I had at hand.
Shot at f16. "The Hand Not Holding the Camera"

I find one handed photos really difficult to get reasonable results with. Hard to hold steady, etc.

[Andrew_Oid]

I find one handed photos really difficult to get reasonable results with. Hard to hold steady, etc.

It required several takes, about six or seven, to get this one in which the hand was completely in focus. 1/13 sec is a slow "shutter speed" but with a 20mm lens it's nearly half the reciprocal of the focal length so not too bad. The difficulty was in getting focus. Focus assist wasn't helpful with this shot. I pretty much had to eyeball it. Like I said, it wasn't a one off.