Takumar club

SteveM · 04-03-2011, 09:38 PM

It's been a while since I posted something in the club...

1957 Takumar 83/1.9........

ducdao · 04-03-2011, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by smc

It's been a while since I posted something in the club...

1957 Takumar 83/1.9........

WOW! Was this shot wide open?

Mike Cash · 04-04-2011, 01:03 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Porga

There is nothing wrong with your PP.

That's what my urologist says too.

dude163 · 04-04-2011, 05:33 AM

nice

hehehehe

SteveM · 04-04-2011, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by ducdao

WOW! Was this shot wide open?

Thanks. To be honest, I'm not 100% sure as I did take some shots at 1.9 and at around 4. When I bought the lens, I bought it to go with my AP and K bodies, but was pleasantly surprised by it's performance and started to use it on digital. It of course doesn't have the coatings of later generations of lenses, but it is so small and light as compared to the 85s.

Steve

**Porga** · 04-04-2011, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by mike cash

that's what my urologist says too.

lol

natestation · 04-04-2011, 09:11 AM

Really nice seeing all the posts with the Tak's lately. Porga, I especially enjoyed the OOF shot of the grass with the dew. I've been on the road for the last month, but I'm looking forward to sharing some Tak shots. I've taken a break to use my DA40/Rokinon Fisheye combo for awhile, but I always enjoy using the Taks when I hook them up to my camera.

**Porga** · 04-04-2011, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by natestation

Really nice seeing all the posts with the Tak's lately. Porga, I especially enjoyed the OOF shot of the grass with the dew. I've been on the road for the last month, but I'm looking forward to sharing some Tak shots. I've taken a break to use my DA40/Rokinon Fisheye combo for awhile, but I always enjoy using the Taks when I hook them up to my camera.

Thank you.

I had pause too, I was using Tamron 28-75 for few months. But, to be honest, although Tamron is great lens, I like the photos taken with Takumar lenses much more. Regardles of not being AF like Tamron, and my focusing errors (I don't have focusing creen or magnifier)my keeper rate for Takumar photos is greater than keeper rate for Tamron photos.
Looking forward to seing your photos.

Jonathan Mac · 04-04-2011, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Porga

Thank you.

I had pause too, I was using Tamron 28-75 for few months. But, to be honest, although Tamron is great lens, I like the photos taken with Takumar lenses much more. Regardles of not being AF like Tamron, and my focusing errors (I don't have focusing creen or magnifier)my keeper rate for Takumar photos is greater than keeper rate for Tamron photos.
Looking forward to seing your photos.

I look forward to seeing your shots here Porga, and I´m a particular fan of your PP.

You´re right - being a keeper has much to it than being in focus.

**Lowell Goudge** · 04-04-2011, 04:49 PM

Have you guys looked at the thread running on the Super Tak 50F1.4 (version 1) and ppurple spot in the middle of the frame?

It prompted me to take mine out and do a little testing for flare.

Don't worry, but use a hood. I got this wide open with the sun caught between the image circle for film, and the image circle for digital.

Bottom line is use a hood

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/138992-8-eleme...ml#post1453466

**pacerr** · 04-04-2011, 08:37 PM

After nearly a century of producing lenses with relatively modern optical and coating formulas I fail to see why the need for using a lens hood/shade to get the most from any lens is still in question. Lowell's examples and comments are an excellent case in point. I've yet to encounter a lens that didn't benefit from a hood except under the most perfect conditions for control of incident light if a true comparison were possible.

There's an old adage to the effect that it's not that the pig whistles so well, but that it can whistle at all that's truly amazing. The same could be said about hoodless lenses; some times they whistle pretty darn good without a hood, but that doesn't mean the hood was an afterthought in the designer's plan.

If I were to design a lens today, I'd provide for removing the hood -- a non-functioning, non-optical component -- to make the lens more convenient and compact for stowage. The fact that it was removable for the convenience of the user would in no way imply that it wasn't intended as an integral part of the optical design and I'd state that as such.

If you accept the hood as a part of the original design, the expense and inconvenience make more sense. More the pity that for the sake of economy many lenses are sold without hoods as though they weren't important -- but the consumers brought that upon themselves through ignorance and price point buying. Besides, how many pro lens tests seriously evaluate the hood as part of the design today?

Even if previous lens designs had conditioned us to expect permanently attached hoods, (including adjustment for the field of view of zooms?), we'd not only still be complainin' about flare and lose of contrast under adverse conditions, we'd be bitchin' about the size of the lenses until someone introduced removable hoods for us to loose.

H2

**Porga** · 04-05-2011, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by Jonathan Mac

I look forward to seeing your shots here Porga, and I´m a particular fan of your PP.

You´re right - being a keeper has much to it than being in focus.

Thank you.

Ira · 04-05-2011, 12:41 PM

Did you ever shoot something and think it was gonna come out great, just based on the shooting conditions and LCD review?

Well, I did on Saturday, even though I know the LCD review isn't a good indication.

Will post the image(s) later.

It's a SAW!

Chex · 04-05-2011, 03:32 PM

Using the LCD screen, I zoom in 8X if what I'm looking at isn't still fairly sharp, it's not a keeper. Most of the time sharp focus still shows decently between 8x and 9.5x at least then you get the idea if its crisp or not.

yeatzee · 04-05-2011, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

Have you guys looked at the thread running on the Super Tak 50F1.4 (version 1) and ppurple spot in the middle of the frame?

It prompted me to take mine out and do a little testing for flare.

Don't worry, but use a hood. I got this wide open with the sun caught between the image circle for film, and the image circle for digital.

Bottom line is use a hood

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/138992-8-eleme...ml#post1453466

The auto-tak 55mm flares like crazy in the right conditions

FLARE! by yeatzee (now 17, but still learning), on Flickr

Loving the lens though (its definitely got character!)

04-04-2011, 08:37 PM	#7691
pacerr Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Paris, TN Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,349	Hood-winked? After nearly a century of producing lenses with relatively modern optical and coating formulas I fail to see why the need for using a lens hood/shade to get the most from any lens is still in question. Lowell's examples and comments are an excellent case in point. I've yet to encounter a lens that didn't benefit from a hood except under the most perfect conditions for control of incident light if a true comparison were possible. There's an old adage to the effect that it's not that the pig whistles so well, but that it can whistle at all that's truly amazing. The same could be said about hoodless lenses; some times they whistle pretty darn good without a hood, but that doesn't mean the hood was an afterthought in the designer's plan. If I were to design a lens today, I'd provide for removing the hood -- a non-functioning, non-optical component -- to make the lens more convenient and compact for stowage. The fact that it was removable for the convenience of the user would in no way imply that it wasn't intended as an integral part of the optical design and I'd state that as such. If you accept the hood as a part of the original design, the expense and inconvenience make more sense. More the pity that for the sake of economy many lenses are sold without hoods as though they weren't important -- but the consumers brought that upon themselves through ignorance and price point buying. Besides, how many pro lens tests seriously evaluate the hood as part of the design today? Even if previous lens designs had conditioned us to expect permanently attached hoods, (including adjustment for the field of view of zooms?), we'd not only still be complainin' about flare and lose of contrast under adverse conditions, we'd be bitchin' about the size of the lenses until someone introduced removable hoods for us to loose. H2

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Takumar: Super Takumar 135mm f3.5 includes case, hood and caps	Peter Zack	Sold Items	7	05-17-2010 07:12 PM
Adorama is dangerous! And so is the Takumar Club!	NaClH2O	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	01-24-2010 09:54 AM
For Sale - Sold: Hard Cases for Takumar 28mm/3.5 and Takumar 135mm/2.5	gabriel_bc	Sold Items	8	01-11-2010 10:17 AM
For Sale - Sold: FS: Pentax-F 28/2.8; Takumar 400/5.6; Takumar 500/4.5 - pics	thePiRaTE!!	Sold Items	5	03-06-2008 09:47 AM

04-03-2011, 09:38 PM	#7681
SteveM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,294	It's been a while since I posted something in the club... 1957 Takumar 83/1.9........

04-03-2011, 11:19 PM	#7682
ducdao Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Montreal/Vermont Posts: 2,160	Originally posted by smc It's been a while since I posted something in the club... 1957 Takumar 83/1.9........ WOW! Was this shot wide open?

04-04-2011, 01:03 AM - 1 Like	#7683
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Originally posted by Porga There is nothing wrong with your PP. That's what my urologist says too.

04-04-2011, 05:33 AM	#7684
dude163 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 824	nice hehehehe

04-04-2011, 06:50 AM	#7685
SteveM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,294	Originally posted by ducdao WOW! Was this shot wide open? Thanks. To be honest, I'm not 100% sure as I did take some shots at 1.9 and at around 4. When I bought the lens, I bought it to go with my AP and K bodies, but was pleasantly surprised by it's performance and started to use it on digital. It of course doesn't have the coatings of later generations of lenses, but it is so small and light as compared to the 85s. Steve

04-04-2011, 07:32 AM	#7686
Porga Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Photos: Albums Posts: 476	Originally posted by mike cash that's what my urologist says too. lol

04-04-2011, 09:11 AM	#7687
natestation Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Alaska Photos: Albums Posts: 135	Really nice seeing all the posts with the Tak's lately. Porga, I especially enjoyed the OOF shot of the grass with the dew. I've been on the road for the last month, but I'm looking forward to sharing some Tak shots. I've taken a break to use my DA40/Rokinon Fisheye combo for awhile, but I always enjoy using the Taks when I hook them up to my camera.

04-04-2011, 10:25 AM	#7688
Porga Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Photos: Albums Posts: 476	Originally posted by natestation Really nice seeing all the posts with the Tak's lately. Porga, I especially enjoyed the OOF shot of the grass with the dew. I've been on the road for the last month, but I'm looking forward to sharing some Tak shots. I've taken a break to use my DA40/Rokinon Fisheye combo for awhile, but I always enjoy using the Taks when I hook them up to my camera. Thank you. I had pause too, I was using Tamron 28-75 for few months. But, to be honest, although Tamron is great lens, I like the photos taken with Takumar lenses much more. Regardles of not being AF like Tamron, and my focusing errors (I don't have focusing creen or magnifier)my keeper rate for Takumar photos is greater than keeper rate for Tamron photos. Looking forward to seing your photos.

04-04-2011, 02:18 PM	#7689
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,897	Originally posted by Porga Thank you. I had pause too, I was using Tamron 28-75 for few months. But, to be honest, although Tamron is great lens, I like the photos taken with Takumar lenses much more. Regardles of not being AF like Tamron, and my focusing errors (I don't have focusing creen or magnifier)my keeper rate for Takumar photos is greater than keeper rate for Tamron photos. Looking forward to seing your photos. I look forward to seeing your shots here Porga, and I´m a particular fan of your PP. You´re right - being a keeper has much to it than being in focus.

04-04-2011, 04:49 PM	#7690
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	Have you guys looked at the thread running on the Super Tak 50F1.4 (version 1) and ppurple spot in the middle of the frame? It prompted me to take mine out and do a little testing for flare. Don't worry, but use a hood. I got this wide open with the sun caught between the image circle for film, and the image circle for digital. Bottom line is use a hood https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/138992-8-eleme...ml#post1453466

04-05-2011, 08:35 AM	#7692
Porga Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Photos: Albums Posts: 476	Originally posted by Jonathan Mac I look forward to seeing your shots here Porga, and I´m a particular fan of your PP. You´re right - being a keeper has much to it than being in focus. Thank you.

04-05-2011, 12:41 PM	#7693
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	Did you ever shoot something and think it was gonna come out great, just based on the shooting conditions and LCD review? Well, I did on Saturday, even though I know the LCD review isn't a good indication. Will post the image(s) later. It's a SAW!

04-05-2011, 03:32 PM	#7694
Chex Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: The 'Stoke, British Columbia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,678	Using the LCD screen, I zoom in 8X if what I'm looking at isn't still fairly sharp, it's not a keeper. Most of the time sharp focus still shows decently between 8x and 9.5x at least then you get the idea if its crisp or not.

04-05-2011, 06:28 PM	#7695
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge Have you guys looked at the thread running on the Super Tak 50F1.4 (version 1) and ppurple spot in the middle of the frame? It prompted me to take mine out and do a little testing for flare. Don't worry, but use a hood. I got this wide open with the sun caught between the image circle for film, and the image circle for digital. Bottom line is use a hood https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/138992-8-eleme...ml#post1453466 The auto-tak 55mm flares like crazy in the right conditions FLARE! by yeatzee (now 17, but still learning), on Flickr Loving the lens though (its definitely got character!)