[fikkser]

Merry Christmas/God Jul.

Trying to upload from my android phone for the first time, hope it works out OK.

Pic of Santa "taking" my k7 with 8 element 50 1,4.

---

Last edited by fikkser; 12-25-2011 at 05:22 AM.

[mglowe]

Another quick test shot with my new Takumar 200mm F3.5 preset. Shot wide open in my sandblast yard again. This lens really gives a 3D look that I haven't seen with my other lenses too much yet. Parts of the branches in this photo seem to jump out at you. It look MUCH better on my photoshop screen, more 3D. Flickr downsizes the images for some reason, so it isn't as 3D looking here, but still decent

American Robin eating snow

This is a likable shot, very refreshing! You can see minor fringing, a shade of green that this lens can produce wide open along crisp high contrast edges. I'm sure you noticed it. It's actually not very pronounced given the circumstances of the shot. It's easily fixed with your software. This lens along with it's cousin the Auto Takumar 135 3.5 will produce a characteristic magenta red from time to time as well, and this is equally easy to dispose of. Most of my more modern telephotos produce a purplish fringing instead of these colors. I usually don't mess with fixing this unless it really distracts (in your shot it's hardly noticeable and isn't really a problem to me) or I print a shot. I think some cameras now days, and certainly some software can be pre-programmed for a particular lens taking care of this problem automatically. I'm just as happy to correct the problem as it comes since it occurs only with the occasional shot. I'm looking forward to more of your pictures of birds and stuff with your new 200.

.....went back and looked closer and there is a little red magenta fringing, but you have to be hunting closely to notice it. I only mention this stuff because on occasion, fringing can ruin a shot if it is in the wrong place, and, as I said, it can really detract from a print. I remember being shocked to find some prints I made after a trip to Africa ruined by fringing. I just didn't know about the concept of fringing or notice the fringing at the computer while editing. I was mad at my very nice and new Canon lenses at the time, both wide and telephoto, not realizing how typical and fixable the phenomenon is. The most disturbing shot featured a crow perched on a house size boulder as he looked down on our camp at sixteen and a half thousand feet altitude, a camp that looked like the face of some alien world, one where colorfully dressed people and camping gear were residing in great contrast to the natural setting. I really liked the shot I'd taken for it's extremes and unlikely nature, but, the coal black crow was outlined boldly against the slate grey sky in a bright neon purple, a fringing not seen by my inexperienced eyes at the computer. So my big beautiful print was horrifying to look at! Now it's funny to think back about how concerned I was with it then.

At least these old Takumar lenses produce fringing in Christmas season colors!

[Lowell Goudge]

This is a likable shot, very refreshing! You can see minor fringing, a shade of green that this lens can produce wide open along crisp high contrast edges. I'm sure you noticed it. It's actually not very pronounced given the circumstances of the shot. It's easily fixed with your software. This lens along with it's cousin the Auto Takumar 135 3.5 will produce a characteristic magenta red from time to time as well, and this is equally easy to dispose of. Most of my more modern telephotos produce a purplish fringing instead of these colors. I usually don't mess with fixing this unless it really distracts (in your shot it's hardly noticeable and isn't really a problem to me) or I print a shot. I think some cameras now days, and certainly some software can be pre-programmed for a particular lens taking care of this problem automatically. I'm just as happy to correct the problem as it comes since it occurs only with the occasional shot. I'm looking forward to more of your pictures of birds and stuff with your new 200.

.....went back and looked closer and there is a little red magenta fringing, but you have to be hunting closely to notice it. I only mention this stuff because on occasion, fringing can ruin a shot if it is in the wrong place, and, as I said, it can really detract from a print. I remember being shocked to find some prints I made after a trip to Africa ruined by fringing. I just didn't know about the concept of fringing or notice the fringing at the computer while editing. I was mad at my very nice and new Canon lenses at the time, both wide and telephoto, not realizing how typical and fixable the phenomenon is. The most disturbing shot featured a crow perched on a house size boulder as he looked down on our camp at sixteen and a half thousand feet altitude, a camp that looked like the face of some alien world, one where colorfully dressed people and camping gear were residing in great contrast to the natural setting. I really liked the shot I'd taken for it's extremes and unlikely nature, but, the coal black crow was outlined boldly against the slate grey sky in a bright neon purple, a fringing not seen by my inexperienced eyes at the computer. So my big beautiful print was horrifying to look at! Now it's funny to think back about how concerned I was with it then.

At least these old Takumar lenses produce fringing in Christmas season colors!

What you see is the longitudinal CA. Green behind the plane of focus, purple in front. I have the same lens and although it has it's faults I quite prefer this over the SMC tak 200/4

[theunartist]

...a crow perched on a house size boulder as he looked down on our camp at sixteen and a half thousand feet altitude, a camp that looked like the face of some alien world, one where colorfully dressed people and camping gear were residing in great contrast to the natural setting.

Mike - glad the image didn't turn out, might've been disappointed after visualizing this scene through your eloquent description; OR on the other hand, if it did turn out, maybe it could've been that picture "worth a thousand words"...

Have a good Holiday - Rick

BTW - that Crow was probably a Baltimore Raven

[theunartist]

K20D + Super Takumar 105/2.8

[Mike Cash]

Pentax K-5
Takumar 105/2.8 (Preset)

[samtr87]

Got bored. Super-Tak 55/2 w/ K-x

[Mike Cash]

Bored or not, that's very nicely done.

Pentax K-5
Super Takumar 24/3.5

[theunartist]

Kx + Super Takumar 105/2.8

[Colorado CJ]

Shot I took today while out playing with the dog. Other shots in post your photos.

Takumar 200mm F3.5 wide open.

[PenPusher]

Mike, I have been admiring your work for a long time now, particularly the Dancer Series, now that you have sampled 2 Tamrons and the FA43Ltd how do they compare with your Takumars, if you have the time. Thank you.

[Mike Cash]

Mike, I have been admiring your work for a long time now, particularly the Dancer Series, now that you have sampled 2 Tamrons and the FA43Ltd how do they compare with your Takumars, if you have the time. Thank you.

You're very kind to notice my pictures.

I got the Tamrons for the specific purpose of covering dances with multiple people on stage at the same time, where the subject distance and framing changes by a large amount and a zoom is a must. They are perfectly fine lenses which I have no trouble recommending to anyone with a need for zoom/autofocus. I just don't get any enjoyment out of using such lenses and hence they only get trotted out when I need those features.

The FA43 gives absolutely stellar results. Being autofocus, like the two Tamrons it wasn't the least bit fun to use. I only bought the thing because I couldn't rent one. And I only got it because I had trouble using Takumars under stage lighting at a prior dance at a different venue, first time using the K-5 for that kind of shooting. I didn't know if the problem was me, the camera, the lighting, or what. But I couldn't take a chance, so I got the FA43 for insurance. I have close to zero use for the thing now, remarkable lens though it may be. As it turned out, everything was fine with the K-5 and Takumars in the second venue, but having laid out the dough for the FA43 I was damned well going to use the thing.

They're all fine; I just don't derive any enjoyment or satisfaction from using them. With Takumars, I enjoy the shooting and get more satisfaction from the results.

(Please indulge me by not using the term "work" in reference to my pictures. It is too closely associated with the artsy photographers I so often find to be tiresome douchebags).

[PenPusher]

Thank you for your reply.

I understand now about the Tamrons and the FA43Ltd, strictly horses for courses, and if I had to fork out for the FA43Ltd I would be sure to use it too.

I actually use the M series simply because of the mount and find them very satisfactory.

I promise not to use the word "work" any more though in my opinion you leave most "photographers" standing.

Regards.

[theunartist]

K20D + Super Takumar 105/2.8







Kx + Super Takumar 50/1.4 Young Friedrich Nietzsche Commission

[Pepe Guitarra]

Love the watercolor, who is Paul Maretinez, is that you Rick?

I do watercolor among other things.

Pepe

K20D + Super Takumar 105/2.8







Kx + Super Takumar 50/1.4 Young Friedrich Nietzsche Commission