[Vasyl]

Great stuff. Isn't the skyline in Pittsburgh amazing? I used to live a couple miles from where you took that photo.

Thank you!
I liked it too.

[WinterboJ]

WinterboJ, have you considered writing a book?

What's with the smiley? Is it a hint that I could make my points (which still no-one has responded to) much more concisely? Fair point, I know I need to work on that; especially the double post where I quoted myself. That would be a positive thing to say, and I hope that was where you're coming from.

Or is it code for from the current "the man" to say "hey guys, this is how to see off Nikon fan boys coming on here strutting their stuff"?

Whatever. You've posted some strange stuff on here recently (clothes pegs + steam, blurry brother "we were having fun", girlfriend posing), mostly if not always asking for the response "please tell me this is rubbish if you think so". Well, my response to that is that I don't think any of them add anything to what Takumar lenses are renowned for, they could all of have been done with the bottom of a glass bottle and been just as artistic. It all depends on the type of bottle, of course, are Pentax bottles better than Nikon bottles?

What do you think, Jakob?

[vladimiroltean]

...

Sorry if my message or my pictures offended you in any way, they certainly weren't meant to do so. I was just amusing myself that I broke the speed limit trying to scroll over your long posts

Hi kcobain.. this is what I noticed..regards

Mhm, almost forgot about that. Sorry for not realizing, but it was kind of out of context, so...
I now use an aftermarket hood, which has all the qualities I need (cheap, good, easily replaceable), plus I can mount a 72mm pinch cap on top of it.

[jt_cph_dk]

What's with the smiley? Is it a hint that I could make my points (which still no-one has responded to) much more concisely? Fair point, I know I need to work on that; especially the double post where I quoted myself. That would be a positive thing to say, and I hope that was where you're coming from.

Or is it code for from the current "the man" to say "hey guys, this is how to see off Nikon fan boys coming on here strutting their stuff"?

Whatever. You've posted some strange stuff on here recently (clothes pegs + steam, blurry brother "we were having fun", girlfriend posing), mostly if not always asking for the response "please tell me this is rubbish if you think so". Well, my response to that is that I don't think any of them add anything to what Takumar lenses are renowned for, they could all of have been done with the bottom of a glass bottle and been just as artistic. It all depends on the type of bottle, of course, are Pentax bottles better than Nikon bottles?

What do you think, Jakob?

I think, that your D700 blows the reds.

Just joking. Actually your first image taken with the Takumar is fine. It´s the Sigmas fault

By the way, I´m a Nikonian as well (besides my Pentax addiction). My first camera was the great Nikon FE2 (got it in `86) and I still have it and use it from time to time.

Regards

[Chex]

a couple with Sup. Takumar 17mm

Pittsburgh, PA

Wow.. been looking for a 15 or 17mm Takumar for awhile now.. need the cash... sure looks like a fun lens to play with, would love it on FF

[WinterboJ]

Hi Jakob, sorry if I had a sense of humour failure. The problem with the reds in the second poppy shot was much more to do with me messing up the WB and not correcting it properly in ACR, than a failure of the Sigma lens - it works very nicely, mostly.

If I have a philosophical point to make, it's that there shouldn't be Pentaxians/Canonians/Nikonians trying to out-do each other, but photographers trying to share information; that was all I was ever trying to do here and I WILL try to get to grips with my verbosity.

Maybe if I get a general thumbs up that it won't offend too many peeps, I can post some more Tak/Nik dslr shots, because I'm not going to stop using that combo, and some of them may be worth sharing because of what they look like, not what gear they were taken with.

But here goes, more verbosity - I went to North Wales in June with my 90+ years mum, and all I took with me (photographically!) was the D700 and three Taks - the 24/3.5 featured here recently, a 50/1.4 (can't remember which of my four versions I was toting) and a 135/3.5. Pretty much the classic tryptich of three primes on a film SLR. Nothing much came out of it as an artistic set, but I would like you all to think that I wouldn't have taken that set of gear if I wasn't happy that the optical adapter wasn't going to degrade the images enough to make them unenjoyable. And it didn't.

[jt_cph_dk]

Maybe if I get a general thumbs up that it won't offend too many peeps, I can post some more Tak/Nik dslr shots, because I'm not going to stop using that combo, and some of them may be worth sharing because of what they look like, not what gear they were taken with

I don´t think anyone is worried about the Nikon. For this particular thread it´s all about showing/sharing/discussing your great (..or less great) Takumar shots. There is even a Nikon/Canon/etc. section on this forum.
I hope you will post here and enjoy it. As to why, that optical adapter ‘ball‘ didn´t atract a lot of attention (but some hic-up)? It´s probably because, that here we mostly shoot Pentax. Kind regards

[timmijo]

I like the idea of a world full of non-Nikonians, non-Canonians, non-Pentaxians, etc., but just photographers sharing information.

[vladimiroltean]

Super Tak 55/1.8 (1962 variant, reversed aperture ring)

[timmijo]

Super Tak 55/1.8 (1962 variant, reversed aperture ring)

This is a nice photo; could you explain a little about using the reverse aperture ring? I just bought a Takumar 55mm 1.8 but have not used it yet on my KR. I saw a reverse ring on Ebay today ...

[vladimiroltean]

This is a nice photo; could you explain a little about using the reverse aperture ring? I just bought a Takumar 55mm 1.8 but have not used it yet on my KR. I saw a reverse ring on Ebay today ...

Reversing rings have nothing to do with the Tak 55/1.8 (except that you can use them to reverse lenses, for macro work). The aperture ring of the Auto and early Super Tak turned the opposite way compared to all later Pentax lenses: normally you'd have largest aperture on the right side, and smallest on the left side. This one has f/1.8 at the left end and f/16 at the right end.

[timmijo]

Ok, I get it; you were explaining the aperture ring on your Tak. Thanks.

[One of Them]

Love my good old Super Tak 28mm 3,5. Such a depandable performer. Too bad I don't use it as much as I did

[Jan-61]

Very nice pic! Istanbul?


Jan.

Edit: I just saw it is Lisbon.

[Chex]

I like the idea of a world full of non-Nikonians, non-Canonians, non-Pentaxians, etc., but just photographers sharing information.

Sure would be nice, the camera is simply a tool for capturing the image.. There's always "The Camera Enthusiast" forum that Adam had started earlier this year.. but it's pretty quiet.