[paulh]

Hi people, I do not have lots of Takumars but I will be please to join this thread. I was using last month my Takumar 35mm f2.0, which is not one of the best Tak, but I liked what I got:



And also this:

Nice looking shots!

[Jean Poitiers]

Nice looking shots!

Agreed @ 110% ... very nice & TFS, J

[wtlwdwgn]

Nice looking shots!

Me three!

[tim60]

Nice results with the 35.


I have noticed that some people really like the 35/2 and others seem disappointed by it. It is certainly popular - the prices are among the higher prices of the Tak lenses. What is it that causes this diversity of view?

[Jorgario]

Nice looking shots!

Thank you very much Paulh,

Agreed @ 110% ... very nice & TFS, J

And you too, Jean ... (Merci bien).

Me three!

And thanks again ...

---------- Post added 07-12-14 at 09:58 PM ----------

Nice results with the 35. I have noticed that some people really like the 35/2 and others seem disappointed by it. It is certainly popular - the prices are among the higher prices of the Tak lenses. What is it that causes this diversity of view?

Thanks again Tim60.

I am very proud, I didn't had so many compliments with respect to some pictures ... Let me explain you that is the first time I am really using this Tak 35mm f2. My frase: "which is not one of the best Tak" comes from my impression of what I read in S-M-C/Super Takumar 35mm F2 Reviews - M42 Screwmount Wide-Angle Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

And if you see the ratings in Pentax M42 Screwmount Wide-Angle Primes - Lens Reviews and Specifications - SLR and Interchangeable Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database, the Tak 35mm f2 is the one who has the lowest grades.

There is another detail, I have the non SMC 1963 version, where in some sense is not as good as the SMC 1966 version; so my expectations where not that good.

But seeing the pictures I got and the impression that made on you guys, i am starting to think that I have a very good copy (bought at the Pentax Forum Marketplace, )

Certainly I should say regarding the Tak 35mm f2: "not the best rated 35mm takumars" ...

[tim60]

I am very proud, I didn't had so many compliments with respect to some pictures ... Let me explain you that is the first time I am really using this Tak 35mm f2. My frase: "which is not one of the best Tak" comes from my impression of what I read in S-M-C/Super Takumar 35mm F2 Reviews - M42 Screwmount Wide-Angle Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database
" ...

I had seen the same reviews before I got mine, gave me, almost, cold feet but I got it and am quite pleased with it. I have the ST version (49mm filter mount).


I took it on my trip to Henderson NV a couple of weeks ago. It did not fit what I was photographing well so the others got much more work. (20mm, 85 and 300 and the 55 a bit more than the 35. Just a matter of what subjects and circumstances I was working.

[Jorgario]

I had seen the same reviews before I got mine, gave me, almost, cold feet but I got it and am quite pleased with it. I have the ST version (49mm filter mount).

Good you got it ... We have the same version and I really think after seeing the pictures I got that this little Ta(n)k deserves all his respect ...

I took it on my trip to Henderson NV a couple of weeks ago. It did not fit what I was photographing well so the others got much more work. (20mm, 85 and 300 and the 55 a bit more than the 35. Just a matter of what subjects and circumstances I was working.

Keep trying with it ... until you feel it better and better. One thing I conclude after reading the reviews was that the lens is not that sharp when stopped down (from f2 to f4). If my memory is not bad, I shooted the rose at f4 and the Santa Teresita virgin at f8. But we can still trie to shoot stop down to see what we get ...

So let's keeping shooting Tak 35mm f2 and showing our results ...

Cheers.

[tim60]

Good you got it ...
So let's keeping shooting Tak 35mm f2 and showing our results ...

Cheers.

I like my 35/2 a lot. I think it was well worth the money I paid (about AUD 160-170 including shipping etc).


The reason I did not use it much on my trip was that it did not fit my photography activity very well - either speakers giving speeches, from the front row of the audience or pictures mingling within the crowd at social events. So the two extremes were more appropriate for what I was doing.


I have also been trying to give a bit of a workout to all the Taks on my K3, just to get to kno0w them. I like how they work together.


That also makes for fun conversations with engineers who normally make bespoke expensive things - they find it had to believe seeing me doing their official event pictures using screw mount lenses and producing digital images. Until the Englishman who recognised the K3 because a couple of his friends have them.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Well, the overall review score for the 35mm/2.0 is skewed by a couple of absurdly low marks of 5—written by the sort of reviewers who would probably give a 1960s vintage Ferrari a bad write-up on the grounds that there’s no CD player or airbags. Also, as everyone in the Takumar Club will know, the first and second versions of the lens are completely different and should really have separate entries in the reviews index.

Mine is a battle-scarred copy of the first version, and I love it. Yes, it’s slightly soft wide open. No, I don’t care. It renders beautifully and gives a wonderfully flattering look, and none of my family or friends has ever complained about the way it makes their wrinkles magically disappear.

Comparing my Super Takumar 35mm/2.0 against my S-M-C Takumar 35mm/3.5: The 3.5 gives sharper edges, but the 2.0 actually seems to resolve more detail. Colours from the 3.5 are super-saturated and can sometimes be too bold, while the 2.0 gives a more naturalistic rendering. I base my choice of which one to use on the look I’m aiming for in the final print.

On the whole, I’d guess that people whose eyes are tuned in to the exaggerated edge sharpness and super-bright colour rendering of modern lenses will hate the 35mm/2.0. Personally, the results from modern lenses make my eyes hurt, which is why my old 2.0 is one of my favourite Takumars of all.

[Jorgario]

Yes, it’s slightly soft wide open. No, I don’t care. It renders beautifully and gives a wonderfully flattering look, and none of my family or friends has ever complained about the way it makes their wrinkles magically disappear.

That's definitely a marvelous use ... I will tell you when my wrinkles wife be desappearing and her reaction !

[hinman]

DSC07951



DSC07914



DSC07927 -- S-M-C Takumar 28mm f/3.5


DSC07958


I went too far in dressing up my takumar lenses on a red body. The M42 to C/Y adapter is now stuck on my Contax body, sometime it loosen up and sometime it get stuck. The stuck adapter reminds me of 3rd party M42 to K adapter

Now my Contax body is turned into a m42 body with a deep scratch from my attempt to remove the stuck adapter. The Takumar in the picture is the Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 with 8-element.

[update] A spanner helped me to release the stuck adapter from the red Contax body. I love my Takumar and I do strange things to find a non-Pentax body to dress it up. Shame on me....

All product shots were made with S-M-C Takumar 50mm f/4.0 Macro

Cheers,
Hin

---------- Post added 07-13-14 at 07:49 PM ----------


DSC08005
Dancing Horse with Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 8-element



DSC08011



DSC08036



DSC08029


DSC08034

[lytrytyr]

Super-Takumar 20/4.5 on the K-01

[tim60]

Super-Takumar 20/4.5 on the K-01

The 20 is interesting when you bring it up close to things like that. It focuses close enough to be very interesting with perspective when near.

[baro-nite]

The M42 to C/Y adapter is now stuck on my Contax body, sometime it loosen up and sometime it get stuck.

Ouch, good cautionary tale for me as I wonder what to do with my Contax 139. Glad you were able to get the adapter off. What's the make of the adapter you used?

[hinman]

Ouch, good cautionary tale for me as I wonder what to do with my Contax 139. Glad you were able to get the adapter off. What's the make of the adapter you used?

I managed to use a spanner that I have and release the stuck adapter. The adapter I bought is general 3rd party non-brand available from ebay and shipped from China and like many, they don't have a brand name. The removal tool has two spikes on one side that are supposed to align with the two slotted tiny holes on the adapter but the removal tool was badly designed and longer than the two slotted holes by a millimeter. I buy another one on Amazon with brand Fotodiox and I hope the second one won't have this problem. I have discussions with another user with C/Y bodies and my experience is likely the fault of the faulty adapter.

Thanks,
Hin