Takumar club

**eccs19** · 06-12-2010, 05:32 AM

It's nice to see all these newer members with taks posting. Welcome to the Tak club.

Mike Cash · 06-12-2010, 05:54 AM

I agree, it is very nice to see new folks joining us here. I hope they will be very active.

Pentax K20D
S-M-C Takumar 105/2.8

Ira · 06-12-2010, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by missbrojensen

Super Takumar 55mm f/2

From today. No PP.

Another duck person! (Even though those are swans.)

Are they all banded like that?

missbrojensen · 06-12-2010, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by Ira

Another duck person! (Even though those are swans.)

Are they all banded like that?

There is one "swan-couple" living at this lake, and both swans are branded. Because of your reply I just had to do some research on banding swans - apparently, the female swan comes from England and the male swan comes from Scotland. Well, they are a bit far far from home, but they are welcome

Posing father swan (no PP)

richard64 · 06-12-2010, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by missbrojensen

There is one "swan-couple" living at this lake, and both swans are branded. Because of your reply I just had to do some research on banding swans - apparently, the female swan comes from England and the male swan comes from Scotland. Well, they are a bit far far from home, but they are welcome

Ah, in that case they are owned by the Queen. The female is owned by Queen Elizabeth II, and the male by Queen Elizabeth I.

Provoke · 06-12-2010, 01:46 PM

f135/3.5

Ira · 06-12-2010, 02:39 PM

I'm really getting hungry for duck tonight after seeing these shots.

onesidedcoin · 06-12-2010, 03:00 PM

Takumar 105 wide open

Ira · 06-12-2010, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by johnamus

Purchased 135mm 3.5, 50mm 1.4, and 28mm S-M-C Taks along with an old canon 10D. Total cost under $350 for a nice DSLR entry-level setup.

I'm just getting into photography, but I'm already loving the vividness of the Taks compared to my point and shoot.

This one is from the 135mm:

WELCOME TO THE PARTY!!!

The old Taks give you more of the old film look, as opposed to the clinical, laboratory sharpness of so many modern digital lenses.

It's a wonderful thing.

**robbiec** · 06-12-2010, 06:35 PM

Recession!

**k0og** · 06-12-2010, 08:53 PM

I just acquired a box full of Pentax bodies, parts, and Takumar lenses. This is my "new" Super Macro Takumar 50mm f4:

This poor fellow was rattling around in a box full of junk and was COVERED with dirt, with no front or back covers. The front element was not visible through the dirt. I was not very hopeful I would be able to recover it, but it cleaned up nicely!

And here are a couple of pictures I took this afternoon after a brief rain shower with the 50mm f4 on K100DS, ISO800.

I pushed the exposure and contrast a bit in post processing, and a little sharpening after resizing for web posting.

This is a FUN lens to use - so light and easy to handle!

-Joe-

fractal · 06-13-2010, 12:19 AM

Super Tak 55/1.8

Mike Cash · 06-13-2010, 02:08 AM

Pentax K20D
S-M-C Takumar 135/3.5

richard64 · 06-13-2010, 05:20 AM

I have a collection of Takumars, I love the ones I have.

I recently bought two Auto Takumar 55/2.2 both "has no fungus". I bought two because I messed up - I forgot that I had bought the first when I bid for the second. No matter, they are very cheap lenses (I got one for £7 the other for £11). I believe that the vendors honestly thought that there was no fungus.

When I got the lenses I looked at them carefully and saw no fungus myself. I have bought lenses before with fungus and know what it looks like (see below for a horrible infection). After I got them, I wanted to choose between these two lenses, keep the best one and sell the other one.

Anyway, today I was at a lose end and I shone a very bright LED flashlight through the lenses and used a desktop magnifying lens (one of those on an arm with a light) to inspect what I could see. First, you have to be careful doing this, because it can dazzle you! Second, when you get the angle right, the light will show various elements within the lens.

I found that the first lens I had bought did have fungus on one internal element. Just a bit, but it was there. The other lens did not have fungus as far as I could see, but I noticed some very light scratches on the front element. Swings and roundabouts. Incidentally, these defects do not show up on images I have taken using the lenses. I have one lens that is (as far as I can tell) fungus-free, and the other has some minor fungus infection (it is older than me! and dates from around 1961, of course there will be a good chance that it may has fungus).

Then I did the same inspection with some of my other cherished Takumars, and found that my Super Takumar 105/2.8 has a few whispy fungus on an inner element. I hadn't noticed this before, and frankly I do not care.

So my message to you is this:

1) every lens has some fungus internally and you can never have a lens that is fungus free
2) most fungus will have zero effect on the images taken with the lens
3) most fungus will not spread to your other lenses - DO NOT WORRY!
4) a 40 year old lens is bound to have fungus somewhere, and you will not normally see this
5) let me reiterate this - most people do not know that their lenses have fungus, and will get wonderful images even with fungus

I will not re-sell the Auto Tak 55/2.2 that has fungus. There is no point because it is so cheap that I will not benefit from re-selling, and equally so, there is no point me making an issue with the vendor who I think was honest about their view. My reason for considering reselling was simply to give someone else the benefit of owning a wonderful lens.

Just for the record, here is a lens with a serious fungus infection. (SMC Takumar 55/2) I knew this was the case when I bought it (I wanted the Spotmatic it was attached to), because the infection was so obvious. When I get the time, I will take some photographs of the Auto-Tak with fungus and show how the vendor thought it was fungus-free and how I found it was not. But for now, here's an obvious example.

hangu · 06-13-2010, 08:04 AM

@Richard64: I usually let fungus slide as well but when I pay a premium for a lens that the seller claims to be fungus free, then I throw a stink. It's the seller's responsibility to inspect their lenses properly.

It's possible to clean off fungus with either wyndex or cold cream. I would do it for the peace of mind that it will not grow and spread. It takes a LOT of fungus to visibly affect image quality but I think we have a responsibility to take care of our lenses.

I would consider transplanting the fungus-ridden auto takumar's front element to the non fungus one. Shouldn't be too difficult to do and 20 minutes of your time.

@Mike: That photo is probably shocking or at least comical in Japan but it's a really common sight here in the US, especially when you go down south.

06-12-2010, 08:53 PM	#4256
k0og Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Rolla, Missouri Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 699	Super Macro Takumar 50mm f4 I just acquired a box full of Pentax bodies, parts, and Takumar lenses. This is my "new" Super Macro Takumar 50mm f4: This poor fellow was rattling around in a box full of junk and was COVERED with dirt, with no front or back covers. The front element was not visible through the dirt. I was not very hopeful I would be able to recover it, but it cleaned up nicely! And here are a couple of pictures I took this afternoon after a brief rain shower with the 50mm f4 on K100DS, ISO800. I pushed the exposure and contrast a bit in post processing, and a little sharpening after resizing for web posting. This is a FUN lens to use - so light and easy to handle! -Joe-

06-13-2010, 05:20 AM	#4259
richard64 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: England Posts: 309	No fungus? I have a collection of Takumars, I love the ones I have. I recently bought two Auto Takumar 55/2.2 both "has no fungus". I bought two because I messed up - I forgot that I had bought the first when I bid for the second. No matter, they are very cheap lenses (I got one for £7 the other for £11). I believe that the vendors honestly thought that there was no fungus. When I got the lenses I looked at them carefully and saw no fungus myself. I have bought lenses before with fungus and know what it looks like (see below for a horrible infection). After I got them, I wanted to choose between these two lenses, keep the best one and sell the other one. Anyway, today I was at a lose end and I shone a very bright LED flashlight through the lenses and used a desktop magnifying lens (one of those on an arm with a light) to inspect what I could see. First, you have to be careful doing this, because it can dazzle you! Second, when you get the angle right, the light will show various elements within the lens. I found that the first lens I had bought did have fungus on one internal element. Just a bit, but it was there. The other lens did not have fungus as far as I could see, but I noticed some very light scratches on the front element. Swings and roundabouts. Incidentally, these defects do not show up on images I have taken using the lenses. I have one lens that is (as far as I can tell) fungus-free, and the other has some minor fungus infection (it is older than me! and dates from around 1961, of course there will be a good chance that it may has fungus). Then I did the same inspection with some of my other cherished Takumars, and found that my Super Takumar 105/2.8 has a few whispy fungus on an inner element. I hadn't noticed this before, and frankly I do not care. So my message to you is this: 1) every lens has some fungus internally and you can never have a lens that is fungus free 2) most fungus will have zero effect on the images taken with the lens 3) most fungus will not spread to your other lenses - DO NOT WORRY! 4) a 40 year old lens is bound to have fungus somewhere, and you will not normally see this 5) let me reiterate this - most people do not know that their lenses have fungus, and will get wonderful images even with fungus I will not re-sell the Auto Tak 55/2.2 that has fungus. There is no point because it is so cheap that I will not benefit from re-selling, and equally so, there is no point me making an issue with the vendor who I think was honest about their view. My reason for considering reselling was simply to give someone else the benefit of owning a wonderful lens. Just for the record, here is a lens with a serious fungus infection. (SMC Takumar 55/2) I knew this was the case when I bought it (I wanted the Spotmatic it was attached to), because the infection was so obvious. When I get the time, I will take some photographs of the Auto-Tak with fungus and show how the vendor thought it was fungus-free and how I found it was not. But for now, here's an obvious example.

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

06-12-2010, 05:32 AM	#4246
eccs19 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Lisle, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,510	It's nice to see all these newer members with taks posting. Welcome to the Tak club.

06-12-2010, 05:54 AM	#4247
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	I agree, it is very nice to see new folks joining us here. I hope they will be very active. Pentax K20D S-M-C Takumar 105/2.8

06-12-2010, 08:45 AM	#4248
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	Originally posted by missbrojensen Super Takumar 55mm f/2 From today. No PP. Another duck person! (Even though those are swans.) Are they all banded like that?

06-12-2010, 10:25 AM	#4249
missbrojensen New Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Copenhagen Posts: 21	Originally posted by Ira Another duck person! (Even though those are swans.) Are they all banded like that? There is one "swan-couple" living at this lake, and both swans are branded. Because of your reply I just had to do some research on banding swans - apparently, the female swan comes from England and the male swan comes from Scotland. Well, they are a bit far far from home, but they are welcome Posing father swan (no PP)

06-12-2010, 01:18 PM	#4250
richard64 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: England Posts: 309	Originally posted by missbrojensen There is one "swan-couple" living at this lake, and both swans are branded. Because of your reply I just had to do some research on banding swans - apparently, the female swan comes from England and the male swan comes from Scotland. Well, they are a bit far far from home, but they are welcome Ah, in that case they are owned by the Queen. The female is owned by Queen Elizabeth II, and the male by Queen Elizabeth I.

06-12-2010, 01:46 PM	#4251
Provoke New Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Kielce Posts: 22	f135/3.5

06-12-2010, 02:39 PM	#4252
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	I'm really getting hungry for duck tonight after seeing these shots.

06-12-2010, 03:00 PM	#4253
onesidedcoin New Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Connecticut Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20	Takumar 105 wide open

06-12-2010, 03:17 PM	#4254
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	Originally posted by johnamus Purchased 135mm 3.5, 50mm 1.4, and 28mm S-M-C Taks along with an old canon 10D. Total cost under $350 for a nice DSLR entry-level setup. I'm just getting into photography, but I'm already loving the vividness of the Taks compared to my point and shoot. This one is from the 135mm: WELCOME TO THE PARTY!!! The old Taks give you more of the old film look, as opposed to the clinical, laboratory sharpness of so many modern digital lenses. It's a wonderful thing.

06-12-2010, 06:35 PM	#4255
robbiec Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Cork Photos: Albums Posts: 1,882	Recession!

06-13-2010, 12:19 AM	#4257
fractal Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,547	Super Tak 55/1.8

06-13-2010, 02:08 AM	#4258
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Pentax K20D S-M-C Takumar 135/3.5

06-13-2010, 08:04 AM	#4260
hangu Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: NYC Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,071	@Richard64: I usually let fungus slide as well but when I pay a premium for a lens that the seller claims to be fungus free, then I throw a stink. It's the seller's responsibility to inspect their lenses properly. It's possible to clean off fungus with either wyndex or cold cream. I would do it for the peace of mind that it will not grow and spread. It takes a LOT of fungus to visibly affect image quality but I think we have a responsibility to take care of our lenses. I would consider transplanting the fungus-ridden auto takumar's front element to the non fungus one. Shouldn't be too difficult to do and 20 minutes of your time. @Mike: That photo is probably shocking or at least comical in Japan but it's a really common sight here in the US, especially when you go down south.