Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-27-2010, 05:56 PM   #5671
Ira
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Coral Springs, FL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,216
QuoteOriginally posted by erkie Quote
I see you also have the 105 s tak. How does it compare to the 135 s tak? I only have one 135. an old pentacon. But my 105 spiratone blows it away. Both preset of course
I'd like to get one or the other of the s taks but don't see the 105 often
I am the lone voice on this forum proclaiming that my S-Tak 105 absolutely stinks.

I won't compare it to the 135 since I hardly ever shoot it (don't go much for the longer lengths anyway), but my 105 flares beyond belief at certain angles, even with hood. Plus, I see nothing, nothing special there at all compared to every of my other Taks.

Hell, I even prefer the 200 4 to that 105.

Everyone who has the 105 disagrees with me, but when you're shooting with the 55 1.4, 35 2, and 85 1.9, the 105 is a big disappointment.

I'm going to start doing some macro work, and use it on bellows with extension tubes. Maybe then I won't trash the damn thing.

10-27-2010, 06:14 PM   #5672
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 824
10-27-2010, 06:17 PM   #5673
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Missouri
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 407
Well Thank you for the honest appraisal ! I imagine the 85 1.9 would overshadow it a bit

I found on my Kx when I use my old Pentax bellows (m42 of course) I put a little extentsion tube on the camera then add the bellows. Darn flash bulge in the way otherwise.

My spiratone 105 can flare too. But most of the time it works magic for me. I learned to underexpose about a full stop and things work well for me on the Kx. Although I don't need to on film.

I think maybe saving for the 85 1.9 sounds better than the 105.

Thanks again.

Eric
10-27-2010, 07:00 PM   #5674
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alaska
Photos: Albums
Posts: 135
Agreed...

QuoteOriginally posted by Ira Quote
I am the lone voice on this forum proclaiming that my S-Tak 105 absolutely stinks.

I won't compare it to the 135 since I hardly ever shoot it (don't go much for the longer lengths anyway), but my 105 flares beyond belief at certain angles, even with hood. Plus, I see nothing, nothing special there at all compared to every of my other Taks.

Hell, I even prefer the 200 4 to that 105.

Everyone who has the 105 disagrees with me, but when you're shooting with the 55 1.4, 35 2, and 85 1.9, the 105 is a big disappointment.

I'm going to start doing some macro work, and use it on bellows with extension tubes. Maybe then I won't trash the damn thing.
I'm throwing in my vote with Ira. I tried out the 105 for a few days, and I wasn't impressed; rather, I didn't see anything special about it. I don't see any significant gain for the 105 against the 135 except the extra stop of light-- which can be handy, but I'd rather have the 85 for low light anyway. So if I was starting a takumar collection over again, I'd still pick out a 135 again at half the price of a 105. And I think the 200 is fantastic- it only looses love because of user error I think. ... out of curiosity, has any posted any 120 pics? I'm assuming it runs along the 105-135 quality range.

10-27-2010, 09:16 PM   #5675
Pentaxian
ducdao's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Montreal/Vermont
Posts: 2,160
QuoteOriginally posted by Porga Quote
"Vintage" Lightroom preset, slight crop, and -10 post crop vignetting was all I did to this photo.
Which version of LR are you using? I'm using LR 3.2 and don't see any preset called Vintage. The only one I see that is close to vintage is called "Color Creative - Aged Photo" is that the one? Very nice color by the way
10-28-2010, 05:13 AM   #5676
Site Supporter
Porga's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Photos: Albums
Posts: 476
QuoteOriginally posted by ducdao Quote
Which version of LR are you using? I'm using LR 3.2 and don't see any preset called Vintage. The only one I see that is close to vintage is called "Color Creative - Aged Photo" is that the one? Very nice color by the way
I uploaded aditional set of presets into LR. do a search, there are free ones all over the net. If you cant find anyithing that would suit your needs, send me a PP, ill send the set somehow to you.
10-28-2010, 06:13 AM   #5677
Veteran Member
Mike Cash's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,950


[/img]

Pentax K20D
Takumar 105/2.8 (Preset)



10-28-2010, 06:51 AM   #5678
Veteran Member
LensScribe's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 316
QuoteOriginally posted by Jewelltrail Quote
5 handheld, 1 stop apart shots--exposure fusion for final shot
Great shot! It's pleasantly strange seeing a scene like that when it's late Spring here.

Here's one from a walkabout downtown after dawn on a Sunday. I can't remember what sort of film it was, other than that is was 400ASA.



P30n; S-M-C Takumar 17/f4 FE
10-28-2010, 08:53 AM   #5679
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ohio, USA/ India
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 478
QuoteOriginally posted by Ira Quote
I am the lone voice on this forum proclaiming that my S-Tak 105 absolutely stinks.

I won't compare it to the 135 since I hardly ever shoot it (don't go much for the longer lengths anyway), but my 105 flares beyond belief at certain angles, even with hood. Plus, I see nothing, nothing special there at all compared to every of my other Taks.

Hell, I even prefer the 200 4 to that 105.

Everyone who has the 105 disagrees with me, but when you're shooting with the 55 1.4, 35 2, and 85 1.9, the 105 is a big disappointment.

I'm going to start doing some macro work, and use it on bellows with extension tubes. Maybe then I won't trash the damn thing.
Your post makes me happy that I did not cave in to LBA and order the 105 I was lusting after!
10-28-2010, 09:12 AM   #5680
Ira
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Coral Springs, FL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,216
QuoteOriginally posted by mccarvindh Quote
Your post makes me happy that I did not cave in to LBA and order the 105 I was lusting after!
Look, it may just be my copy, which is a Super, but that's just how I feel about this one.

Mike has gotten some great shots with his preset (don't remember if he has the later models), so check those out to really decide for yourself. But since I have the 85 1.9, it's a no-brainer. I don't need the extra 20mm of reach, and if I did, I would reach for the 135.
10-28-2010, 09:30 AM   #5681
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ohio, USA/ India
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 478
QuoteOriginally posted by Ira Quote
But since I have the 85 1.9, it's a no-brainer. I don't need the extra 20mm of reach, and if I did, I would reach for the 135.
I have the 85 too. Stunning lens!
10-28-2010, 10:55 AM   #5682
Junior Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 47
Little autumn atmosphere with SMC Takumar 55 f1.8



and a little autumn bokeh

10-28-2010, 03:44 PM   #5683
Veteran Member
Mike Cash's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,950
QuoteOriginally posted by Ira Quote
Look, it may just be my copy, which is a Super, but that's just how I feel about this one.

Mike has gotten some great shots with his preset (don't remember if he has the later models), so check those out to really decide for yourself. But since I have the 85 1.9, it's a no-brainer. I don't need the extra 20mm of reach, and if I did, I would reach for the 135.
It may very well be that you just have a copy with some sort of problem....just enough of one to make things a bit off but not enough to make the cause obvious. I am reminded of Father Morgan, the chaplain aboard my ship when I was in the Navy. He had spent some time with the Marines and they made of him an excellent shot with the .45 Automatic while he was with them. We went out on a firing range in the Philippines for weapons qualification and Father Morgan was getting some bad results on the pistol range, which he blamed on the pistol's front sight being "off". The Chief Gunner's Mate heading up the show dismissed his protestations of the problem being in the equipment.....right up until the front sight flew right off the pistol while firing the next clip.

Completely unrelated, but Father Morgan also said the only prayer I ever heard in my life that I remember verbatim and also the only one which seems to have worked. After a couple of years in drydock the ship made a trip to Hawaii. We anchored off one of the islands and a most unbelievable mushroom cloud of red rust came billowing up out of the chain lockers as the chain was paid out. Later on that evening, in a miserable downpour, as we tried to get underway again it was discovered that the winches didn't feel like winching. So there we sat for hours and hours. Finally 8:00 p.m. rolled around....time for evening prayer. Father Morgan's voice came over the loudspeaker, "Heavenly Father, we pray tonight for anchors and oceans of electronic gizmos." Within a minute of this brief appeal we could feel the rumble and hear the clank-clank-clank of the anchor chain being retrieved.

I like the 105 because it is the most useful prime focal length for shooting from my truck, which is where most of my photos get taken. The 85 works as well, but mostly thanks to cropping. The 135 is long enough to be limiting. Sometimes it gets me stuff that I couldn't have gotten with the 105, but that doesn't happen often enough to justify keeping it on all day.

Until a couple of weeks ago I had only the S-M-C version. I then got the preset model, which I am told has a different optical formula. I think they both work fine. The only thing I have really noticed, and it may be just my imagination, is that with the preset some shots tend to look much less sharp on the LCD than later inspection on my computer proves them to actually be. So I have to resist the urge to sometimes delete in-camera.

Let's be honest here, pretty much all the Takumars are fine lenses and capable of turning in stellar results and the only real factor for choosing one focal length over another should be whether that focal length fits your needs (or you can fit your shooting to that focal length). I don't mean to sound vain here, but I think part of the reason the 105 gets looked at may be that I shoot with it a lot and post a lot of photos from it. The 105 would be a sort on in-between short telephoto that mostly gets overlooked and disregarded in favor of either the 85 and its sexier reputation or the 135 with its longer reach and lower price.

Ordinarily, I would add a photo here, but Flickr is busted at the moment.
10-28-2010, 03:52 PM   #5684
Ira
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Coral Springs, FL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,216
QuoteOriginally posted by Mike Cash Quote
It may very well be that you just have a copy with some sort of problem....just enough of one to make things a bit off but not enough to make the cause obvious. I am reminded of Father Morgan, the chaplain aboard my ship when I was in the Navy. He had spent some time with the Marines and they made of him an excellent shot with the .45 Automatic while he was with them. We went out on a firing range in the Philippines for weapons qualification and Father Morgan was getting some bad results on the pistol range, which he blamed on the pistol's front sight being "off". The Chief Gunner's Mate heading up the show dismissed his protestations of the problem being in the equipment.....right up until the front sight flew right off the pistol while firing the next clip.

Completely unrelated, but Father Morgan also said the only prayer I ever heard in my life that I remember verbatim and also the only one which seems to have worked. After a couple of years in drydock the ship made a trip to Hawaii. We anchored off one of the islands and a most unbelievable mushroom cloud of red rust came billowing up out of the chain lockers as the chain was paid out. Later on that evening, in a miserable downpour, as we tried to get underway again it was discovered that the winches didn't feel like winching. So there we sat for hours and hours. Finally 8:00 p.m. rolled around....time for evening prayer. Father Morgan's voice came over the loudspeaker, "Heavenly Father, we pray tonight for anchors and oceans of electronic gizmos." Within a minute of this brief appeal we could feel the rumble and hear the clank-clank-clank of the anchor chain being retrieved.

I like the 105 because it is the most useful prime focal length for shooting from my truck, which is where most of my photos get taken. The 85 works as well, but mostly thanks to cropping. The 135 is long enough to be limiting. Sometimes it gets me stuff that I couldn't have gotten with the 105, but that doesn't happen often enough to justify keeping it on all day.

Until a couple of weeks ago I had only the S-M-C version. I then got the preset model, which I am told has a different optical formula. I think they both work fine. The only thing I have really noticed, and it may be just my imagination, is that with the preset some shots tend to look much less sharp on the LCD than later inspection on my computer proves them to actually be. So I have to resist the urge to sometimes delete in-camera.

Let's be honest here, pretty much all the Takumars are fine lenses and capable of turning in stellar results and the only real factor for choosing one focal length over another should be whether that focal length fits your needs (or you can fit your shooting to that focal length). I don't mean to sound vain here, but I think part of the reason the 105 gets looked at may be that I shoot with it a lot and post a lot of photos from it. The 105 would be a sort on in-between short telephoto that mostly gets overlooked and disregarded in favor of either the 85 and its sexier reputation or the 135 with its longer reach and lower price.

Ordinarily, I would add a photo here, but Flickr is busted at the moment.
That was a touching story, but you know as well as I do that not all Taks are equal.

And to me, the Super-Tak 105 is the least equal of all.

Mind you, like I said, I'm going to dedicate this lens to macro work with my bellows, and extension tubes just purchased. (Original Pentax brand!)

But for walking around shooting in my bright Florida sun--eech. It's either flare, or washed out.
10-28-2010, 05:12 PM   #5685
Veteran Member
Mike Cash's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,950




Pentax K20D
Takumar 105/2.8 (Preset)


Last edited by Mike Cash; 10-29-2010 at 05:00 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
200mm, adjustment, asahi, auto-takumar, camera, d2x, days, ds, eric, f3.5, f4, fisheye, flickr, focus, handle, iq, iso, k3, lens, manor, moves, nikon, pentax lens, post, results, segments, shots, subject, takumar, versions
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:50 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top