Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-19-2010, 08:10 PM   #6046
Veteran Member
v5planet's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Seattle
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,915
the new 105/2.8

Ah, what is this? I haven't spammed you all with my most recent crop of Takumar photos? Here are some shots of random things in the backyard during that brief, 30 minute window in the late afternoon when the quality of light in the mountains east of Albuquerque is acceptable. And my dog. ;-)



S-M-C Takumar 105/2.8



S-M-C Takumar 105/2.8



S-M-C Takumar 105/2.8



S-M-C Takumar 105/2.8

I'm very excited, I have my split-image screen coming. My S-M-C 35/2 arrived attached to an old film camera with a microprism viewfinder screen, and focusing through it for 5 seconds I immediately understood the deficiencies with our default digital age matte screens. Boo hiss.

Also, Ira -- I tried and failed to make the S-M-C version of the 105/2.8 flare. I'm sorry to hear your S-T version has such an issue with it; it's really a fun lens.

11-20-2010, 04:53 AM   #6047
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 228
Hi V5planet.

Your pics are greats, and your 105 lens (like mine) was borned to portraits (people, animals, plants and things ones).
Very nice colors rendering. Not the sharpest lens ever made, of course. My son in law told me that his 2,5/135 6 elements is sharper, but for portraits no the sharper please.
Congrats.
11-20-2010, 04:54 AM   #6048
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Autobahn
Posts: 123







smc-Takumar 2.8/105mm on Spotmatic F. Film was a rollei crossbid (which is. as I understood, basically an old agfa slide film emulsion labelled "process c41").

Some enormous grain here, but tend to blame the scanner. I have had vastly exaggerated grain even with other films I had developped lastly. Scans from a few years ago do not show ist so excessively... Guess I have to either scan myself - or let a professional lab scan my slides/negatives. But consumer scans seem to have a ridiculous quality nowadays...
Not that I did not want some grain here, but that certainly is overdone.
11-20-2010, 05:22 AM   #6049
Veteran Member
Mike Cash's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,950
I think the grain is just right for those shots.





Pentax K20D
SMC Takumar 55/1.8



11-20-2010, 06:37 AM   #6050
Veteran Member
v5planet's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Seattle
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,915
QuoteOriginally posted by turboseize Quote




I have to agree with Mike -- that is a fine amount of grain. Film grain is often aesthetically pleasing, and I certainly think that's the case here. Wonderful portraits.
11-20-2010, 06:47 AM   #6051
Veteran Member
Mike Cash's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,950
QuoteOriginally posted by v5planet Quote
I have to agree with Mike -- that is a fine amount of grain. Film grain is often aesthetically pleasing, and I certainly think that's the case here. Wonderful portraits.
It most especially works considering the way kewl vintage film camera the guy is holding.

I'll be glad when I get all the dance photos processed and can hand over a DVD-R with all the photos on it. While I'm working on it all the stuff from my ongoing daily shooting just piles up on me something wonderful.





Pentax K20D
SMC Takumar 55/1.8

11-20-2010, 09:40 AM   #6052
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 228
Mike, thanks

I always be happy to see your pics. They are so nice !!!!

With your most used lenses 2/35, 1,8/55, 85 and 2,8/105. Short range to greats pics.

Only one thing is inside my head and wanto to ask you. Why do you not use 1,4/50 ? Excuse me, but it seems to me like a very good lens for your usually work showed here.

Thanks again.
Rino.

11-20-2010, 12:39 PM   #6053
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Autobahn
Posts: 123
Thanks for the kind words. Concerning grain: I wanted the pictures to clearly show grain, but was afraid this looked too exaggerated... Glad that it works.


@estudleon
Mike's photos look like they were from some old Asahi brochures, especially, when b&w...
I think that's quite cool.
11-20-2010, 01:00 PM   #6054
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
k0og's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Rolla, Missouri
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 698
QuoteOriginally posted by Mike Cash Quote


Pentax K20D
SMC Takumar 55/1.8

Mike,

I like all your photos - they are windows into a different culture for me. However, this one REALLY stands out to me among all the dancers you have posted the last few months. It seems to be a combination of the lighting, you absolutely nailed the focus and composition, and the divider panel behind the lady makes for an interesting backdrop. Thanks for all your great posts!

I've been experimenting recently with a 100-foot roll of Kodak Tri-X (so labelled on the film itself, but labelled as Arista Premium 400 on the can), and development in Rodinal 1+100, one-hour stand. I'm still working out the details of my process, and here is one from yesterday in my back yard. Super-Macro-Takumar 50mm f4 mounted on a K1000 with M42/K adapter, ISO400. Negative scanned on Epson Perfection V500 Photo scanner.



-Joe-
11-20-2010, 02:10 PM   #6055
Ira
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Coral Springs, FL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,216
QuoteOriginally posted by v5planet Quote

Also, Ira -- I tried and failed to make the S-M-C version of the 105/2.8 flare. I'm sorry to hear your S-T version has such an issue with it; it's really a fun lens.
Forget flare, which only happens when you don't fill the frame with a subject:

Aside from one or two users here, I have yet to see any shots from the 105 Tak that impress me at all. The 85, plus everything from 28 to 200, blows it away.

Last edited by Ira; 11-20-2010 at 02:24 PM.
11-20-2010, 02:14 PM   #6056
Ira
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Coral Springs, FL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,216
QuoteOriginally posted by v5planet Quote
Also, Ira -- I tried and failed to make the S-M-C version of the 105/2.8 flare. I'm sorry to hear your S-T version has such an issue with it; it's really a fun lens.
Here's your 105 shot:



Here's a shot with my cheap 55 1.8:



Do you really think the 105 comes even close to the 55 in sharpness and every other area?

NEWBIES:

Don't be suckered into the wonders of the Tak 105, because it just ain't there. The worst lens Pentax ever made.
11-20-2010, 02:43 PM   #6057
Veteran Member
v5planet's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Seattle
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,915
Ouch Ira, that's pretty harsh. I don't remember attacking the integrity of your photography. I just remembered your review of the 105 which seemed to fault it only on its tendency to flare, something I could not reproduce with the S-M-C version...

Sorry you don't like the lens, but I'm not going to let that stop me from enjoying it.
11-20-2010, 02:50 PM   #6058
Ira
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Coral Springs, FL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,216
QuoteOriginally posted by v5planet Quote
Ouch Ira, that's pretty harsh. I don't remember attacking the integrity of your photography. I just remembered your review of the 105 which seemed to fault it only on its tendency to flare, something I could not reproduce with the S-M-C version...

Sorry you don't like the lens, but I'm not going to let that stop me from enjoying it.
I apologize for that, but as someone who always attacks my own photography myself, I am not at all attributing that shot to my skills. I have said time and tome again that I SUCK, and only get lucky now and then.

I just think that the 105 stinks.

Again, as far as the flare goes, you showed an image filling the frame. Post an image of anything that takes maybe 15% of the frame, in decent sun (if your weather allows it), and let's see if it flares out or washes out like my 105 does.

For mine, if the subject doesn't fill 75% of the frame, I have garbage.
11-20-2010, 03:09 PM   #6059
Veteran Member
Mike Cash's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,950
QuoteOriginally posted by estudleon Quote
Mike, thanks

I always be happy to see your pics. They are so nice !!!!

With your most used lenses 2/35, 1,8/55, 85 and 2,8/105. Short range to greats pics.
Thank you very much. Some people take photos because they feel artistic or creative. I take photos because sometimes I see things that I would like others to see, so it is very gratifying when people say they like to see them.

QuoteQuote:
Only one thing is inside my head and wanto to ask you. Why do you not use 1,4/50 ? Excuse me, but it seems to me like a very good lens for your usually work showed here.
I don't use it because it has a reputation as a legendary lens; everybody naturally expects wonderful photos from the 50/1.4. To me, there is more satisfaction trying to get good photos from a lens with a lesser reputation and to perhaps improve the lens' reputation while I am doing it. Perhaps part of the reason is due to the characteristic American tendency to "root for the underdog" (cheer for the player/team everyone expects to lose).

So that is why I use the 55/1.8 or the 55/2 instead of the 50/1.4. I do use the 50/1.4 on my ESII because I bought them together as a set. And while the number of photos I have posted to Flickr from the 35/2 and 55/1.8 is growing, that is mostly due to intensive shooting of dance. For the amount of time actually spent on camera the 105/2.8 is by far my most used lens.





Pentax K20D
Takumar 105/2.8 (Preset)

11-20-2010, 05:06 PM   #6060
Ira
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Coral Springs, FL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,216
QuoteOriginally posted by Mike Cash Quote

And while the number of photos I have posted to Flickr from the 35/2 and 55/1.8 is growing, that is mostly due to intensive shooting of dance. For the amount of time actually spent on camera the 105/2.8 is by far my most used lens.





Pentax K20D
Takumar 105/2.8 (Preset)

But that's because you're shooting and driving from your truck, right? And that's the focal length that works for you for this.
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 01:27 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