[v5planet]

All fine lenses, buy them now, in the next time will increase the price.

2/35 (PRO and SMC), S-M-C and 8 elements 1,4/50, any 1,8-1,9/85, SMC 2,8/105, 2,5/135 V.2.

For my taste they are the best takumars to buy now.

What exactly are the advantages of the early 8-element version of the 50/1.4?

[Lowell Goudge]

Salty

I started with just one tak, an SMC 35/2. My next addition was a vivitar 28/2.5 for $9 then a Helios 58/2 for $12. So far so good, but then a dealer I knew offered the 85/1.9 for 200 and I was hooked. I have since added SMC tak 135/3.5 for $40 but my next three were $100 each. 200/3.5 preset, 50/1.4 8 element and SMC 50/4 macro
I have branched out a little with a tele-lentar 135/2.8 and a Vernon-Edonar 105/2.8 both presets with round apertures at all stops. I added a screw mount adaptor for my tamron 24/2.5 and now I have 24 through 200 in M42. While the taks are great my other lenses are not too shabby either. All offer great images Once you start however you can get hooked on them. I went away from all taks because at many focal lengths I already had SMC-K mounts

[natestation]

I personally prefer the longer Taks-- 50mm and above; although the 28 has gotten some time on my camera (trying to learn to love it!) I think it's slow aperture and the 42mm equiv FOV are just a little too awkward. The 50mm 1.4 and 85 1.8/1.9 are obvious winners for overall IQ. The best price to IQ buys are the 200, 135, and 35. The 28 has mild distortion, but is otherwise good. I love my 300 f/4, but it's pricey and the PF/CA really hurts it's otherwise fantastic IQ.

Unlimited budget: 100mm macro, 85/1.8, and 50/1.4 (and a 15mm!)

Under $200/150 (apiece): 50mm macro, 35 f/2, 200/3.5 (only leaving out the 50 1.4 because of your 55)

Under $200 (for all): 35/3.5, 55 f/1.8, 135 f/3.5, (and since you already have the 55, I'd substitute a 200/f4)

As a side note: At first I shopped for only the SMC versions... but the SMC's flare almost as bad as the Super coatings. Super's can be had for cheaper (as they are less desirable), but aren't really a big compromise during regular shooting conditions. Always use a hood and don't point at the sun... duh

[NoMaD_PS]

Thank you guys.

v5planet: As far as i know the trees are painted 1 m high for hare protection. Wild hares can eat out the bark from the tree when other food is covered with snow. Also it's nice and gives fine perspective. ;-)

[Mike Cash]

Salty, don't overlook the Auto-Takumar and Preset varieties.

Pentax K20D
Auto-Takumar 55/2

[Arjay Bee]

Shot with the 50mm Takumar Macro today for the first time in a while:





This little guy was a real cutie - reminded me of that character from Star Wars Part One series two that every one loves to hate.

When getting real close with this lens the bug was just about crawling in the lens due to the huge recess to the first lens element.

[estudleon]

What exactly are the advantages of the early 8-element version of the 50/1.4?

1- Respect the S-M-C, none, it's better (to me)

2- Respect the S.T.,

a) The 8 el. has less or not yellowish cast at all. It's very important. As you know, the yellowish cast and the virtual necesity of put the lens under UV light (or similar) time to time, is one of the few cons of the S.T. 7 elements lens.
And if you don't do this, the image can lose the IQ natural of the takumars lenses.

b) The 8 el. has more resolution power (only a bit, but there is).

c) The 8 el. has better bokeh.

c) Marginally, the 8 el. is less common than the 7 ones, and that improves the interest over it and increases the resale value.

The S-M-C (and SMC too) is over all the S.T., 8 or 7 el.

And my choice among the S.T.s is the 8 el. because all that I said before.

Regards.

[NaClH2O]

Thanks everybody for their input. Now I've got some more questions about specific models.

Anybody know anything about a Soligor 28mm f/2.8 screwmount? It's not listed in the misc lens database that I could find.

What exactly is the difference between the "SMC Takumar 135mm F2.5 (58)" and the "Super Takumar 135mm F2.5 (58)"? Over at KEH there is about a $50 difference between the two lenses at comparable conditions and accessories. I had been under the impression that Super Takumar and SMC Takumar were synonymous but obviously not.

NaCl(the nomenclature is more confusing than I thought)H2O

[hangu]

Most of the Soligors are absolute junk. There are a few nice ones though, like the 135/1.8 and the 200/2.8.

SMC coating stands for Super Multi Coating, while most early Super-Taks were probably single coated. SMC coating will be more flare resistant and produce an overall sharper image with more contrast. However, the coating upgrades were gradual, so some later Super-Taks would have SMC coating without stating it.

a) The 8 el. has less or not yellowish cast at all. It's very important. As you know, the yellowish cast and the virtual necesity of put the lens under UV light (or similar) time to time, is one of the few cons of the S.T. 7 elements lens.
And if you don't do this, the image can lose the IQ natural of the takumars lenses.

Not sure I agree with that. On digital, the yellow cast is negligible.

If the difference were only $50, I'd get the SMC coating for the 135/2.5.

[v5planet]

Thanks everybody for their input. Now I've got some more questions about specific models.

Anybody know anything about a Soligor 28mm f/2.8 screwmount? It's not listed in the misc lens database that I could find.

What exactly is the difference between the "SMC Takumar 135mm F2.5 (58)" and the "Super Takumar 135mm F2.5 (58)"? Over at KEH there is about a $50 difference between the two lenses at comparable conditions and accessories. I had been under the impression that Super Takumar and SMC Takumar were synonymous but obviously not.

NaCl(the nomenclature is more confusing than I thought)H2O

Salt -- the SMC (or S-M-C) Takumars are later models. MOST feature identical optical design to their Super counterparts, but have (allegedly) superior coatings on their elements (SMC stands for super multicoated). As someone else said though, the multicoatings are really no guarantee of flare resistance.

Sometimes it's more than just different coatings. Many of the Takumars went through design changes over the course of their long productions runs. It's best to check out the lens database and see if people have any comments about the strengths of weaknesses of particular versions. Lots of things can change between the generations: different number/type of optical elements; filter diameter size; size/weight; the barrel. Two lenses with the same name may not really be the same lens.

[v5planet]

In particular, many of the earlier designs were physically larger. I usually look for ones that are slightly older because Pentax started standardizing them to their 49mm filter ring size, which allows me to leave a 49mm lens cap tethered to my camera that'll work on any of them. That may or may not be worth your efforts (and doesn't apply to all the Taks, as some, like the 85, are just larger anyway).

[NaClH2O]

Thanks. So the Super Takumar 135 F2.5 is a slightly older version of the SMC Takumar 135 F2.5, with different coatings? (And maybe different designs)?

NaCl(the more I'm learning the confuseder I get)H2O

[Porga]

What exactly is the difference between the "SMC Takumar 135mm F2.5 (58)" and the "Super Takumar 135mm F2.5 (58)"? Over at KEH there is about a $50 difference between the two lenses at comparable conditions and accessories. I had been under the impression that Super Takumar and SMC Takumar were synonymous but obviously not.

NaCl(the nomenclature is more confusing than I thought)H2O

In case of 135mm 2.5 Taks version 6-6 (goups elements) is considered the best (and is most expensive).

[Porga]

Thanks. So the Super Takumar 135 F2.5 is a slightly older version of the SMC Takumar 135 F2.5, with different coatings? (And maybe different designs)?

NaCl(the more I'm learning the confuseder I get)H2O

design is same. latter version of s-m-c takumar has different design.

See here:

Tak Tele 1

[estudleon]

..... Not sure I agree with that. On digital, the yellow cast is negligible. .....

With white balance, all is ok.

But here I suposse that we are talking about the characteristic of the lenses themselves, without consider what can we do, or not, with PP process.

By the other hand, I have seen a lot of images, in comparision tests, and the yellowed takumar lens produce a yellowish image, more than another lenses there were in the tests too.

Of course, all depend of the yellow cast deep. If the cast is very light, you are right, the image could be not affected. But when the cast is more strong, the IQ is highly affected.