[Glenn72]

Don't be alarmed; that faint thumping sound you hear is just me halfway around the world from you banging my head against the wall.

No problem Mike !

I was a bit surprised to see how shallow the depth of field is on f/4 at 200mm. I just need to practice more with this lens.

[Pepe Guitarra]

Publicly I want to apologize to Pepe ...

I really do not remember any disrespect at all. When was that? In any case, I accept the apology, and please send $20 for my suffering.

[Pepe Guitarra]

I bought the S-M-C-Takumar 85mm f1.9 several months ago after I read the book: "Quality in Photography" by Roger Hicks and Frances Schultz (circa 2000). This is what I read about this lens: (reproduced here for educational purposes --just in case there is a copyright lawyer reading this)

"LENSES AND MAGIC

There is no doubt about it: some lenses have a certain 'magic' which is not really quantifiable. One of the most astonishing is the 38/4.5 Zeiss Biogon .... etc...

Although all of these lenses seem to be 'magic' with all films, there are others which may be 'magic' in black and white, but are less so in colour. There are quite a lot more of these, and they include a number of older lenses from the 1960s and even earlier. A few examples include the 58mm f/1.4 Nikkor which we wish we had never sold; our 65mm and 120mm f/6.8 Angulons; and our 85mm f/1.9 Super-Takumar, which cost us next to nothing."

I wonder if anyone has some black and white photo taken with this wonderful lens. I saw Glen's color photos on Flickr and they are superb. Those authors were film users, there were no DSLRs at that time.

Regards, Pepe

[Pepe Guitarra]

Super Takumar 85mm f/1.9 and used a plugin for photoshop called Fractalius to pull out the fractal details. Sometimes this post processing can turn a boring flower photo into something a bit more interesting.

Good for the 85/1.9. I am going to have to buy Photoshop. I had delayed it because I have a friend who was supposed to be my shooting pal but she seldom is because she spends all the time doing photoshop, not shooting photos.

[Argenticien]

I bought the S-M-C-Takumar 85mm f1.9 several months ago after I read the book: "Quality in Photography" by Roger Hicks and Frances Schultz (circa 2000).
[...]
Those authors were film users, there were no DSLRs at that time.

"...I'm not dead yet..." (obscure Monty Python reference attempted) . Roger still posts quite frequently over on RFF at least, and probably some other places. I think he'd have a laugh (or, I hope so) at you putting him and Frances in the past tense!
--Dave

[Pepe Guitarra]

Well, the past tense only means that "they were film users", now I am sure "they are DSLR users."

[womble]

Well, the past tense only means that "they were film users", now I am sure "they are DSLR users."

Actually they use both. Roger uses a Leica M3 and M9 I believe, amongst a variety of other cameras and formats. He is a regular columnist for "Amateur Photographer", a weekly UK magazine.

K.

[Pepe Guitarra]

I found them here, thanks.
Pepe

[Pepe Guitarra]

[Mike Cash]

Pentax K-5
S-M-C Takumar 35/3.5
5 minutes @ f8
ISO3200

[jt_cph_dk]

Here is a test I made showing the light meter perfomance w/KatzEye Plus prism on Pentax K7
- Exposure mode: Manual
- Metering mode: Centerweighted-Average
- Custom Image EV+/- set to: -4

With S-M-C Takumar 1.8/55

p.3: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/183116-k7-light-me...tent-lv-3.html

[Glenn72]

I really haven´t shot black and white with the Super Takumar 85 f/1.9, but perhaps I should give it a try. I especially like black and white for architecture and landscapes so will see what I can come back with in the next few weeks.
Some nice black and white shots Pepe, well done!

[theunartist]

K20D + Super Takumar 105/2.8

@ f5.6 ISO1600

[privateryan]

Been following this thread for awhile now. I finally decided to participate.
S-Tak 35 f2

[ducdao]

Had a *ROOF* job the other day...