[nono]

I have had a S-M-C Takumar 28 f/3.5 for a few weeks now, trying to use it as much as possible. Still not sure I like the 28mm focal length.

Here are a few shots taken at a concert last friday. I have a few others on my web site.

[OftheManor]

Tele-Takumar 200 5.6 & NEX-5N

I found this lens this week at a local thrift shop. It came in its original leather case. While there was no no lens front cap, there was a rear cap and jammed at the bottom of the case was the original lens hood. Pretty happy with the $30 purchase price as the lens is in first class condition.
I like the colours and the sharpness I have gotten on a few shots. I still shoot hand held with the NEX-5N which means I am tossing more away than I keep. Just need the discipline to use a tripod,especially as I don't have a steady hand at the best of times.
I envy a friend who claims to shoot at 1/15th of a second. I have to get 120th at the best of times.

[elliott]

Took the Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 to the last cruise in of the year:

[margriet]

I'm just curious, since apparently Pentax have stopped making M42-K adapters like these: Has anyone observed the spring on such an adapter to fail? I mean fail by metal fatigue from having been used for so long, not fail due to accident or user error! If anyone has seen this, how old was the adapter? I'm trying to figure out how long we all can get by with the now-finite supply of original-Pentax adapters already manufactured. (Seems like Pentax have created an opportunity here for a third party to make adapters that don't suck (unlike the current crop of after-market ones).
--Dave

I have not yet heard of this... just that the tiny screw sometimes gets loose a bit. I have seen though some wear on the metal that turns in the mount, but still working fine. Also have thought about what is exactly the difference between those magnificent original ones and the horrific ones that stay stuck in your camera and can give you a heart attack. I don't know, it seems the metal spring is less flexible than the original and there is slightly less space to turn (having trouble explaining myself) in between the mount.

I invented a new word today..."Spectakumar!" I couldn't find the word/spelling of "spectacular" at that time I was mushrooming forgive me if I sound a bit wacky to much time spend alone with camera and lenses... maybe the picture says more :

macro takumar 50mm preset @ f4:







super takumar 24mm @ f3.5

[sameagle]

Chex, that is a lovely series!
- Sam

[Erd§]

macro takumar 50mm preset @ f4: netstekelige heksenboleet - Boletus luridus by margreetz, on Flickr

Wow margriet - That first one is "spectakumar"!

[theunartist]

K10D + Super Takumar 105/2.8

@ ISO640

[Argenticien]

I have not yet heard of this... just that the tiny screw sometimes gets loose a bit. I have seen though some wear on the metal that turns in the mount, but still working fine.

Well that is good news. I do install and de-install my adapter somewhat frequently as it's shared among my cameras, so I was worried that I might fatigue the spring. I really ought to get one or two more adapters soon while it's probably still easy to find some "new old stock" ones.

I love the mushroom pix, by the way!

--Dave

[margriet]

Well that is good news. I do install and de-install my adapter somewhat frequently as it's shared among my cameras, so I was worried that I might fatigue the spring. I really ought to get one or two more adapters soon while it's probably still easy to find some "new old stock" ones.

I love the mushroom pix, by the way!

--Dave

Thanks! I bought only one of the adapters just for the adapter and the others came as "extra's" in sets of lenses I bought, so I guess it's the perfect excuse to find and buy some more sets of, for example, takumar lenses!

[margriet]

Wow margriet - That first one is "spectakumar"!

Thanks !

[timmijo]

I have a SMC Takumar 55mm, f1:8.; untried (waiting for my adapter), but looks great. Although I keep an eye out for the f1.4's, (50mm?) I would like ideas on another size to add that also gives stellar pics at a bargain.

[elliott]

I have a SMC Takumar 55mm, f1:8.; untried (waiting for my adapter), but looks great. Although I keep an eye out for the f1.4's, (50mm?) I would like ideas on another size to add that also gives stellar pics at a bargain.

The 28mm f3.5 and 35mm f3.5 are both good, especially the SMC ones.

[abacus07]

The 35/3.5 and 135/3.5 along with your 55/1.8 are probably the best combination of cost and outstanding IQ. In the end however you can't go wrong with a M42 takumar prime. That's also true for pretty much all of the Pentax primes.

[WinterboJ]

No idea where this will end up in the thread - my first post here. Sorry if it goes skew wiff, I'm trying to join the recent debate between Chex and ??? (sorry) about optical adapters and the Nikon system. I'm a Nikon dslr type too. But I do love my SuperTaks, and enjoy using them on my D700....

.... with a good optically corrected adapter. Also on my ESII and other M42 film bodies. But mostly digital.

Chex talked about how to test the IQ loss, and mentioned same lens on a D7000 and K5. Well, OK - but only up to a point. If we're interested in the IQ loss of using a good (Kood! like mine! and ???'s!) M42/Nik optically corrected adapter, then the best idea I've come up with is to use a really good Adaptall lens (the wonderful SP 35-80 2.8-3.8, at its longest which is where it's best) with a Nik mount and then an M42 mount + Kood adapter. Same camera, same distance from the target (a not yet quite firmed up design test chart using resolution charts - Bob Atkin's is amongst the contenders). And then share the results.

It's a work in progress because I'm not sure what camera to use - D700? Beautiful beast. D60? PITA, but resolves better than the 700 for this sort of stuff. Seems a bit weird, but it isn't really.

Now then Chex. You're happy to buy a D800, but you're not prepared to pay $40 for a good quality optical adapter to get the best out of your M42s because you can fix it in PP? Weird.

[tim60]

No idea where this will end up in the thread - my first post here. Sorry if it goes skew wiff, I'm trying to join the recent debate between Chex and ??? (sorry) about optical adapters and the Nikon system. I'm a Nikon dslr type too. But I do love my SuperTaks, and enjoy using them on my D700....

.... with a good optically corrected adapter. Also on my ESII and other M42 film bodies. But mostly digital.

Chex talked about how to test the IQ loss, and mentioned same lens on a D7000 and K5. Well, OK - but only up to a point. If we're interested in the IQ loss of using a good (Kood! like mine! and ???'s!) M42/Nik optically corrected adapter, then the best idea I've come up with is to use a really good Adaptall lens (the wonderful SP 35-80 2.8-3.8, at its longest which is where it's best) with a Nik mount and then an M42 mount + Kood adapter. Same camera, same distance from the target (a not yet quite firmed up design test chart using resolution charts - Bob Atkin's is amongst the contenders). And then share the results.

It's a work in progress because I'm not sure what camera to use - D700? Beautiful beast. D60? PITA, but resolves better than the 700 for this sort of stuff. Seems a bit weird, but it isn't really.

Now then Chex. You're happy to buy a D800, but you're not prepared to pay $40 for a good quality optical adapter to get the best out of your M42s because you can fix it in PP? Weird.

Test it with each body to see the interaction of the sensor and the lens characteristics.

It would be intersting to all of us to know if there is any difference.