Takumar club

**jva59** · 03-04-2014, 08:51 PM

First experiments with Tak 50 F 4 Macro, which just arrived today. When I saw Azmi's shots, I just had to have one. Second shot comes with a question: is it a bud? Could Spring possibly be on its way? I'll believe it when I see it.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

View Picture EXIF

**Erictator** · 03-04-2014, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by tim60

Thanks.

---------- Post added 03-05-14 at 01:51 PM ----------

That is a nice collection. It seems your 35/2 is the 58mm filter version.

How does the fisheye projection of the 17 work on APS-C. I have been really interested to find out but I have not seen anyone on the forum placing pictures with it on a DSLR.

I am quite pleased with the 300/4 you recently got, rather an improvement on the 300/6.3 teleTak. My copy needed some creative patching to overcome the loss of the auto/man switch - with one criterion of the adjustment being that it had to be a no damage adjustment. Achieved by judicious placement of sticky tape to hold the auto coupling pin in - which allows the diaphragm to be adjusted.

Thanks very much. The 35 f2 is a really neat lens, i use it as my "normal" lens on apsc. The 17mm is not very fishy at all on apsc. It looks decent for a wide angle with some curvature, but by no means fishy. Ill have to take some pics of straight line objects and post them so everyone can judge for themselves. Cant wait to get the 300mm back to play with!

Eric

wkraus · 03-05-2014, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by Erictator

Thought I'd share my Tak stash.

I use them with the M42 adapter that I pretty much leave full time on my old DS when I'm in a creative mood. It's kinda like vintage Takumar meets vintage DSLR. Works really well actually! I really enjoy just shooting away and letting the camera choose the shutter/iso. Works a treat. Alas, the poor old Spotmatic doesn't seem much use these days...Mostly shoot my K-5 classic for outdoor or action, sports, etc. but this little combo still has a certain something about it.

L to R - a stack of extensions, 200mm F4, 135mm f3.5 35mm f2.0 17mm f 4.0 fisheye, and the 28mm f3.5 on the Spottie.

And of course the obligatory shot of my poor dog, worn out from posing for test shots. Taken with the DS, Tak 200mm 160th, ISO200.

I recently added a 300MM f4 to my Takumar stash, waiting to get it back from Eric in Tennessee for a quick tuneup.

Eric

Lovely set! Would you care to post a few shots at different f-stops from that 35mm f2.0?

Jean Poitiers · 03-05-2014, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by g026r

Also with the Super-Tak 55/2. After having spent all last month using a lens whose bokeh was nowhere near as smooth, this one was wonderful to dig out and use yesterday:

Great capture ... TFS, J

---------- Post added 03-05-14 at 10:04 ----------

Originally posted by utak

... I recently got a Super Takumar 55/1.8, and its a lot of fun to use and process the beautifully rendered images (plus it completes my collection of all Takumar 55 versions except sub-version versions

)

Great capture, utak ... super & TFS, J

wkraus · 03-06-2014, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by tim60

Thanks.

---------- Post added 03-05-14 at 01:51 PM ----------

How does the fisheye projection of the 17 work on APS-C. I have been really interested to find out but I have not seen anyone on the forum placing pictures with it on a DSLR.

I don't have the Takumar fisheye but I have the SMC K-mount version which is optically the same. I can offer a quick comparison of FOV and projection with the 15mm Limited (the subject is not very interesting and the light was strange).

17mm Fisheye

15mm Limited

And off-center 100% crops to compare sharpness and CA: 17mm left, 15mm right

The colour rendition is remarkably similar, but the newer lens has more contrast and saturation and less CA. It is also quite a bit sharper.

**Erictator** · 03-06-2014, 08:59 AM

Thanks for posting and saving me the trouble, heh. Your findings parallel mine. You can see some mild curve in the 17mm fence post line, and it's not as sharp as a DA Limited for resolving off center of distant subjects...but it gets better in center and up close and stopped down. I think older wide angle designs tend to hit their peak closer to center and F11 than to F5.6.

Eric

Originally posted by wkraus

I don't have the Takumar fisheye but I have the SMC K-mount version which is optically the same. I can offer a quick comparison of FOV and projection with the 15mm Limited (the subject is not very interesting and the light was strange).

17mm Fisheye

15mm Limited

And off-center 100% crops to compare sharpness and CA: 17mm left, 15mm right

The colour rendition is remarkably similar, but the newer lens has more contrast and saturation and less CA. It is also quite a bit sharper.

vladimiroltean · 03-06-2014, 04:28 PM - **1 Like**

Well, last week I bought my third copy of Takumar 50/1.4 (this is the SMC, rubber grip version). It was sold "for parts or repair", with a speck of dust inside and loose distance ring. Fixed within 30 minutes, paid about $60 total for it.
Here's one of the first pictures that came out of it.

(Also let me know what you think about the handle in the foreground)

bass3587 · 03-06-2014, 05:49 PM

Can you remove the handle in Photoshop? Overall I like the shot.

tim60 · 03-06-2014, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by kcobain1992

Well, last week I bought my third copy of Takumar 50/1.4 (this is the SMC, rubber grip version). It was sold "for parts or repair", with a speck of dust inside and loose distance ring. Fixed within 30 minutes, paid about $60 total for it.
Here's one of the first pictures that came out of it.

(Also let me know what you think about the handle in the foreground)

Good result. Good deal too!

**Pepe Guitarra** · 03-06-2014, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by kcobain1992

Well, last week I bought my third copy of Takumar 50/1.4 (this is the SMC, rubber grip version). It was sold "for parts or repair", with a speck of dust inside and loose distance ring. Fixed within 30 minutes, paid about $60 total for it.
Here's one of the first pictures that came out of it.

(Also let me know what you think about the handle in the foreground)

Clone it out. It has a falic shape that distract from the beautiful model11

Erd§ · 03-06-2014, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by kcobain1992

(Also let me know what you think about the handle in the foreground)

You ask as if the inclusion of the handle was deliberate...if so, why?

Originally posted by Pepe Guitarra

Clone it out. It has a falic shape that distract from the beautiful model

I don't know about you Pepe, but phallic shapes do not distract me from beautiful models!

Besides, phallic symbols usually...um...how can I put this...don't point downwards...

**Pepe Guitarra** · 03-06-2014, 10:15 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Erd§

... ..how can I put this...don't point downwards...

After certain age, they do!!

**savoche** · 03-07-2014, 04:12 AM - **1 Like**

Changing the subject

Really just testing my "new" Super-Tak 50/1.4 - and getting to use the CY-20 too, since there's not much daylight to help out today...

Jean Poitiers · 03-07-2014, 04:23 AM

Originally posted by kcobain1992

Well, last week I bought my third copy of Takumar 50/1.4 (this is the SMC, rubber grip version). ... (Also let me know what you think about the handle in the foreground)

Looks great and the handle does not really bother me ... Salut, J

---------- Post added 03-07-14 at 12:24 ----------

Originally posted by savoche

... Really just testing my "new" Super-Tak 50/1.4 - and getting to use the CY-20 too, since there's not much daylight to help out today...

Great capture, savoche ... super DOF & bokeh ... TFS, J

**arnold** · 03-08-2014, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by kcobain1992

Well, last week I bought my third copy of Takumar 50/1.4 (this is the SMC, rubber grip version). It was sold "for parts or repair", with a speck of dust inside and loose distance ring. Fixed within 30 minutes, paid about $60 total for it.
Here's one of the first pictures that came out of it.

(Also let me know what you think about the handle in the foreground)

That is a fine picture with interesting colours. It would be better without the handle though.

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

03-04-2014, 09:27 PM	#12347
Erictator Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,344	Originally posted by tim60 Thanks. ---------- Post added 03-05-14 at 01:51 PM ---------- That is a nice collection. It seems your 35/2 is the 58mm filter version. How does the fisheye projection of the 17 work on APS-C. I have been really interested to find out but I have not seen anyone on the forum placing pictures with it on a DSLR. I am quite pleased with the 300/4 you recently got, rather an improvement on the 300/6.3 teleTak. My copy needed some creative patching to overcome the loss of the auto/man switch - with one criterion of the adjustment being that it had to be a no damage adjustment. Achieved by judicious placement of sticky tape to hold the auto coupling pin in - which allows the diaphragm to be adjusted. Thanks very much. The 35 f2 is a really neat lens, i use it as my "normal" lens on apsc. The 17mm is not very fishy at all on apsc. It looks decent for a wide angle with some curvature, but by no means fishy. Ill have to take some pics of straight line objects and post them so everyone can judge for themselves. Cant wait to get the 300mm back to play with! Eric

03-05-2014, 01:22 AM	#12348
wkraus Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Near Vienna, Austria Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,059	Originally posted by Erictator Thought I'd share my Tak stash. I use them with the M42 adapter that I pretty much leave full time on my old DS when I'm in a creative mood. It's kinda like vintage Takumar meets vintage DSLR. Works really well actually! I really enjoy just shooting away and letting the camera choose the shutter/iso. Works a treat. Alas, the poor old Spotmatic doesn't seem much use these days...Mostly shoot my K-5 classic for outdoor or action, sports, etc. but this little combo still has a certain something about it. L to R - a stack of extensions, 200mm F4, 135mm f3.5 35mm f2.0 17mm f 4.0 fisheye, and the 28mm f3.5 on the Spottie. And of course the obligatory shot of my poor dog, worn out from posing for test shots. Taken with the DS, Tak 200mm 160th, ISO200. I recently added a 300MM f4 to my Takumar stash, waiting to get it back from Eric in Tennessee for a quick tuneup. Eric Lovely set! Would you care to post a few shots at different f-stops from that 35mm f2.0?

03-05-2014, 02:02 AM	#12349
Jean Poitiers Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Lost in translation ... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 18,076	Originally posted by g026r Also with the Super-Tak 55/2. After having spent all last month using a lens whose bokeh was nowhere near as smooth, this one was wonderful to dig out and use yesterday: Great capture ... TFS, J ---------- Post added 03-05-14 at 10:04 ---------- Originally posted by utak ... I recently got a Super Takumar 55/1.8, and its a lot of fun to use and process the beautifully rendered images (plus it completes my collection of all Takumar 55 versions except sub-version versions ) Great capture, utak ... super & TFS, J

03-06-2014, 01:58 AM	#12350
wkraus Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Near Vienna, Austria Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,059	Originally posted by tim60 Thanks. ---------- Post added 03-05-14 at 01:51 PM ---------- How does the fisheye projection of the 17 work on APS-C. I have been really interested to find out but I have not seen anyone on the forum placing pictures with it on a DSLR. I don't have the Takumar fisheye but I have the SMC K-mount version which is optically the same. I can offer a quick comparison of FOV and projection with the 15mm Limited (the subject is not very interesting and the light was strange). 17mm Fisheye 15mm Limited And off-center 100% crops to compare sharpness and CA: 17mm left, 15mm right The colour rendition is remarkably similar, but the newer lens has more contrast and saturation and less CA. It is also quite a bit sharper.

03-06-2014, 08:59 AM	#12351
Erictator Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,344	Thanks for posting and saving me the trouble, heh. Your findings parallel mine. You can see some mild curve in the 17mm fence post line, and it's not as sharp as a DA Limited for resolving off center of distant subjects...but it gets better in center and up close and stopped down. I think older wide angle designs tend to hit their peak closer to center and F11 than to F5.6. Eric Originally posted by wkraus I don't have the Takumar fisheye but I have the SMC K-mount version which is optically the same. I can offer a quick comparison of FOV and projection with the 15mm Limited (the subject is not very interesting and the light was strange). 17mm Fisheye 15mm Limited And off-center 100% crops to compare sharpness and CA: 17mm left, 15mm right The colour rendition is remarkably similar, but the newer lens has more contrast and saturation and less CA. It is also quite a bit sharper.

03-06-2014, 04:28 PM - 1 Like	#12352
vladimiroltean Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Bucharest, Romania Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,465	Well, last week I bought my third copy of Takumar 50/1.4 (this is the SMC, rubber grip version). It was sold "for parts or repair", with a speck of dust inside and loose distance ring. Fixed within 30 minutes, paid about $60 total for it. Here's one of the first pictures that came out of it. (Also let me know what you think about the handle in the foreground)

03-06-2014, 05:49 PM	#12353
bass3587 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 517	Can you remove the handle in Photoshop? Overall I like the shot.

03-06-2014, 07:43 PM	#12354
tim60 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 8,743	Originally posted by kcobain1992 Well, last week I bought my third copy of Takumar 50/1.4 (this is the SMC, rubber grip version). It was sold "for parts or repair", with a speck of dust inside and loose distance ring. Fixed within 30 minutes, paid about $60 total for it. Here's one of the first pictures that came out of it. (Also let me know what you think about the handle in the foreground) Good result. Good deal too!

03-06-2014, 09:50 PM	#12355
Pepe Guitarra Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,223	Originally posted by kcobain1992 Well, last week I bought my third copy of Takumar 50/1.4 (this is the SMC, rubber grip version). It was sold "for parts or repair", with a speck of dust inside and loose distance ring. Fixed within 30 minutes, paid about $60 total for it. Here's one of the first pictures that came out of it. (Also let me know what you think about the handle in the foreground) Clone it out. It has a falic shape that distract from the beautiful model11

03-06-2014, 10:06 PM	#12356
Erd§ Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: SEQ Posts: 323	Originally posted by kcobain1992 (Also let me know what you think about the handle in the foreground) You ask as if the inclusion of the handle was deliberate...if so, why? Originally posted by Pepe Guitarra Clone it out. It has a falic shape that distract from the beautiful model I don't know about you Pepe, but phallic shapes do not distract me from beautiful models! Besides, phallic symbols usually...um...how can I put this...don't point downwards...

03-06-2014, 10:15 PM - 1 Like	#12357
Pepe Guitarra Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,223	Originally posted by Erd§ ... ..how can I put this...don't point downwards... After certain age, they do!!

03-07-2014, 04:12 AM - 1 Like	#12358
savoche Master of the obvious Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Lowlands of Norway Posts: 18,311	Changing the subject Really just testing my "new" Super-Tak 50/1.4 - and getting to use the CY-20 too, since there's not much daylight to help out today...

03-07-2014, 04:23 AM	#12359
Jean Poitiers Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Lost in translation ... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 18,076	Originally posted by kcobain1992 Well, last week I bought my third copy of Takumar 50/1.4 (this is the SMC, rubber grip version). ... (Also let me know what you think about the handle in the foreground) Looks great and the handle does not really bother me ... *Salut*, J ---------- Post added 03-07-14 at 12:24 ---------- Originally posted by savoche ... Really just testing my "new" Super-Tak 50/1.4 - and getting to use the CY-20 too, since there's not much daylight to help out today... Great capture, savoche ... super DOF & bokeh ... TFS, J

03-08-2014, 05:48 PM	#12360
arnold Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,294	Originally posted by kcobain1992 Well, last week I bought my third copy of Takumar 50/1.4 (this is the SMC, rubber grip version). It was sold "for parts or repair", with a speck of dust inside and loose distance ring. Fixed within 30 minutes, paid about $60 total for it. Here's one of the first pictures that came out of it. (Also let me know what you think about the handle in the foreground) That is a fine picture with interesting colours. It would be better without the handle though.