[dunerunner]

Moon rise over Tucson with my ST 35 3.5

[Jorgario]

S-M-C Takumar 1:2.8/105mm, K-5 II

Beautifull portrait !!

[Pepe Guitarra]

I admire those who seem to be able get everything to work in one exposure: focus, exposure, framing, lighting and the right things actually showing.

Isn't that what they taught us years ago when DSLRs did not exist?

[wtlwdwgn]

I've been enjoying using my S-M-C Taks in their native realm by playing with them on a used (cough!) D700. Wow, it's been fun to shoot FF again. I went to Bozeman, MT, yesterday for the annual Christmas Stroll. No snow this year although it did rain some (in Dec?). Lots of peeps out so lots of photo bombs but otherwise it was pretty cool. These were taken with the 28mm f/3.5, 1/60 @ f/5.6, mostly at ISO 3200.

The rest of the gallery is here.

[Rhynn]

My favourite lens is definitely my SMC Takumar 1.4 50mm. I've de yellowed it with a custom UV Light box, and modified it from screwmount to K-mount.

[tim60]

Isn't that what they taught us years ago when DSLRs did not exist?

My point is that regardless of how careful I try to be onsite I get home and look at them and think "Oh!, what an obvious blunder."

[kkx]

Moon rise over Tucson with my ST 35 3.5

Very nice shots.

Might just try to get this lens to try it out.

Thanks for sharing.

[eddie1960]

Super Tak 55 1.8 with extension tubes



and Super Tak 28 3.5 @ 5.6 or 8 (can't remember)

[Dartmoor Dave]

My point is that regardless of how careful I try to be onsite I get home and look at them and think "Oh!, what an obvious blunder."

I know what you mean, and I keep doing the same thing.

The strange thing is that I only have that problem with digital: I get home and go through the raw files and on shot after shot I've got wonky horizons, distracting elements in the shot that I missed at the time, weird expressions on people's faces.

But when I'm shooting slide film I never have those problems. I think it's a combination of the bigger brighter viewfinder so I can see what I'm doing better, the knowledge that I'm paying £2 per frame for film and processing, and the awareness that I won't have any option to alter the slide afterwards.

Shooting digitally seems to instantly make me revert to sloppy camera skills.

[tim60]

I know what you mean, and I keep doing the same thing.

The strange thing is that I only have that problem with digital: I get home and go through the raw files and on shot after shot I've got wonky horizons, distracting elements in the shot that I missed at the time, weird expressions on people's faces.

But when I'm shooting slide film I never have those problems. I think it's a combination of the bigger brighter viewfinder so I can see what I'm doing better, the knowledge that I'm paying £2 per frame for film and processing, and the awareness that I won't have any option to alter the slide afterwards.

Shooting digitally seems to instantly make me revert to sloppy camera skills.

Such a ring of recognition in what you say. Digitals seem so much harder than the old MX. The technology for a good view finder was achievable in the mid 70s, why so hard now?


I liked your pictures with the 20/4.5 and that persuaded me to include that in my set of Taks. I was the only bidder in an eBay auction and got it, including case and rectangular hood and hood case with original caps for USD200 in October 2012. I was in a hotel near Newark airport talking to my boss who was visiting MIT on Skype and going to fly off to Taipei the next day. That lens excites me. It was the lens that got me to appreciate wide where before I had never done much good with wide.

[jva59]

I know what you mean, and I keep doing the same thing.

The strange thing is that I only have that problem with digital: I get home and go through the raw files and on shot after shot I've got wonky horizons, distracting elements in the shot that I missed at the time, weird expressions on people's faces.

But when I'm shooting slide film I never have those problems. I think it's a combination of the bigger brighter viewfinder so I can see what I'm doing better, the knowledge that I'm paying £2 per frame for film and processing, and the awareness that I won't have any option to alter the slide afterwards.

Shooting digitally seems to instantly make me revert to sloppy camera skills.

That's certainly the way I felt--and feel--about switching from using a typewriter to computer word-processing. The discipline imposed by the former meant there was a moment one had to concentrate on getting things right. The fact that one can always revise on the computer leads me to put off getting clear about what I really want to say over and over again.

[wkraus]

Beautifull portrait !!

Thanks!

[yasik]

135 f 2.5

[utak]

135 f 2.5

What an incredibly lovely portrait. Congratulations and thanks for sharing!

The 135/2.5 is such a good lens for portraits, even better than 50/55s I find. Having said that here is a close-up portrait by an early Super Takumar 50/1.4

[Jean Poitiers]

Very nice, yasik & utak ... TFS, J