[tim60]

Tim I have let about 10 of this lens get away for less than this one went for . I'll know next time . Will you post some photos you took with is lens . And how do you like it .

I have used it mostly in situations where I am not free to put on a public web site. I will need to go out to do a few.


I used it for things such as pictures at a conference last year. The lighting was so dim that most of them were wide open and with slow shutter. I will do some work with it under much more normal lighting. I did have some better lighting pictures of things like children of friends - hence the not free to put on web.


My general impression is that it can do a lot better than I got from it under challenging conditions. I have been using it on my K3.

[Jonathan Mac]

Hello, everyone.

Here is a portrait comparison between my Takumar 55mm f2.2, and my DA70mm.

The exif for the Tak is off; it's the 55, not the 100.

The lighting is similar, though not exactly the same.

The Takumar image was shot at f4.0, the DA70 @ f2.8. Both images similarly processed in Lightroom.

The composition, and background inspection were done much more quickly than I usually do, but at a model workshop you can't take all the time you want get these to your liking.

First, the Takumar, then, the DA70mm.

Given that not all the conditions were the same for both images, I find the Tak not as sharp as the DA70, but still has that signature creaminess to it.

The Tak is also slower to use, as it's manual focus, but if you have the time, it is a nice portrait lens.

I still want to do a test with all parameters equal.

Mike

Both nice images, but too different to compare lens qualities. I've never used the f/2.2 Tak but I have the f/1.8 & f/2 and also the DA 70mm, and they're great portrait lenses.

[malinku]

Been using my Super Takumar 35mm f3.5 for singles in this month so I'll post a few here as well. It quickly became one of my favorites

[theunartist]

Hello, everyone.

Here is a portrait comparison between my Takumar 55mm f2.2, and my DA70mm.

The exif for the Tak is off; it's the 55, not the 100.

The lighting is similar, though not exactly the same.

The Takumar image was shot at f4.0, the DA70 @ f2.8. Both images similarly processed in Lightroom.

The composition, and background inspection were done much more quickly than I usually do, but at a model workshop you can't take all the time you want get these to your liking.

First, the Takumar, then, the DA70mm.

Given that not all the conditions were the same for both images, I find the Tak not as sharp as the DA70, but still has that signature creaminess to it.

The Tak is also slower to use, as it's manual focus, but if you have the time, it is a nice portrait lens.

I still want to do a test with all parameters equal.

Mike

On my screen the 1st one is way way sharper than the 2nd one; you can see it in the eyes, plus the 1st one has slightly more depth of field that I noticed in the shoulder strap. You should have shot both at f4 to be compared one on one. Color balance one both is also a little green but I use a calibrated display.

True, they are different lenses from different eras, but that's what PP is for

[Mike Bokeh]

Both nice images, but too different to compare lens qualities. I've never used the f/2.2 Tak but I have the f/1.8 & f/2 and also the DA 70mm, and they're great portrait lenses.

Yes, I agree, Jonathan, they are two very different images, and while the lighting is similar, in that both images were lit with the same lightbox, the lighting is not the same. The apertures were not the same either.

I just wanted to do a comparison between the two lenses, and this was the first time that I had both lenses with me.

Next time, I'll try to do a more even comparison.

Thanks for the feedback.

Mike

---------- Post added 03-15-15 at 11:29 AM ----------

On my screen the 1st one is way way sharper than the 2nd one; you can see it in the eyes, plus the 1st one has slightly more depth of field that I noticed in the shoulder strap. You should have shot both at f4 to be compared one on one. Color balance one both is also a little green but I use a calibrated display.

True, they are different lenses from different eras, but that's what PP is for

On my screen, the second image is a little sharper, but this is what I like about criticism of images; others see things that the photographer does not.

I know the Takumar is sharp, but to my eyes, the DA70 has beaten it every time I did any kind of a comparison.

This is the first portrait comparison of the two with the same person taken minutes apart.

I know I should have taken both images at the same aperture, but model workshops can be a little hectic.

If you want to see some other results taken with the DA70 go here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/138-pentax-k-01/178409-add-your-best-k-01...-here-208.html Post # 3108.

I didn't even notice the slight green cast; I should pay more attention to this.

Thanks very much for your feedback.

Mike

[Erictator]

I keep a cheap adapter semi-permanently attached to each Takumar with a tiny dab of the lowest strength Loctite (with the clip on the adapter removed, of course). I can understand why collectors would prefer to leave their Taks as native screw mounts, but personally I think of my lenses as day-to-day shooters, and life out on Dartmoor is a lot quicker and easier with them adapted to K mount.

On a side note, because I'm not a collector I've saved a lot of money in auctions by buying cosmetically grungy examples that nobody else seemed to want. A couple of scratches on the front element is no big deal, and the only thing that will scare me off a lens is serious fungus.

I have to admit, I am with you on this personally.


Funny story - One day I was showing another photographer my 17mm Fish, "K" mount, and he pointed out the screw mount adapter, and I had to embarrassingly admit that I had put it on so long ago with Loctite that I forgot it was a M42 lens. In my mind, for all intents and purposes, it had become a K mount. Heh.


Eric

[tim60]

Tim I have let about 10 of this lens get away for less than this one went for . I'll know next time . Will you post some photos you took with is lens . And how do you like it .

I promised to put up a few with the STak 85/1.9. I got them this morning and here they are.


All were take within about 90 minutes of sunrise on a fine almost cloudless day. Taken with K3. No hood, I do not have one, no filter to show what the lens can do. Under some conditions, not shown here I find blue fringing which I also notice with the 135/2.5. Seems to be something to do with the faster lenses. I hope someone likes at least a couple of them.


I biased exposure by +0.7 for all. I needed it because of the lighting with the first two, I wanted to show detail in the darker foreground things. THe latter two probably did not need it, at least for that reason. No PP applied except conversion to jpg.


These were taken in a suburb called Mawson Lakes, named after an Antarctic explorer whose picture was on the old, paper $100 note, which looked like it was put through a photocopier at first glance but actually had 27 colours of ink on it, IIRC a 1980's news report.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by tim60; 03-17-2015 at 02:00 AM.

[yasik]

136 takumar, f8 or so

[Mike Bokeh]

Yasik, that is an absolutely gorgeous image!

The dark blue set off by the gold.

Where is this?

Mike

[Bob Conrad]

Super-Multi-Coated MACRO-TAKUMAR 100MM f4 at f8
Set shutter to 1 sec and timer to 2 sec. In a darkened room I tripped the timer, waited to hear the shutter open, then manually fired a hand held flash to get back lit effect. Exposure by trial and error, thanks to the magic of digital preview. Trying this with Kodachrome 64 would have been hit or miss (and costly).

[Andrew_Oid]

136 takumar, f8 or so

They made a 136mm Takumar? j/k Beautiful shot.

[tim60]

They made a 136mm Takumar? j/k Beautiful shot.

I meant the 135/2.5. The effect I saw in the 2.5 is not apparent in the slower lenses, such as the 135/3.5, and even the 105/2.8 and 120/2.8.


I thought you referred to my previous post because I referred to the 135/2.5. I missed seeing who you had quoted.

[yasik]

Yasik, that is an absolutely gorgeous image!

The dark blue set off by the gold.

Where is this?

Mike

Mike this is Georgia Gudauri resort

135 2.5 takumar
this is how it looks like when wideopen

[Arjay Bee]

Super Macro Takumar Preset + K3

[Baard-Einar]

Hi

I got a hold of an old m37 Takumar, the Asahi-Kogaku Takumar 100mm f3.5. The other day a m37->m42 adapter arrived. Here are the first shots I took with this lens. Camera is K-3, ISO 100. First image lens fully open at f3.5 and then one stopped down to f5.6. The last picture shows the lens mounted on the K-3