[tim60]

12 frame stitch with the Super Takumar 20mm.

That's good.

[wigwamtrout]

12 frame stitch with the Super Takumar 20mm.

Dave, is that an in camera pan or a stitch at the computer? Either way, it looks great. I've been using a lot of other non Pentax lenses
lately including some modern top of the line wide angles. Even though these new ones are mighty fine, one of them absolutely groundbreaking,
none of them make pictures as consistently likeable as the Tak 20. It is probably the most misunderstood and underrated lens in the whole Tak and Pentax
lineup.

[Ikarus]

Super-Takumar 1:3.5/24

[Dartmoor Dave]

Dave, is that an in camera pan or a stitch at the computer? Either way, it looks great. I've been using a lot of other non Pentax lenses lately including some modern top of the line wide angles. Even though these new ones are mighty fine, one of them absolutely groundbreaking, none of them make pictures as consistently likeable as the Tak 20. It is probably the most misunderstood and underrated lens in the whole Tak and Pentaxlineup.

It's three rows of four shots, stitched using Microsoft Image Composite Editor.

It's good to hear that the Takumar 20mm stands up well against the modern lenses you've been using. It would be nice if my 20mm had slightly sharper corners, but I'm willing to live with that in exchange for the beautiful rendering of colours and light.

[tonezime]

SMC Takumar 85/1.8

[wigwamtrout]

It's three rows of four shots, stitched using Microsoft Image Composite Editor.

It's good to hear that the Takumar 20mm stands up well against the modern lenses you've been using. It would be nice if my 20mm had slightly sharper corners, but I'm willing to live with that in exchange for the beautiful rendering of colours and light.

I'm a little bit surprised at how well the stitches turned out for you. Very good. As far as the old 20 holding up against modern lenses, it's weaknesses are its strength. I'm sure that the designer of the old 20 got the look that was wanted and that aesthetics change with time. For example, boldly colored (surprisingly luminous oranges in particular), punchy, crisp, sharp corner to corner shots like Zeiss wide angles easily produce (with little to no PP) are popular, as they should be, with photographers right now. Pixel peeping, too, is a delight with such lenses making you feel you are getting all you can out of your camera. But, you sacrifice one thing for another. The Tak 20 was not designed to get that certain smack you in the face look, but rather has its own style creating pictorial dynamics that can be just as consistantly appealing as top of the line "modern" lenses. I dont think this old 20 is a one trick pony and some other lenses are a little more "limited" because of their boldness or "simplistic" corner to corner rendering. I think it would be interesting to have a bit more conversation about the aesthtetics of lens design so that discussion over lens quality and character could be more sophisticated. One thing is for certain, any question about most of these old lenses, like the Tak 20 holding up on FF and on high megapixel cameras have been long resolved. These lenses are now what they always were-FF lenses of fine quality. I've recently been able to compare many older Pentax lenses (some of them MF K mounts), to new, top quality zooms and primes. The old MF lenses are all turning out the shots just like they should. If they are primes, and mine all are, they are much sharper side to side than all new top line zooms I've tested. So, where sharpness is concerned, all's as it should be contrary to what some reviews and comments ould have you believe. The new lenses in general do produce punchier more contrasted, more saturated shots right from the camera and can be shot faster using auto focus. So what. After getting little of that, you can go right back to the good old compact MF primes that have their own pictorial appeal, achieving if you like, with a little PP, any look the newer lenses are getting. As far as flair and such things are concerned, the newer lenses are inconsistant just like the older ones were, some flaring quite easily, some almost never. The critical refinement in focusing that I now recognize is possible and missed in many shots can be gained by eye and by manual focusing and not always by auto focusing. I suppose veryone reading and posting to this thread knows all of this, but I needed to see all of it, confirm it via real life photography circumstances out in nature using a variety of camera systems. So, back to the 20 Tak. It is definitely a special lens for its high quality, and the most misunderstood Tak of all. Dave, your posts from this lens have been delightful.

Nice looking shot above with the 24mm. I don't have a Tak 24, but if the opportunity comes around, I'll certainly pick one up!

[manntax]

I'm a little bit surprised at how well the stitches turned out for you. Very good. As far as the old 20 holding up against modern lenses, it's weaknesses are its strength. I'm sure that the designer of the old 20 got the look that was wanted and that aesthetics change with time. For example, boldly colored (surprisingly luminous oranges in particular), punchy, crisp, sharp corner to corner shots like Zeiss wide angles easily produce (with little to no PP) are popular, as they should be, with photographers right now. Pixel peeping, too, is a delight with such lenses making you feel you are getting all you can out of your camera. But, you sacrifice one thing for another. The Tak 20 was not designed to get that certain smack you in the face look, but rather has its own style creating pictorial dynamics that can be just as consistantly appealing as top of the line "modern" lenses. I dont think this old 20 is a one trick pony and some other lenses are a little more "limited" because of their boldness or "simplistic" corner to corner rendering. I think it would be interesting to have a bit more conversation about the aesthtetics of lens design so that discussion over lens quality and character could be more sophisticated. One thing is for certain, any question about most of these old lenses, like the Tak 20 holding up on FF and on high megapixel cameras have been long resolved. These lenses are now what they always were-FF lenses of fine quality. I've recently been able to compare many older Pentax lenses (some of them MF K mounts), to new, top quality zooms and primes. The old MF lenses are all turning out the shots just like they should. If they are primes, and mine all are, they are much sharper side to side than all new top line zooms I've tested. So, where sharpness is concerned, all's as it should be contrary to what some reviews and comments ould have you believe. The new lenses in general do produce punchier more contrasted, more saturated shots right from the camera and can be shot faster using auto focus. So what. After getting little of that, you can go right back to the good old compact MF primes that have their own pictorial appeal, achieving if you like, with a little PP, any look the newer lenses are getting. As far as flair and such things are concerned, the newer lenses are inconsistant just like the older ones were, some flaring quite easily, some almost never. The critical refinement in focusing that I now recognize is possible and missed in many shots can be gained by eye and by manual focusing and not always by auto focusing. I suppose veryone reading and posting to this thread knows all of this, but I needed to see all of it, confirm it via real life photography circumstances out in nature using a variety of camera systems. So, back to the 20 Tak. It is definitely a special lens for its high quality, and the most misunderstood Tak of all. Dave, your posts from this lens have been delightful. Nice looking shot above with the 24mm. I don't have a Tak 24, but if the opportunity comes around, I'll certainly pick one up!

amen brother

[tim60]

The 20 is very likeable. It rapidly became my favourite. I think it would be exciting on FF.

[tromboads]

I had fun with a 24mm Super Tak the other weekend.

For those that claim they don't flare.

Exhibit A) Click



I got lucky though, the warm flare broke up the green and the blue nicely :P Cheers Takumar

Shot at f8 on a K5.

[Dartmoor Dave]

The 20 is very likeable. It rapidly became my favourite. I think it would be exciting on FF.

Here are a few samples with the Super Takumar 20mm on Pentax full frame (K1000 with Ektar 100). It makes a dramatically wide angle in the 35mm format.

[tim60]

Sure looks like. This would be what would tempt me towards FF. But money is a bigger issue, so that must wait.

I never used WA enough with film to discover when to use it. Also, my widest was 28 in a Tamron 28-50, which was as wide as I ever had access to.

BTW, how is the weather your way. I hear reports of floods but cannot appreciate, through my phone and BBC just what it is really like for most people.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Luckily the weather is just horribly wet where I am without any flooding. Such a shame for all those people who got flooded over Christmas.

My preferred wide angle for 35mm film has always been a 24mm lens. The Takumar 24mm works wonderfully well stopped down a bit. But I think the classic set-up of a 28mm wide, a fast 50mm, and a 135mm telephoto will work just as well on digital full frame as it does with film.

It's going to be a long time before I can afford digital full frame though. I've just bought a K-S1, which is the most that my budget can handle right now.

[tim60]

Such is life (to quote the last words of a love him or hate him) Australian, actually Victorian. We live in the real world of competing priorities. My Taks are recent acquisitions from when I could afford to get them.

The news for those who have been flooded repeatedly is bad.

[Jonathan Mac]

The Takumar 105/2.8 is not the sharpest lens for close-focus, even stopped down to f/5.6, but I do like it's rendering and have used it a couple of times on extension tubes for semi-macro shots.

Here's one with 31mm extension on the K3, first at f/5.6 and then the same shot wide open. The last one was taken at f/4 (no extension tubes).


IMGP7766a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr


IMGP7767a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr


IMGP7751a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

[Pepe Guitarra]

Here are few of my shots taken with this lens: