[Tonytee]

Pentax K100D Super body with Takumar F 70~210mm Lens.

I had intended to clean the window and the plexi-glass, but I did not have the heart to wake this family.

Enjoy and many thanks for looking.

Antonio

[Tonytee]

k100d super body with Takumar F 70~210mm Lens.

1/30s,F/8, ISO 200, no flash and used CWA Metering. Focal Length @210mm.

Thanks so much for viewing.

Antonio

[Helios 1984]

My little friend here climb our apple tree at least 10 time per day :-)

Super-Tak 135mm f/3.5

[paulh]

My little friend here climb our apple tree at least 10 time per day :-)

He looks like he's been eating well

Super Tak 35/3.5

[turkiye2turkiye]

K5IIs+Auto Takumar 35mm f2.3 wideopen

[Josslen]

SMC Takumar 200/4

[Josslen]

I burning to buy a Pentax-M 50 / 1.7, but when viewing photos, noticed the similarity pattern to my Takumar SMS 55 / 1.8.
And the optic schemes these lenses are the same. What anybody can say about this.
And some photos of my Takumar SMS 55 / 1.8 on near wide open

[Erictator]

I burning to buy a Pentax-M 50 / 1.7, but when viewing photos, noticed the similarity pattern to my Takumar SMS 55 / 1.8.
And the optic schemes these lenses are the same. What anybody can say about this.
And some photos of my Takumar SMS 55 / 1.8 on near wide open

What can anybody say? I can say those pics are great! Hah!

Those lenses have a special quality to their rendering when used correctly, that no resolution or MTF chart is ever going to convey properly.

For a short time back in the film days, I had a Contax 137M with a Zeiss T* 50mm f1.4, and it did very very well on tests and charts, a highly regarded lens for optical quality. I'd rather have the Tak.

In my honest opinion, yes, the T* was little sharper corner to corner and had very flat field, but it was a little cold and sterile compared to a vintage Tak, and the bokeh could be very grainy at times.

Don't get me wrong, I got some great pic's with with the Zeiss under the appropriate conditions, but it didn't lend itself to the kind of creativity or moods you can get with the Tak.

Now, on another old film camera, I had a Rollie SL35, with 50mm f1.8 Planar. This was a very common, not high on the MTF charts, medium priced lens (and camera). BUT... I LOVED THIS COMBO! The camera was average at best, but the lens... It is seven elements, six groups. This lens had that pixie dust that you just can't put into a test chart, and is in my humble opinion, the closest comparison to your vintage Tak. And while I loved the Planar, I am very happy I switched to Pentax a long time ago, and I'll take the Tak every time.

Thanks for sharing and triggering that walk down memory lane for me,
Eric

[Jonathan Mac]

I burning to buy a Pentax-M 50 / 1.7, but when viewing photos, noticed the similarity pattern to my Takumar SMS 55 / 1.8.
And the optic schemes these lenses are the same. What anybody can say about this.
And some photos of my Takumar SMS 55 / 1.8 on near wide open

The M 50/1.7 renders in a very similar way to the Tak 55/1.8. I enjoy using both.

Those are very nice pictures and great exaples of what the Takumar can do.

[Josslen]

Super Takumar 105/2.8

[paulh]

Super Takumar 105/2.8

Very nice - great examples of what the ST 105 can do in the right hands

[Josslen]

Very nice - great examples of what the ST 105 can do in the right hands

Thanks. I trying and Takumars is my love )

[wkraus]

I burning to buy a Pentax-M 50 / 1.7, but when viewing photos, noticed the similarity pattern to my Takumar SMS 55 / 1.8.
And the optic schemes these lenses are the same. What anybody can say about this.
And some photos of my Takumar SMS 55 / 1.8 on near wide open

I really like the pastel colours you are getting with your Takumars!

I have a few 50 to 58mm comparison shots here, including the SMC Pentax (K) 1.8/55mm and the smc Pentax-A 1.7/50mm. These are both not the lenses you mentioned but very similar. I don't really see any advantage of the A over the K lens, except the A setting and probably better (= less vintage) coatings. My Super-Takumar 1.8/55mm, OTOH, is definitely softer that the K lens. Considering its reputation and the fact that the design is (more or less) the same, I suppose I got a bad copy.

The M and A 50mm lenses are supposed to be the same design, but different from the earlier 55mm lenses (although sharing the same basic double Gauss design). I also tested the Voigtländer Color-Ultron 1.8/50mm, the same lens as the Rollei Planar mentioned by Erictator. A very nice lens and very sharp wide open in the centre, less so at the edges. My favourites out of the bunch are the modest and cheap EBC Fujinon 1.8/55mm (really great), the 8-element Super-Takumar 1.4/50mm (my copy lives up to its reputation), and of course the very fine (Cosina) Voigtländer Nokton 1.4/58mm SL II.

[Josslen]

I really like the Pastel colours you are getting with your Takumars!

Pastel colours also merit of the Lightroom and my style of postprocessing

SMC Pentax-M 1.7/50mm I think to buy soon becouse have adapter (It is standing idle yet) for my Canon 6D

[Steinback]

SMC Pentax-M 1.7/50mm I think to buy soon becouse have adapter (It is standing idle yet) for my Canon 6D

Careful adapting K mount lenses (like the M 50mm 1.7) to full frame Canon cameras. I stick to M42 lenses on my Canon 5D because the aperture lever on the K lenses can hit the mirror in the camera.

It is possible to unscrew or cut off the aperture lever and the shield that protects it on K lenses but that will hurt resale value in the future. On an inexpensive lens like the M 50mm 1.7 that may not bother you.

Another problem to look out for is that some M42 lenses have rear elements that stick too far into the body on Canon full frame cameras when they are focused towards infinity (distant objects). I haven't caused any permanent damage but I did lock my 5D mirror up a few times testing lenses like the Super Takumar 50mm 1.4.

Have fun with your adapted Takumars, I have a 20mm and an 85mm that are waiting to be tested when I have some free time.