[tim60]

The 17mm fisheye is very prone to flare, but that's fine by me because I like flare. After all, if I'd wanted an ultra-clean flare-free modern look then I wouldn't have used a 50 year old lens.

Your Flickr page says GX10. To be sure, is that APS.C format?


I had been wondering how this lens works on the crop format. Do you have other examples to post?

[Dartmoor Dave]

Your Flickr page says GX10. To be sure, is that APS.C format? I had been wondering how this lens works on the crop format. Do you have other examples to post?

Yes, the GX-10 is APS-C. I haven't got a full-frame DSLR to try the 17mm on, but I did play around with it on a Spotmatic and the field of view really did look like 180 degrees, with a very definite fisheye effect. On APS-C it has about the same field of view as I guess a 14mm rectilinear, with much less of an obvious fisheye effect, and it de-fishes very well using PT Lens. The shot on the previous page is de-fished.

I posted some first test shots back on page 1009 of the Takumar Club, which you can see full screen if you click through to Flickr. But this one was my first "real" photo with the lens. More will hopefully follow.

I think you have to be willing to accept the 17mm for what it is: a 50 year old design that has some real weaknesses and some unique strengths. I've also got a Zenitar 16mm fisheye, which is a lot cheaper, a stop faster, and much sharper at wider apertures, but with much more boring colour rendering. You have to stop the Takumar down to at least f/11 and preferably f/16 to get good sharpness across the frame even on APS-C. But what you get from the 17mm that you can't get from any other lens in existence is the Takumar rendering, and for me that trumps all other considerations. It's a joy to shoot with.

(Top tip: the clamp-on round hood for the original Super Takumar 28mm with the 58mm filter ring works perfectly as a hood for the 17mm on APS-C without vignetting.)

[tim60]

Thanks. I did see your early post acquisition picture a while back.


The 17 is one I have been curious about but have not got. I have representatives of almost all the other FLs between 20 and 300, with most with more than one speed having both speeds. I did not get the 17, not understanding what it would look like and because it was expensive. But liking the distortion in the 20 it sounds likely I would like the 17. I quite like the other lenses, which are more prone to flare than modern but in an attractive manner.


Virtually all my pictures are through Takumars now.

[chuck_c]

Super-Takumar 85mm f1.9 on the K-1.
Shot at 1/800, f16, ISO 100 and cropped at almost 100%.


Woodpecker ritual by Chuck Campbell, on Flickr

[Bart]

I finally bought a sony A7II and didn't forget to add an adaptor for PK.
I then had to find my old m42-PK converter again - which took some time

First lens I mounted was my almost exclusively used lens for most of my live: Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4
a happy reunion

getting re-acquainted and getting to know the camera.
(nothing special since I'm stuck at home on sick leave)

[wkraus]

I finally bought a sony A7II and didn't forget to add an adaptor for PK.
I then had to find my old m42-PK converter again - which took some time

First lens I mounted was my almost exclusively used lens for most of my live: Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4
a happy reunion

getting re-acquainted and getting to know the camera.
(nothing special since I'm stuck at home on sick leave)

Congratulations on the new toy, and wishing you a speedy recovery!

[Andrew_Oid]

Hello.
It's been awhile since I posted here.
I was looking at some old photos and happened on this one from the end of August. I had just gotten a Sony A7 and wanted to test it with my vintage lenses. My impression was that the flange distance with the adapter I had was a little off, so rather than buy several different adapters and hope to get one that was spot on, I went back to using my a850 with the classic glass. Re-examining this photo, I agree with my earlier assessment but think I might've been a little too harsh. The camera might provide some acceptable results with the m42's after all. I'll have to test it more.
1/15sec at f8 or f9, hand-held.
Sorry the image is so small. I'm not used to linking from the gallery. ILCE 7 with Takumar 55mm f2.2 | Sony A7 with auto-Takumar 55? | Flickr will open my Flickr page. That image can be enlarged by clicking on it.

[tim60]

I like the way the light and colour play together there. A really interesting textured sky which is part of the whole effect.

[Andrew_Oid]

I like the way the light and colour play together there. A really interesting textured sky which is part of the whole effect.

Thank you. It was back when it was raining nearly every day. You can see pools of water on the nearer roofs. A storm had washed the air, the sun was setting, and the clouds. All I did was frame it and push the button . . .

[paulh]

All I did was frame it and push the button . . .

But you had to know how & when to "frame and push"

[Andrew_Oid]

But you had to know how & when to "frame and push"

;-) A matter of being in the right place at the right time, with a camera and the right lens. Lucky.
Thanks for the comment.

[chuck_c]

S-M-C Takumar 135mm f2.5 on the K-1


Above the rim by Chuck Campbell, on Flickr

[rangi]

A pic from my photo walk today. 200mm f/3.5 Takumar. Very nice lens from about f/5.6-f/8. Glows wide open, which makes it lose contrast. Good performance but I would not recommend it as someone's first vintage lens.

Some more:



He waved to me lol. There is a color fringe in the "hot" highlight

[Dartmoor Dave]

17mm fisheye (defished using PT Lens).

[pathdoc]

Glow and Bokeh



Pentax *istDS with Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 (radioactive), wide open.