[Andrew_Oid]

I'm not given to taking selfies, but I like this concept. It's not as sharp as I would like. It's very hard to judge MFD this way. And the focal length isn't flattering to my French nose. I'll have to redo it with an AF 20. Shot at f16.
"Shades of Saruman"

I apologize for changing the photo. After taking several indoors, I tried to take some outdoors but they were so dark that I thought they were unusable. I don't know why that was. Anyway, I tried working with the only one I kept in Viveza, and it came out quite nice. The focus is better (though I lost the top of my head). Reminds me of Saruman, and I have to tell you, this isn't what I look like. (Wide angle distortion.)

---

Last edited by Andrew_Oid; 12-04-2017 at 02:15 AM. Reason: change photo

[paulh]

I'm not given to taking selfies, but I like this concept.

It has that "dreamy & mystical" rendering Dave talks about.

[rangi]

Thanks for the nice comments everyone. I do find the 55mm to be a nice lens for portraits. The extra 5mm does make a difference. I haven't noticed a huge (if any) difference between my Auto-Takumar and SMC Takumar 55mm lenses. The extra aperture blades are nice; the 6-bladed versions have "ninja star" bokeh until they are stopped down to about f/4-ish.

I do have a question for everyone. What is your favorite 85mm Takumar? I kind of want one but they are expensive, so I feel I should get the "right" version.

[paulh]

Another early shot from Day 1 with the Super Multi-Coated Tak 20/4.5. I think this was wide open or close to it - from my first and only outing with the lens (so far).

[Andrew_Oid]

Another early shot from Day 1 with the Super Multi-Coated Tak 20/4.5. I think this was wide open or close to it - from my first and only outing with the lens (so far).

The focus on the backlit leaves makes for drama, and the OOF areas are pleasing as well. Some might think f4.5 is a bit slow for a maximum aperture, but this is a very nice photo.

[gifthorse]

One of the reasons I chose Pentax was the ability (and availability) of legacy lenses. I picked up a Super Takumar 200mm f4 in a pawnshop for $10 a while back.




Heavily cropped

Super Takumar 200mm f2 on a K5ii

[Andrew_Oid]

I found this in my files this morning. It was taken in April of last year. It's a resolution test of the SMC Takumar 20mm taken at f9. The scene is familiar to most I'm sure. I didn't post it then because it doesn't have merit as a photograph IMO, but because it shows the capabilities of the lens, I decided to post it now. Apparent lack of resolution with this lens is due I think to spreading such a wide view across the limited number of pixels in the sensor, 24 MPx in this case, but the scene is well rendered in terms of sharpness. This is just not the best use for the focal length.
Here's a crop of the center of the image. No PP applied to either.

[Dartmoor Dave]

I can't remember the last time I used my 20mm at anything other than f/11. I know that I used f/4.5 for a shot in heavy fog in late 2016, but for that one I was aiming for softness. I might have used f/8 once or twice in the meantime and forgotten about it, but on the whole I treat it as effectively a fixed f/11. I think it's a lens that has quite different characteristics at different apertures, not just in terms of sharpness but rendering too, and I seem to get the best tonality at f/11.

It's also a lens that seems to hate overexposure and love underexposure. I always shoot at least a stop below what any camera's built-in meter would recommend, and I regularly go two or even three stops under.

[Andrew_Oid]

I can't remember the last time I used my 20mm at anything other than f/11. I know that I used f/4.5 for a shot in heavy fog in late 2016, but for that one I was aiming for softness. I might have used f/8 once or twice in the meantime and forgotten about it, but on the whole I treat it as effectively a fixed f/11. I think it's a lens that has quite different characteristics at different apertures, not just in terms of sharpness but rendering too, and I seem to get the best tonality at f/11.

It's also a lens that seems to hate overexposure and love underexposure. I always shoot at least a stop below what any camera's built-in meter would recommend, and I regularly go two or even three stops under.

I'll have to do some comparisons at the different f-stops, f8, f9, f11, f16, using a tripod and cropping and enlarging to see if there's appreciable difference between them. I have noticed that photographing close up at f16 works quite well. It would be interesting to know how much DOF changes at MFD at each of those stops, but that project will have to wait until I find a tape measure. I would like to compare the 20mm end of my Tokina AF 235 zoom with the Tak and might do that tomorrow. The MFD on that lens seems considerably farther at about 15 inches, about twice that of the Tak, which is important to me. I did take a few shots of the same scene today and thought the Tak clearly better, but I want to try to get the same lighting conditions to make the comparison fairer. One interesting thing about the Tokina is that it will take a filter, such as a normal CPL, without vignetting. On the other hand the Tak doesn't seem to ever need one.

[paulh]

The focus on the backlit leaves makes for drama, and the OOF areas are pleasing as well. Some might think f4.5 is a bit slow for a maximum aperture, but this is a very nice photo.

Thanks. I'm still working on getting a feel for how it works.

I can't remember the last time I used my 20mm at anything other than f/11.

I'll have to experiment with higher f/stops on my Taks. I usually max out around f/8 or so, as I did on the lake/dog shot earlier.

[Andrew_Oid]

I did comparison photos for the Tokina AF235 20-35mm zoom taken at 20mm (posted on the 20mm Club page) and the Tak. Both sets shot at f9 and not processed. The Tokina lens was used on a Sony a850 while the Tak was used on a Sony a7. Full scene and center crop. Sorry for the near duplication of yesterday's post but in the interests of science, I had to replicate as near as possible. A tripod was used also. I did f-stop images at f8, f11 and f16 also, but won't post them. There was slight improvement in apparent resolution as the lens was stopped down, noticeable but barely in the crops. The lens didn't suffer any loss of sharpness fully stopped down at f16.

[Andrew_Oid]

I took the 20 off (but I might put it back on tomorrow). "The Rama IX Bridge at Sunset". This bridge is one of several named after the recently deceased king, the first one I think. Two others, Bhumibol 1 and Bhumibol 2 are the ones you can see in other of my pictures. Shot at f11.

[Andrew_Oid]

Hand-held, ISO 800, 1/15 sec. I couldn't do this with the a850.

[Dartmoor Dave]

I had to be in Plymouth yesterday, but I managed to get time for a walk on the Hoe and Barbican, so that's fine. Here's a shot of Smeaton's Tower on Plymouth Hoe in the winter afternoon light. with the 17mm in full fisheye mode:



EDIT: I decided that the light in the tower shot gives too much of a colour cast, so here's a colour corrected version:



This next one is more of a snapshot, but I think it has some historical interest. It's the Mayflower Steps on Plymouth's Barbican, which commemorates the place where the Pilgrim Fathers (and Pilgrim Mothers and kids) boarded the Mayflower to sail to the new world. The quayside has been extended by about thirty feet since then, so nobody really knows where the actual spot was, but this is close enough. And there's another country that also has its origins on this quayside: it's the place from where the first convict ship sailed to what eventually became Australia. Lots of weight of history resting on this little place. The photo is also with the 17mm, but this time defished.

[Andrew_Oid]

I had to be in Plymouth yesterday, but I managed to get time for a walk on the Hoe and Barbican, so that's fine. Here's a shot of Smeaton's Tower on Plymouth Hoe in the winter afternoon light. with the 17mm in full fisheye mode:



This next one is more of a snapshot, but I think it has some historical interest. It's the Mayflower Steps on Plymouth's Barbican, which commemorates the place where the Pilgrim Fathers (and Pilgrim Mothers and kids) boarded the Mayflower to sail to the new world. The quayside has been extended by about thirty feet since then, so nobody really knows where the actual spot was, but this is close enough. And there's another country that also has its origins on this quayside: it's the place from where the first convict ship sailed to what eventually became Australia. Lots of weight of history resting on this little place. The photo is also with the 17mm, but this time defished.

The 17mm seems to be a good quality lens, too, with the resolution, sharpness, and color Takumars are known for. Are you ready to give an indepth report on it? I have a rectilinear 14mm Rokinon that's a fine lens that I hope to use someday to take pictures of the Milky Way when I can see it, but I don't use it. Every focal length calls for a different way of seeing and the more you venture out from normal, the more restrictive the lens seems to be. That's how it seems to me, anyway. So, what are the positives and negatives of a Tak 17mm fisheye?