[Dartmoor Dave]

Another one from yesterday morning, this time with the 55mm/2.0 Super. The diffusion through the mist makes the sun look ridiculously huge in this one.

[HoutHans]

FWIW, the M42 Tak's work real good with extension tubes for macro too... plus general all around character, that I would describe as "Limited like" since it is not technical perfection, but more artistic pop and character. Maybe if a Limited and a Helios had a 3 some with a Lensbaby, they would have had a Tak? Oh wait, the Tak's came first... LOL!



Pentax K-1 Tak 35.0 mm F2 @ 1/8000 iso 200

Look, we even take requests Bruce...

Pentax K-1 Takumar 135mm F3.5 M42 Lens w/25mm Ext Tube @ 1/2000 iso100

Both are absolutely splendid; guess I'll have to start looking for extension tubes....

[BruceBanner]

FWIW, the M42 Tak's work real good with extension tubes for macro too... plus general all around character, that I would describe as "Limited like" since it is not technical perfection, but more artistic pop and character. Maybe if a Limited and a Helios had a 3 some with a Lensbaby, they would have had a Tak? Oh wait, the Tak's came first... LOL!



Pentax K-1 Tak 35.0 mm F2 @ 1/8000 iso 200

Look, we even take requests Bruce...

Pentax K-1 Takumar 135mm F3.5 M42 Lens w/25mm Ext Tube @ 1/2000 iso100

Haha Eric, thanks!

Got any more non macro tube shots with the 135?

[steamloco76]

I bought a Habitat housing charity listing off eBay with a Spotmatic, Super Takumar 400/4, Vivitar 28/2.8, Vivitar 2x TC and Super Takumar 500/1.4. Everything is in superb condition. Tried out the Super Takumar 50mm F1.4 today. The rear element is somewhat yellowed, but it doesn't seem to cause much of a issue. Most of these photos are at either f1.4 or f2.0. The Flag/water droplets photo is at f2.8. Taken with my K3.

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 steamloco76; 12-08-2019 at 02:02 PM.

[Clarkey]

SMC 55 1.8 @ F2:

Peonie by Aaron, on Flickr

[scratchpaddy]

Got any more non macro tube shots with the 135?

I have a different one, the SMC Takumar 135 f/2.5. It's been a long time since I last used it, since I prefer shorter lenses, but you gave me a good excuse to take it out to the dog park this morning.

It's a really nice lens, with very smooth rendering, and perfectly usable even at f/2.5. These pictures are at f/2.8.







There's also a Takumar "Bayonet" 135/2.5 produced later in K-mount when Pentax revived the "Takumar" name for budget lenses. It has fewer elements and no SMC, and sells for half as much. I haven't used one personally, but from reading around on the internet, it sounds like it's not as good at wide apertures.

On the subject of classic short teles, I also have a Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5, which is an East-German M42-mount lens produced during the DDR days. It sells for about the same price as the SMC Takumar (~$130 USD), and it's a little more compact. It's blistering sharp at any aperture, with beautiful colors.

[BruceBanner]

I have a different one, the SMC Takumar 135 f/2.5. It's been a long time since I last used it, since I prefer shorter lenses, but you gave me a good excuse to take it out to the dog park this morning.

It's a really nice lens, with very smooth rendering, and perfectly usable even at f/2.5. These pictures are at f/2.8.







There's also a Takumar "Bayonet" 135/2.5 produced later in K-mount when Pentax revived the "Takumar" name for budget lenses. It has fewer elements and no SMC, and sells for half as much. I haven't used one personally, but from reading around on the internet, it sounds like it's not as good at wide apertures.

On the subject of classic short teles, I also have a Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5, which is an East-German M42-mount lens produced during the DDR days. It sells for about the same price as the SMC Takumar (~$130 USD), and it's a little more compact. It's blistering sharp at any aperture, with beautiful colors.

Thanks for that. I actually have that said Takumar "Bayonet" 135/2.5;









It's a fine lens, you are correct, moving from f2.5 to f2.8 brings a significant improvement in my eyes, it's the same as the K200/4, shifting up to f5.6 and things are remarkably better with no real loss to quality of bokeh. However for K (not A Setting lenses) this in reality means living in Manual mode for shooting, and whilst its ok for some scenarios (and I green button to get quick appropriate shutter speeds for the ISO I am will to live with), it's still not speedy enough, and using Av mode means f2.5 or F4 (for the K200).

This is why my world has been rocked with M42 lenses, I just assumed that being even older that they would also be Manual Mode only lenses, or at the very least Av mode meant shooting wide open only. It's blown me away that I can use this glass in Av mode at all apertures, a price I am happy to pay for the slower unscrewing lens swap/adapter thing.

So even if a Takumar 135/200 M42 mount also behaves similarly (is significantly better one stop down), it still means in real world usage I would get so many more keepers and can employ the lenses in event work. I am start to see for example that f2 on the Tak 50/1.4 (8) is worth it for additional sharpness (at least coverage range) and purple fringing handling, with little loss in terms of bokeh magic. Speaking of which... here's a few more contributions/test shots with the Tak 50;

[jbinpg]

K-1 + S-T 50/1.4 (8-element) @ f/6.3. Looking out the backdoor this morning after a 24-hour snowfall.

[scratchpaddy]

Thanks for that. I actually have that said Takumar "Bayonet" 135/2.5;

It's a fine lens, you are correct, moving from f2.5 to f2.8 brings a significant improvement in my eyes, it's the same as the K200/4, shifting up to f5.6 and things are remarkably better with no real loss to quality of bokeh. However for K (not A Setting lenses) this in reality means living in Manual mode for shooting, and whilst its ok for some scenarios (and I green button to get quick appropriate shutter speeds for the ISO I am will to live with), it's still not speedy enough, and using Av mode means f2.5 or F4 (for the K200).

This is why my world has been rocked with M42 lenses, I just assumed that being even older that they would also be Manual Mode only lenses, or at the very least Av mode meant shooting wide open only. It's blown me away that I can use this glass in Av mode at all apertures, a price I am happy to pay for the slower unscrewing lens swap/adapter thing.

So even if a Takumar 135/200 M42 mount also behaves similarly (is significantly better one stop down), it still means in real world usage I would get so many more keepers and can employ the lenses in event work. I am start to see for example that f2 on the Tak 50/1.4 (8) is worth it for additional sharpness (at least coverage range) and purple fringing handling, with little loss in terms of bokeh magic. Speaking of which... here's a few more contributions/test shots with the Tak 50;

Seems like you're getting good results from the bayonet 135, but I agree that the workflow for non-A k-mount lenses is a pain. I was never able to get used to it myself. Picking up an M42 135/2.5 would be a big ease-of-use improvement, plus a small jump in quality, too.

Really awesome shots with the 50/1.4 so far, too. I have the more common 7-element version, and I don't especially like it. I think the much cheaper 55/1.8 is a big improvement in sharpness, contrast, and overall rendering. But, clearly, in the right hands, the 1.4 can deliver.

I'm in awe of many of the photos you post around the forum. You keep showing me that it's not gear holding me back. You're using the same sensor, same lenses, and the same software to make images that make me go, "Wow! I wish I could get results like that!" Clearly, I need to learn how to use these same tools a little better.

[BruceBanner]

Seems like you're getting good results from the bayonet 135, but I agree that the workflow for non-A k-mount lenses is a pain. I was never able to get used to it myself. Picking up an M42 135/2.5 would be a big ease-of-use improvement, plus a small jump in quality, too.

Really awesome shots with the 50/1.4 so far, too. I have the more common 7-element version, and I don't especially like it. I think the much cheaper 55/1.8 is a big improvement in sharpness, contrast, and overall rendering. But, clearly, in the right hands, the 1.4 can deliver.

I'm in awe of many of the photos you post around the forum. You keep showing me that it's not gear holding me back. You're using the same sensor, same lenses, and the same software to make images that make me go, "Wow! I wish I could get results like that!" Clearly, I need to learn how to use these same tools a little better.

Really kind words, thank you!

I actually think you have really nailed it, my experience in this photography palaver is that a good 80% of the image comes from the photographer and their rendering skills, the other 20% gear. I've seen unbelievable shots from the little ol' Q, and even the K-01, they can totally keep up with the K-1 in terms of providing a satisfactory shot.
After acquiring the K-1 (and hanging around here for a few months) I started to get curious about other brands and just joined 'non brand specific groups' such as Godox and Magmod forums. Here my eyes were open to the use of off camera flash, and the difference in rendering approach that users took. It really blew my mind, I think mainly because I was seeing an influx of professional shooter submission shots rather than just casual amateur shooters (which I think the Pentax brand has a majority with). And thus my learning curve began. I eventually decided to do this stuff for money, and then I really had to get serious about things. It's one thing to shoot for yourself, another thing entirely for someone else's special moments, and so not only stress and pressure come into the equation but also the insane learning curve that can follow. In some ways it's a double edged sword, the 'fun' from photography is zapped a little, things feel more like 'work' in getting a shot, rather than bring more in the moment and enjoying it with a photograph to boot. However the bonus is that your quality of work increased tenfold, your shots are better even if at the time your enjoyment factor is less. I'm a better photographer for 'deciding to do it for money', no doubt about that.

I find it slightly perplexing how many users can have a real beef with post processing. I just spent $69.99USD in a recent sale on a $199USD Photoshop course tutorial (PROEDU). It's incredible how many users will spend hundreds (even thousands! $$) on new cameras and lenses to increase their photography portfolio, yet the idea of spending even a little (or being on a $9.99USD subscription/month to an adequate PP platform) is a bridge too far. Don't get me wrong, I love a good SOOC too and sometimes my edit can be just 30secs, but in that 30secs I can really increase how good that shot can come across vs leaving it native. I'm also a big believer in doing as much as possible at the time to 'get in right in camera', it's why I often use off camera flash frequently and speciality lenses in my work flow, not only are these things harder to fake in PP but also just speed up the PP workflow. I'm no longer editing to salvage a shot or mistake (well... not often), I am editing to amplify and drive my vision of the shot to its better conclusion. The price in doing all of this is carrying more stuff around, learning how to use said stuff (educating yourself through books/videos and practising), and time spent in PP.

I won't pretend to know the quality of your work, but I reckon if you're feeling that way about your work vs mine its the PP side of things that are probably lacking. I cannot tell you the amount of hours I have spent youtubing certain PP tasks, bookmarking them for later (because I will forget), the $$ I have invested into PP presets and all that kinda stuff, it has occupied a lot of my time.

Thanks again for your words of encouragement, means a lot.

[rayallen]

Cups grow on trees. Just playing on the kitchen bench and it turned out better than I expected.
Pentax K10D, Super-Takumar 135mm f3.5 Model II.

[Dartmoor Dave]

I find it slightly perplexing how many users can have a real beef with post processing. I just spent $69.99USD in a recent sale on a $199USD Photoshop course tutorial (PROEDU). It's incredible how many users will spend hundreds (even thousands! $$) on new cameras and lenses to increase their photography portfolio, yet the idea of spending even a little (or being on a $9.99USD subscription/month to an adequate PP platform) is a bridge too far. Don't get me wrong, I love a good SOOC too and sometimes my edit can be just 30secs, but in that 30secs I can really increase how good that shot can come across vs leaving it native. I'm also a big believer in doing as much as possible at the time to 'get in right in camera', it's why I often use off camera flash frequently and speciality lenses in my work flow, not only are these things harder to fake in PP but also just speed up the PP workflow. I'm no longer editing to salvage a shot or mistake (well... not often), I am editing to amplify and drive my vision of the shot to its better conclusion. The price in doing all of this is carrying more stuff around, learning how to use said stuff (educating yourself through books/videos and practising), and time spent in PP.

The thing that makes your work really stand out is that you've got an exceptionally good eye for composition and light, and the ability to catch people in a moment of expression that really captures a sense of their character. Your post-processing skills are superb, but you always use them to achieve what was obviously a clear artistic vision from the start, and I don't ever look at your photos and think of them in terms of any in-camera/post-processing distinction. I think you use pp purely as a way of extending the camera's ability to capture the vision you had in mind, and I think that's exactly the way it should be.

[HoutHans]

Some sailing ships along the lage der Aa, one of the nicest parts of the city where I work, Groningen. Taken with the super takumar 28/3.5

[BruceBanner]

The thing that makes your work really stand out is that you've got an exceptionally good eye for composition and light, and the ability to catch people in a moment of expression that really captures a sense of their character. Your post-processing skills are superb, but you always use them to achieve what was obviously a clear artistic vision from the start, and I don't ever look at your photos and think of them in terms of any in-camera/post-processing distinction. I think you use pp purely as a way of extending the camera's ability to capture the vision you had in mind, and I think that's exactly the way it should be.

Oh you guys!

No seriously, thank you.

The thing about photography is I really feel it can be something that is learned. I'm 41yrs old, I've never been good at art, I did art at school and failed, I never shot a film camera in my life and only took things seriously about 2-3 years ago (when I first bought a dslr, the K-50). I mean I shot before then (point and shoots) but very casually and not very well. I have over 4000 images on my flickr account and I like to think you can see some progression in my work throughout that time. Things like composition and use of light can be learned, I never had 'an eye' for photography and still can see other peoples work who have an even greater sense of composition and an eye for a shot, its all attainable, in time and with practice. I have an eye now for photography now, but it has been learned, it was never god given like so many people believe it is. I am also heavily uneducated (my main source of income is from being a cleaner), I don't talk in terms of stops of power or anything, it's just about getting familiar with your camera. Overall I think you have to be willing to get better, be self critical and step outside of comfort zones and do a lot of research.

I like the way you have summarised PP, and I agree. I'm not sure how many of you are aware but NSW, Australia is currently having the worst record breaking bushfire season to date. It has been smokey for weeks everywhere now

Last Saturday I took this shot early morning as the sun was rising with the K200/4 (not a Takumar), that's smoke you're seeing, not clouds of any kind;



It's practically a SOOC, the only thing I did was clean up a few dust spots and provide a border/watermark. At the time of the shot, once I had my exposure the way I wanted I realised that my default WB setting (which is Multi Auto WB) was producing rather flat and dull tones, I toggled to using 'Shade' and was getting a tone that far more accurately represented what I was seeing at the time. In LR there was zero adjustments of any kind, so getting things right in camera is important, sometimes the image requires little to no PP and it makes for a very quick edit;

[rayallen]

Cyclamen from above. Super-Takumar 85mm f1.9 at 85mm attached to a Canon EOS-1Ds full frame.