[Canada_Rockies]

I think we have a winner!

I've heard of ones that big but never seen one. My own experience with the process camera was way back in the eighties, when I did a course where I learnt the basics of offset lithography. . . all of which I've long since forgotten.

I worked for a newspaper that printed broadsheet from big rolls of newsprint. All black, it could do 40,000 an hour. The "camera" was a room where 1:1 typeset were printed on the offset sheet with wax so the ink didn't stick for where they didn't want it.

[paulh]

Sunday at the park behind the stage a couple weeks ago. Super Tak 35/3.5 on K10D:

[BruceBanner]

Hey peeps!

I noticed something the other day when I was shooting with my Tak 50/1.4 (8 element). When I was wide open (or near to), and using OVF, the shots came out with more 'character' shall we say, more natural vignette etc. When shooting in LV mode at the same scene and settings the image would be brighter and lacking the vignette. What gives?

[Canada_Rockies]

Hey peeps!

I noticed something the other day when I was shooting with my Tak 50/1.4 (8 element). When I was wide open (or near to), and using OVF, the shots came out with more 'character' shall we say, more natural vignette etc. When shooting in LV mode at the same scene and settings the image would be brighter and lacking the vignette. What gives?

Are you comparing JPEGs? Pentax's cameras seem to have default post shot treatment when shooting JPEG or JPEG + RAW. It may have different after exposure treatments when using the LV. I shoot RAW+ and when the JPEG results make me unhappy, I PP the RAW myself.

[BruceBanner]

Are you comparing JPEGs? Pentax's cameras seem to have default post shot treatment when shooting JPEG or JPEG + RAW. It may have different after exposure treatments when using the LV. I shoot RAW+ and when the JPEG results make me unhappy, I PP the RAW myself.

Nah definitely just RAW and back of the screen after the shot is taken it's quite apparent. I have some images from a few days ago to process, I think there will be some that might illustrate the difference. I noticed enough at the time to see that there is a significant difference between the shots taken via OVF vs LV.

My Custom Menu on the K-1 has 'AE follows AF', which affects LV, but in this instance that menu item was off (and the lens doesn't AF anyway). Metering mode would have been the same as well, kinda curious.

[goatsNdonkey]

I worked as an assistant to the chief offset camera man at a printing company for a while....many, many years ago. My main job was in the graphics department, but when we were slow, I'd go down to the basement and help with shooting negatives for printing plates, or opaquing spots on negs sometimes, too. It is pretty cool working inside of a gigantic camera!

[BruceBanner]

So is there a specific Tak 35 that is deemed better than the rest?

[Dartmoor Dave]

So is there a specific Tak 35 that is deemed better than the rest?

They've all got their own unique characters. The two I've owned are the 35mm/3.5 and the big first version 35mm/2.0 with the 67mm filter ring. The 3.5 is very sharp, has great contrast and gives beautifully saturated colours. The 2.0 has got a less in-your-face rendering style and gives a look that I can only describe as "cinematic". Somehow photos taken with it seem to always look like stills from a movie.

The one I'd really like to try is the 35mm/2.3, but they tend to go for sums out of my price range. There's also a later and much smaller version 35mm/2.0 with a 49mm filter ring, but my heart belongs to the big, heavy and really impractical first version 2.0.

[BruceBanner]

They've all got their own unique characters. The two I've owned are the 35mm/3.5 and the big first version 35mm/2.0 with the 67mm filter ring. The 3.5 is very sharp, has great contrast and gives beautifully saturated colours. The 2.0 has got a less in-your-face rendering style and gives a look that I can only describe as "cinematic". Somehow photos taken with it seem to always look like stills from a movie.

The one I'd really like to try is the 35mm/2.3, but they tend to go for sums out of my price range. There's also a later and much smaller version 35mm/2.0 with a 49mm filter ring, but my heart belongs to the big, heavy and really impractical first version 2.0.

Thanks Dave, very helpful. I too saw the Auto Tak 2.3 and was like "woah! that's an 'artistic lens'", cray cray bokeh! (and even weirder I see some reverse the front element which is apparently easy).

But the price tag... ouch!

Between the heavier 35/2 and the smaller 49mm threaded 35/2, is there said to be a difference in IQ between the two?

Has anyone done comparison tests between the distagon 35/2 and a Tak 35/2?

[Jonathan Mac]

They've all got their own unique characters. The two I've owned are the 35mm/3.5 and the big first version 35mm/2.0 with the 67mm filter ring. The 3.5 is very sharp, has great contrast and gives beautifully saturated colours. The 2.0 has got a less in-your-face rendering style and gives a look that I can only describe as "cinematic". Somehow photos taken with it seem to always look like stills from a movie.

The one I'd really like to try is the 35mm/2.3, but they tend to go for sums out of my price range. There's also a later and much smaller version 35mm/2.0 with a 49mm filter ring, but my heart belongs to the big, heavy and really impractical first version 2.0.

Thanks Dave, very helpful. I too saw the Auto Tak 2.3 and was like "woah! that's an 'artistic lens'", cray cray bokeh! (and even weirder I see some reverse the front element which is apparently easy).

But the price tag... ouch!

Between the heavier 35/2 and the smaller 49mm threaded 35/2, is there said to be a difference in IQ between the two?

Has anyone done comparison tests between the distagon 35/2 and a Tak 35/2?

I owned the 49mm thread 35/2 for a while but the centre sharpness was acceptable wide open (yet a little poorer than the M 35/2) the edges were extremely soft and didn't sharpen up to a good standard even on an APS-C camera. I got it for a good price and sold it for a profit. Funnily enough, I was perusing the lens descriptions in my SP500 manual the other day where it states that the 35/2 (picture looked like the 49mm version) was sharp edge to edge, but that's not even true on APS-C so certainly wasn't on film.

[Dartmoor Dave]

I owned the 49mm thread 35/2 for a while but the centre sharpness was acceptable wide open (yet a little poorer than the M 35/2) the edges were extremely soft and didn't sharpen up to a good standard even on an APS-C camera. I got it for a good price and sold it for a profit. Funnily enough, I was perusing the lens descriptions in my SP500 manual the other day where it states that the 35/2 (picture looked like the 49mm version) was sharp edge to edge, but that's not even true on APS-C so certainly wasn't on film.

I've never owned the 49mm thread version of the 35mm/2.0, but I can believe you about the corners not being great. Making a 35mm/2.0 that small at the time was always going to involve some compromises, and I bet photographers were willing to accept some corner softness in exchange for the speed. After all, pushing Tri-X a stop or two was the high ISO limit in those days.

I imagine the 49mm thread version was released mostly to get the size and weight down rather than as an optical improvement. The 67mm thread version is a whopper, but it takes beautiful photos. Although sadly mine has developed a problem with the aperture and so far I haven't been able to figure out how to get it apart to fix it. The only Takumar that has ever defeated me (but I'll get it sorted out some day).

[womble]

Pentax ES, S-M-C Takumar 55mm f/1.8 lens, Kodak BW400CN film.


Frost in monochrome (3) par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity

[paulh]

Mid-December blooms - Super Tak 35/3.5 on K10D:

[womble]

ESII, S-M-C Takumar 55mm f/1.8.


Legs eleven par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity

[Canada_Rockies]

ESII, S-M-C Takumar 55mm f/1.8.


Legs eleven par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity

Cute shot