[Takumar105]

The slower Taks seem to be more consistently good optically in my experience. Fast glass wasn't an art yet back then.

My 135/3.5 is great, as is the 105/2.5. The 50/1.4 is good stopped down but that limits its value. I'm using M42 samples of the Super Multicoated (SMC) varieties.

You've got to test each one anyway for defects, etc. and determine the best aperture each one can offer.

[steamloco76]

Well used Auto Takumar 35mm f2.3 Vs. nearly new Auto Takumar 35mm f/3.5 at minimum focusing distance for the f/2.3 lens

I used my tripod mounted K5 on aperture priority, ISO 400, auto white balance, DNG RAW. Individual images were minimally adjusted when converting from raw. Saved as 11x14 inch 300 PPI JPEGs. The Montage images are 24x30 inches 300PPI. Unsharp mask 100 percent, radius 1 pixel, 0 levels and slight contrast and color adjustments applied.

Test subject is a bunch of (dusty!!) deep red silk roses with a white paper backdrop. Illuminated by a single diffused 5000K LED lamp.

Observations- the 35mm f/3.5 lens is very good indeed! Diffraction reduces the sharpness at f16 and is really bad at f22. The older, battle scarred f/2.3 lens has a wonderful, creamy bokeh. Its not very sharp wide open but from f4 through f11 it does quite well. It is rubbish at f22! Both lenses were wearing hoods. My f/2.3 has two rather large scratches on its front element toward the 11 o clock and 5 o'clock positions away from center. Other than that, it is clean for its age, gusting it was made in 1959

[BruceBanner]

Well used Auto Takumar 35mm f2.3 Vs. nearly new Auto Takumar 35mm f/3.5 at minimum focusing distance for the f/2.3 lens

I used my tripod mounted K5 on aperture priority, ISO 400, auto white balance, DNG RAW. Individual images were minimally adjusted when converting from raw. Saved as 11x14 inch 300 PPI JPEGs. The Montage images are 24x30 inches 300PPI. Unsharp mask 100 percent, radius 1 pixel, 0 levels and slight contrast and color adjustments applied.

Test subject is a bunch of (dusty!!) deep red silk roses with a white paper backdrop. Illuminated by a single diffused 5000K LED lamp.

Observations- the 35mm f/3.5 lens is very good indeed! Diffraction reduces the sharpness at f16 and is really bad at f22. The older, battle scarred f/2.3 lens has a wonderful, creamy bokeh. Its not very sharp wide open but from f4 through f11 it does quite well. It is rubbish at f22! Both lenses were wearing hoods. My f/2.3 has two rather large scratches on its front element toward the 11 o clock and 5 o'clock positions away from center. Other than that, it is clean for its age, gusting it was made in 1959

Wouldn't mind seeing these images larger, are they anywhere else for viewing perhaps?

[paulh]

wilted and wet...Super Tak 35/3.5 on K10D:

[Clarkey]

SMC 50mm Macro Tak (I think):


Iris in the rain by Aaron, on Flickr


Pink and Pollen by Aaron, on Flickr

[Dartmoor Dave]

With the Tak 20 this afternoon:

[Sandy Hancock]

I can join the club at last! I just got notification that my first ever Takumars have arrived from a seller in Melbourne.

Although I have been concentrating on the K series for my legacy lens collection, I think the 15/3.5 (aspheric variant) and 85/1.8 should be worthy additions to the collection. Now to dust off the M42 adaptor for the K-1

[BruceBanner]

I can join the club at last! I just got notification that my first ever Takumars have arrived from a seller in Melbourne.

Although I have been concentrating on the K series for my legacy lens collection, I think the 15/3.5 (aspheric variant) and 85/1.8 should be worthy additions to the collection. Now to dust off the M42 adaptor for the K-1

Awesome! I look forward to seeing those results.

I have two official Pentax M42 adaptors and one unofficial. Unfortunately I have found the unscrewing of the lens on and off the adaptor to being too long, using the fingernail to dismount the spring and pop the adaptor off is not an issue. I have had to take the springs off the official adaptors and keep the adaptor firmly on the lens (it does not need any gluing of any kind, it is tightly on enough with rotational pressure). This means the lens can go on and off the camera as quickly as any other lens but it does not click in place, instead a good degree of tension holds it in place. I have noticed the cheaper non official pentax adaptor cannot work well under any configuration. If you remove the spring it somehow lacks tension to stay in place, it really needs the spring. However even with the spring and using it as intended it gives too much wobble. It completely ruins the absolutely joyful smoothness of the focus ring that these Takumars enjoy.

So for me, I now have to add the price of a Pentax official adaptor onto every Takumar lens I buy as a way to really use them for work, but once you remove that spring they really do feel very secure and unlikely to twist off on their own accord, it just seems the official adaptors are required to get that nice snug tension holding fit.

Anyway... just thought I'd share that piece of information

[Sandy Hancock]

Thanks Eddy. I'm well aware of the adaptor issues as I've had a few screw mount lenses in the past.

[rayallen]

Back in March last year (2019) we were discussing how to link to images stored on Google Photos. The intention was to find an alternative to using Flickr and it is now getting my attention again as Flickr is again raising its rates for PRO accounts to the point where I am questioning if such membership is really worth it.

At that time I posted an alternative method which worked:

Your problems are over, Dave. My previously mentioned method seems to get around the privacy issue related to Google Photos.
Please give this a try to see if it works for you:

1. Choose your Google Photos image and click on the Share icon.
2. Click on Create Link and then click on Copy.
3. Go to Embed Google Photos in your Website in your browser
4. Paste the copied link into the box that says “PASTE GOOGLE PHOTOS LINK HERE” and click on “GENERATE CODE”.
5. When the code is generated it will then automatically scroll down
6. Copy the link under “Direct Link (URL)”
7. In your forum post, click on the “Insert Image” icon (mountains and sun) and paste the copied link.
8. Click on “Preview Post” and your image should be there.

I'll be waiting to see if I can hear the echo when you say "YES!".

Read more at: Takumar club - Page 1082 - PentaxForums.com

I have just tried it again and it is not working for me. I am sure that I am doing exactly what worked previously but it seems not to.

I'll paste a generated link below to see if you can see the image. I certainly don't see it when I preview the post.



Ahah! It now seems to be working. I can now see the image in the preview and I am happy to be proved wrong. Not sure why my other tests did not work.

I am glad that the above instructions still work as they may help others who also wish to escape from the clutches of Flickr. For me down here is Australia a two year PRO subscription to Flickr will cost me AU$172.50 and that just seems a bit steep. I will miss Flickr but I'll learn to love without it. I'll use Google Photos with its free unlimited storage for the size images I use.

I would be interested to hear your comments.

---------- Post added 22-01-20 at 06:53 PM ----------

Here are those instructions again:

1. Choose your Google Photos image and click on the Share icon.
2. Click on Create Link and then click on Copy.
3. Go to your Embed Google Photos in your Website in your browser
4. Paste the copied link into the box that says “PASTE GOOGLE PHOTOS LINK HERE” and click on “GENERATE CODE”.
5. When the code is generated it will then automatically scroll down
6. Copy the link under “Direct Link (URL)”
7. In your forum post, click on the “Insert Image” icon (mountains and sun) and paste the copied link.
8. Click on “Preview Post” and your image should be there.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Thanks Ray. I've already been using your method now and then since you first described it, and I'll probably be using it more often as Flickr continues its suicide dive.

[jschoonj]

I am glad that the above instructions still work as they may help others who also wish to escape from the clutches of Flickr. For me down here is Australia a two year PRO subscription to Flickr will cost me AU$172.50 and that just seems a bit steep. I will miss Flickr but I'll learn to love without it. I'll use Google Photos with its free unlimited storage for the size images I use.

I would be interested to hear your comments.

I'm sad to hear Flickr is raising prices again.
Renewing now for two years however, before the increase hits, would cost me € 3.86 per month.
I know everyone will have to make this decision for themselves, but for me it's worth it to have a dedicated, photographer oriented service that is less aggressive about data-mining.

[Dartmoor Dave]

I can join the club at last! I just got notification that my first ever Takumars have arrived from a seller in Melbourne.

Although I have been concentrating on the K series for my legacy lens collection, I think the 15/3.5 (aspheric variant) and 85/1.8 should be worthy additions to the collection. Now to dust off the M42 adaptor for the K-1

Welcome to the cult. I'm looking forward to seeing some shots with that 15mm in particular.

[steamloco76]

Wouldn't mind seeing these images larger, are they anywhere else for viewing perhaps?

PM me your email address and I will send.

[steamloco76]

Thirty minutes around the house with my Auto-Takumar 35/2.3. On Pentax K5, ISO 400.