[MKohoutek]

Fat Super Tak 35mm.

I got a lot of flare - which I tried to edit out. I don’t know if that’s due to a bad version of this newly acquired lens, or just the way it is with these vintage M42 lens. But I still like this shot. I’m not very experienced in night photography.

Attached Images

 

[tim60]

Fat Super Tak 35mm.

I got a lot of flare - which I tried to edit out. I don’t know if that’s due to a bad version of this newly acquired lens, or just the way it is with these vintage M42 lens. But I still like this shot. I’m not very experienced in night photography.

Which 35 is it, exactly.

Also, some more normal pictures which might push it into, such as contra jour, might help us answer your question.

[scratchpaddy]

I'm sure there's nothing wrong with your lens. The moon is in full daylight, while the rest of the picture is in near-total darkness. That's some pretty extreme contrast. I don't have the 35, but while the other Super-Takumars I've used were good for the time period, the later SMC models were way ahead of their time in flare resistance.


Super-Takumar 50/1.4, with a little flare.

[Minimonster]

I don't care. That is not a crime. And it helped to make it an outstanding image.

Lol! Thanks for the forgiveness.

[MKohoutek]

Which 35 is it, exactly.

Also, some more normal pictures which might push it into, such as contra jour, might help us answer your question.

The Super Takumar 35mm/2 Fat version

---------- Post added 05-09-20 at 07:11 PM ----------

I'm sure there's nothing wrong with your lens. The moon is in full daylight, while the rest of the picture is in near-total darkness. That's some pretty extreme contrast. I don't have the 35, but while the other Super-Takumars I've used were good for the time period, the later SMC models were way ahead of their time in flare resistance.

Super-Takumar 50/1.4, with a little flare.

Thanks for the input. I haven’t used this lens enough to know it’s limitations.

[MKohoutek]

Feeding time on a gloomy day.
Not the greatest shot, and not so sharp...but I like the colors I get with this lens.
Tak 200mm/3.5 on K1.

[tim60]

The Super Takumar 35mm/2 Fat version

---------- Post added 05-09-20 at 07:11 PM ----------


Thanks for the input. I haven’t used this lens enough to know it’s limitations.

Thanks. I have the later 49mm filter version. I will not be able to help.

[BruceBanner]

A few from a wee bush walk on Mothering Sunday today (tak50);

[Andrew_Oid]

Fat Super Tak 35mm.

I got a lot of flare - which I tried to edit out. I don’t know if that’s due to a bad version of this newly acquired lens, or just the way it is with these vintage M42 lens. But I still like this shot. I’m not very experienced in night photography.

Your mention of flare reminded me of a picture I took in 2013. I thought I took it with the Tak35, but when I located it I saw that it was taken with the Tak28. I had great hopes for the picture, but when I opened it with my photo software, I was unpleasantly surprised to see a huge flare that ruined the shot. It took hours of painstaking post processing to remove it. I thought the image was worth it and am pleased with the result. I learned to be careful about where the sun was in the shot. In my case, it was setting behind the flower. The picture is here: And God said, Let there be light! | Sony Alpha a55; Takumar ? | Flickr
You did a good job removing the flare in your photo.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Fat Super Tak 35mm.

I got a lot of flare - which I tried to edit out. I don’t know if that’s due to a bad version of this newly acquired lens, or just the way it is with these vintage M42 lens. But I still like this shot. I’m not very experienced in night photography.

The big front element of the 'fat' version with the 67mm filter ring makes it quite prone to flare, and the glass is also susceptible to cleaning marks that can scatter the light. It was really designed as a fast wide-normal lens at a time when ISO 400 was the fastest film around, so I think we should forgive it for being a bit inclined to flare.

[MKohoutek]

The big front element of the 'fat' version with the 67mm filter ring makes it quite prone to flare, and the glass is also susceptible to cleaning marks that can scatter the light. It was really designed as a fast wide-normal lens at a time when ISO 400 was the fastest film around, so I think we should forgive it for being a bit inclined to flare.

This is why I hang out here...lots of experience and encouragement. =)

---------- Post added 05-10-20 at 03:30 PM ----------

Your mention of flare reminded me of a picture I took in 2013. I thought I took it with the Tak35, but when I located it I saw that it was taken with the Tak28. I had great hopes for the picture, but when I opened it with my photo software, I was unpleasantly surprised to see a huge flare that ruined the shot. It took hours of painstaking post processing to remove it. I thought the image was worth it and am pleased with the result. I learned to be careful about where the sun was in the shot. In my case, it was setting behind the flower. The picture is here: And God said, Let there be light! | Sony Alpha a55; Takumar ? | Flickr
You did a good job removing the flare in your photo.

Thank you for sharing! (I think my removal of the flare only worked because it was a night shot and not much detail. I’m not good at corrections more complex than removing spots from an unclean lens/sensor.)

[MKohoutek]

Takumar 200mm/3.5. Cardinal at f11.

I’ve been trying to get a feel for this lens...finally got a decent shot by closing down the aperture. (So much fringing!) Sure miss split prism when manual focusing

[paulh]

Super Tak 28/3.5 on *ist D:

[BruceBanner]

8E

[Pen-A]

Yes, the Super Fat Takumar 35/2 is prone to flare easily. So avoid the sun in the frame if the effect is not wanted.. or any direct light source in fact .



(w/ K-1)