[tak-pix]

Hello, this is my first time on this forum as a member.

I have, in the past month done an intense research on Takumar

Lenses on your site from the lens reviews. After the first

purchase of a super Tak 1:1.4/50 on ebay, I was hooked with

the quality build and glass. I am a fanatic when it comes to

sharpness and color. I found that I am using my Ps5 less because

the performance of this lens is outstanding.

since yesterday I have completed my purchases of Taks.

1:3.5/28 |1:1.4/50 | 1:2.8/105 | 1:4/200 all S-M-C except for

the 50mm

I sold my "L" lens to cover the cost of all of the above.

Mainly I shoot nature, flowers and macro.

Looking forward posting and conversation on this site.

---

Last edited by tak-pix; 05-08-2012 at 04:10 AM.

[Adam]

Welcome! Don't worry about line width/word wrapping in your posts, as the forum handles that automatically. Hope you enjoy the site!

[topace]

Welcome, takpix!

I agree with you on the takumar, they're truly awesome lenses. I only have three myself (50 f/1.4, 55 f/1.8, 200 f/3.5 preset), but I'm always looking for more.

[Parallax]

I removed the font formatting from your last post when I approved it, as it wasn't done properly. I would suggest just typing, and not worrying about formatting.

[RioRico]

Just curious of why you have 2 50/55mm lenses
Do you prefer one over the other?
I was debating to get the 1:1.8/55mm, but that would
Duplicate the lens. But I can not resist (soon) because of
The price: under $35.00.

If I may answer here: I have the Super-Takumar and FA 50/1.4s, and Super-Takumars 55/1.8 and 55/2. The 55/1.8 and 55/2 have exactly the same optics, just a different aperture limiter. The 55/2 is obviously surplus but it's not worth selling yet. Even though the SuperTak and FA 50/1.4 have the same optics if different coatings, they're quire different lenses to use.

The SuperTaks 50/1.4 and 55/1.8 are also very different lenses. Like other 50-55/1.7-1.8 lenses, such slower ones are a bit sharper wide-open than any f/1.2-1.4, and just render differently than their faster kin; but the faster lenses produce effects that slower glass can't. (And a Takumar 55/1.8 for US$35 is a very good deal now.)

I also have a K50/1.2, M50/1.7, and three M50/2s (which also aren't worth selling yet). I have a total of 50 Fifties, lenses between 50-58mm, and except for a few hope-to-sell redundancies, they are NOT duplicates. Even the near-clones have significant differences in build and application.
___________________________

ObTopic: You have a nice starting set there. Some other Takumars to look for: 35/3.5; 135/2.5 (big) or 135/3.5 (small); Macro-Tak 50/4; Tele-Tak 200/5.6 (small). If I had money I'd go wild and also look for wider and faster Taks. Maybe I'll get lucky...

[topace]

Just curious of why you have 2 50/55mm lenses

No. I have two 50-55 in the takumar line. Totally I have the following:

4x pentax m 50mm f/1.7
pentax m 50mm f/1.4
super takumar 50mm f/1.4
super takumar 55mm f/1.8
chinon 55mm f/1.7
voigtländer (cosina) Nokton SLII 58mm f/1.4
Helios 44-M 58mm f/2

around those numbers. I mostly use the voigtländer, but all are good, except the helios, which needs to be disassembled and cleaned.

[Adam]

I removed the font formatting from your last post when I approved it, as it wasn't done properly. I would suggest just typing, and not worrying about formatting.

To add to that, I've just disabled the font BBcode, You can still control the size (for headings, etc), but there's no reason to change the font of the text.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[RioRico]

I am confused: On your "lens reviews" the 1.8 is rated at 9.33 and the 2 is 8.47.
If both are the same optics why the difference?

Because people are not always sane. And because our reviews are not objective and scientific, they're personal and biased. Some people will think that a faster or more expensive lens is better. One or two bad reviews can cause the average review rating to drop. And lower ratings can also lower demand for a lens.

I haven't reviewed my 55mm Super-Takumars. If I did, I might let price influence my ratings. Including shipping, I paid US$7.50 for my 55/1.8 and US$18 for my 55/2 a couple years ago. Thus my 55/1.8 was a REAL DEAL and I might rate it higher. Possibly because of the higher ratings for the 55/1.8, its demand and prices rise (like to over US$50), while there is less demand for the 55/2; I have seen copies NOT sell for US$10.

See how these factors can cause irrational behavior? The differences in light and DOF (*) between the f/1.8 and f/2 versions are trivial, barely noticeable; yet those very slight differences can result in a great range of demand and prices. Free-market capitalism is a psychological game. We're not as sane as we like to think we are.
_____________________________________

(*) DOF differences: I plugged numbers into the DofMaster calculator, checking both 55mm lenses on my K20D at 10m subject distance. DOF for the 55/1.8 is 2.38m thick. DOF for the 55/2 is 2.68m thick. That is a 3% difference: 3cm at 10m, almost a rounding error. It hardly matters.

[RioRico]

PS Is this the place to post?

I answered this in your other thread. Basically, all Takumars and other Pentax lenses before the DA series were made for full-frame cameras. Canoneers steal our lenses and sometimes brutally mutilate the faster PK mounts to make them fit their cameras; or they may be humane and slice away a bit of the dSLR mirror. Most Taks won't need any modification.

[Transit]

...... One or two bad reviews can cause the average review rating to drop. And lower ratings can also lower demand for a lens.
.....

Yeah, just takes one clot to give a 5 to bugger the ratings of a lens everyone else thinks is a 10.
I reckon the top and bottom two ratings should be excluded from the average.
Pete