Photographer Eve Arnold with a Takumar?

mccarvindh · 01-06-2012, 07:39 AM

I was looking at the slide show of pics of and by Eve Arnold in the NY times Eve Arnold, Magnum Photographer, Dies at 99 - NYTimes.com I was wondering if the lens on her cam is a Takumar. Can someone more knowledgeable comfirm? It should be the first photo in the link above.

hooverfocus · 01-06-2012, 07:51 AM

Looks like it could be this one: Cameras of my collection - the Original Asahi-Pentax or the S version, maybe.

séamuis · 01-06-2012, 07:57 AM

It is a Takumar, yes. the Camera is also a Pentax. I see a slow shutter speed dial and a black rewind knob, so that signifies a 'K' model. originally introduced in 1958. based on the lens design (best I can tell from the small photo) my guess would be the 83 1.9 or the 100 3.5, (possibly the 105 2.8, but I don't think so based on the aperture ring) as those are the closest fit to what I see and would make sense as a portrait lens in that type of photographic session. I could certainly be wrong though. I must say though, a good eye. a real loss, and a truly incredible photographer. glad to know she chose Pentax at that time. speaks for how well regarded the brand was then.

a larger photo:

mccarvindh · 01-06-2012, 08:03 AM

Thank you Hoover and Seamuis for weighing in. It does look like she chose pentax. Also, thank you for the bigger picture.

séamuis · 01-06-2012, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by mccarvindh

Thank you Hoover and Seamuis for weighing in. It does look like she chose pentax. Also, thank you for the bigger picture.

I think she probably had quite a number of cameras at her disposal, as I have also seen photos of her using a Leica among others. but I think this is the most well known photo of Eve, which is nice. it also appears on a book cover for I think a biography.

eddie1960 · 01-06-2012, 08:09 AM

i thought it was an SV myself
the next image down the page i was trying to decide what it was she was shooting. looks like a Rangefinder with an auxiliary finder on top (I have a finder like that for my feds)

eddie1960 · 01-06-2012, 08:11 AM

At the time of the Marilyn shots a large number of pros shot Pentax, it was really with the introduction of the Nikon Photomic F that they started moving away from the brand.

hooverfocus · 01-06-2012, 08:12 AM

Actually Séamuis might be right in that the rewind knob is black and that's a K, well spotted.

séamuis · 01-06-2012, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by eddie1960

i thought it was an SV myself
the next image down the page i was trying to decide what it was she was shooting. looks like a Rangefinder with an auxiliary finder on top (I have a finder like that for my feds)

notice the slow shutter speed dial where her fingers are. that signifies a model between the original 'AP' and the 'K'. thats a possibility of three models. since the AP and the 'S' both had chrome rewind knobs that leaves only the 'K'. this photo was from 1960 I believe so the SV wouldn't have been introduced yet.

Originally posted by eddie1960

At the time of the Marilyn shots a large number of pros shot Pentax, it was really with the introduction of the Nikon Photomic F that they started moving away from the brand.

the F was already on the market at this point, but only for a year or possibly less if this was 1960. so yes, Pentax already had very entrenched market share. besides, who needs a clunky metered finder in the studio?

the F was a true field camera and wasn't quickly adopted to 35mm studio use.

now the real question is, which Takumar is she actually using?

Nesster · 01-06-2012, 11:07 AM

The lens doesn't look long enough to be a 100 or 105, so I'm thinking it's the 85.

In the early days with Nikons, photogs used to have ONE photomic prism on ONE camera (often with a longer lens) to use when metering was needed. They'd have OTHER F's without the photomic to shoot with. And, back then, a photog 'knew her light'

séamuis · 01-06-2012, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Nesster

The lens doesn't look long enough to be a 100 or 105, so I'm thinking it's the 85.

there isn't a whole lot of difference between the 83 (it couldn't be an 85 as Asahi opt. only had one 85 in 1960, the auto-takumar. and thats not an auto-takumar for sure.) and the 100 in length, but the 100 is thinner. I'm certain that it is a preset Takumar and its clearly a short telephoto. that leaves 4 options, the 83 1.9, 100 3.5, 105 2.8 and 135 3.5. all of these could fit the bill as a focal length she would be using here, but the 135 3.5 is longer and thinner than the lens in this photo. the 105 had both preset rings chromed (while this lens clearly only has one) that leaves the 83 and the 100. the 83 is the most likely length and based on this photo here of an 83 mounted on the same body, id say I'm 98% positive its the 83. thats pretty interesting really, since the 83 in m42 is considered to be very rare (though by my own understanding the 100 3.5 is just as) I wonder what ever happened to this camera and lens, or what other lenses she owned.

Asahiflex · 01-07-2012, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by séamuis

there isn't a whole lot of difference between the 83 (it couldn't be an 85 as Asahi opt. only had one 85 in 1960, the auto-takumar. and thats not an auto-takumar for sure.) and the 100 in length, but the 100 is thinner. I'm certain that it is a preset Takumar and its clearly a short telephoto. that leaves 4 options, the 83 1.9, 100 3.5, 105 2.8 and 135 3.5. all of these could fit the bill as a focal length she would be using here, but the 135 3.5 is longer and thinner than the lens in this photo. the 105 had both preset rings chromed (while this lens clearly only has one) that leaves the 83 and the 100. the 83 is the most likely length and based on this photo here of an 83 mounted on the same body, id say I'm 98% positive its the 83. thats pretty interesting really, since the 83 in m42 is considered to be very rare (though by my own understanding the 100 3.5 is just as) I wonder what ever happened to this camera and lens, or what other lenses she owned.

As an owner of both the older 83/1.9 and 105/2.8 pre-sets I think it's the 105mm pre-set, but it's hard to determine based on this photo. My 105mm f/2.8 Takumar has exactly the same style though, with black/chrome preset rings. I've never seen one with two chrome rings.

Here's my pre-set set. Of course, my 83/1.9 is older and from the Asaiflex era (it was modified to M42 although the M37 ring is still there).

séamuis · 01-07-2012, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Asahiflex

As an owner of both the older 83/1.9 and 105/2.8 pre-sets I think it's the 105mm pre-set, but it's hard to determine based on this photo. My 105mm f/2.8 Takumar has exactly the same style though, with black/chrome preset rings. I've never seen one with two chrome rings.

I made that decision based on this photo:

it clearly shows both rings chromed, so not having the preset version myself I assumed this was standard. I looked through my own early takumar lens brochures and you are right, the 105 2.8 is shown with the standard chrome/black. and going with your photo, I think it could possibly be the 105. I would think it more likely the 105 based on nothing more than the 105 being much more common, but with someone like Eve, you never know what she'd have. I appreciate your input as that certainly corrected my knowledge of the 105. all my takumars save a few are Auto-Takumars, so I don't have much to go on for reference besides what I find online and in my literature as far as the presets are concerned.

01-06-2012, 07:39 AM	#1
mccarvindh Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Ohio, USA/ India Photos: Gallery Posts: 478	Photographer Eve Arnold with a Takumar? I was looking at the slide show of pics of and by Eve Arnold in the NY times Eve Arnold, Magnum Photographer, Dies at 99 - NYTimes.com I was wondering if the lens on her cam is a Takumar. Can someone more knowledgeable comfirm? It should be the first photo in the link above.

01-06-2012, 07:57 AM	#3
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	It is a Takumar, yes. the Camera is also a Pentax. I see a slow shutter speed dial and a black rewind knob, so that signifies a 'K' model. originally introduced in 1958. based on the lens design (best I can tell from the small photo) my guess would be the 83 1.9 or the 100 3.5, (possibly the 105 2.8, but I don't think so based on the aperture ring) as those are the closest fit to what I see and would make sense as a portrait lens in that type of photographic session. I could certainly be wrong though. I must say though, a good eye. a real loss, and a truly incredible photographer. glad to know she chose Pentax at that time. speaks for how well regarded the brand was then. a larger photo: Last edited by séamuis; 01-06-2012 at 08:03 AM.

01-06-2012, 08:03 AM	#4
mccarvindh Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Ohio, USA/ India Photos: Gallery Posts: 478 Original Poster	Thank you Thank you Hoover and Seamuis for weighing in. It does look like she chose pentax. Also, thank you for the bigger picture.

01-06-2012, 08:14 AM	#9
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by eddie1960 i thought it was an SV myself the next image down the page i was trying to decide what it was she was shooting. looks like a Rangefinder with an auxiliary finder on top (I have a finder like that for my feds) notice the slow shutter speed dial where her fingers are. that signifies a model between the original 'AP' and the 'K'. thats a possibility of three models. since the AP and the 'S' both had chrome rewind knobs that leaves only the 'K'. this photo was from 1960 I believe so the SV wouldn't have been introduced yet. Originally posted by eddie1960 At the time of the Marilyn shots a large number of pros shot Pentax, it was really with the introduction of the Nikon Photomic F that they started moving away from the brand. the F was already on the market at this point, but only for a year or possibly less if this was 1960. so yes, Pentax already had very entrenched market share. besides, who needs a clunky metered finder in the studio? the F was a true field camera and wasn't quickly adopted to 35mm studio use. now the real question is, which Takumar is she actually using? Last edited by séamuis; 01-06-2012 at 08:19 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
[ASK]New Year Eve	RyudhaPraha	Photographic Technique	5	12-29-2011 09:50 PM
Landscape California Xmas eve sunset	Dice	Post Your Photos!	2	12-25-2011 04:29 PM
Landscape How I Spent My New Year's Eve (many photos)	jaieger	Post Your Photos!	6	01-04-2011 08:06 PM
Landscape Sky on Christmass eve	SMeK	Post Your Photos!	7	12-27-2010 05:38 AM
Night Cold Sunset X-mas Eve.	Fl_Gulfer	Post Your Photos!	3	12-25-2010 08:54 PM

01-06-2012, 07:51 AM	#2
hooverfocus Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 210	Looks like it could be this one: Cameras of my collection - the Original Asahi-Pentax or the S version, maybe.

01-06-2012, 08:09 AM	#5
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by mccarvindh Thank you Hoover and Seamuis for weighing in. It does look like she chose pentax. Also, thank you for the bigger picture. I think she probably had quite a number of cameras at her disposal, as I have also seen photos of her using a Leica among others. but I think this is the most well known photo of Eve, which is nice. it also appears on a book cover for I think a biography.

01-06-2012, 08:09 AM	#6
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	i thought it was an SV myself the next image down the page i was trying to decide what it was she was shooting. looks like a Rangefinder with an auxiliary finder on top (I have a finder like that for my feds)

01-06-2012, 08:11 AM	#7
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	At the time of the Marilyn shots a large number of pros shot Pentax, it was really with the introduction of the Nikon Photomic F that they started moving away from the brand.

01-06-2012, 08:12 AM	#8
hooverfocus Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 210	Actually Séamuis might be right in that the rewind knob is black and that's a K, well spotted.

01-06-2012, 11:07 AM	#10
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	The lens doesn't look long enough to be a 100 or 105, so I'm thinking it's the 85. In the early days with Nikons, photogs used to have ONE photomic prism on ONE camera (often with a longer lens) to use when metering was needed. They'd have OTHER F's without the photomic to shoot with. And, back then, a photog 'knew her light'

01-06-2012, 12:23 PM	#11
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by Nesster The lens doesn't look long enough to be a 100 or 105, so I'm thinking it's the 85. there isn't a whole lot of difference between the 83 (it couldn't be an 85 as Asahi opt. only had one 85 in 1960, the auto-takumar. and thats not an auto-takumar for sure.) and the 100 in length, but the 100 is thinner. I'm certain that it is a preset Takumar and its clearly a short telephoto. that leaves 4 options, the 83 1.9, 100 3.5, 105 2.8 and 135 3.5. all of these could fit the bill as a focal length she would be using here, but the 135 3.5 is longer and thinner than the lens in this photo. the 105 had both preset rings chromed (while this lens clearly only has one) that leaves the 83 and the 100. the 83 is the most likely length and based on this photo here of an 83 mounted on the same body, id say I'm 98% positive its the 83. thats pretty interesting really, since the 83 in m42 is considered to be very rare (though by my own understanding the 100 3.5 is just as) I wonder what ever happened to this camera and lens, or what other lenses she owned.

01-07-2012, 09:34 AM	#12
Asahiflex Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,795	Originally posted by séamuis there isn't a whole lot of difference between the 83 (it couldn't be an 85 as Asahi opt. only had one 85 in 1960, the auto-takumar. and thats not an auto-takumar for sure.) and the 100 in length, but the 100 is thinner. I'm certain that it is a preset Takumar and its clearly a short telephoto. that leaves 4 options, the 83 1.9, 100 3.5, 105 2.8 and 135 3.5. all of these could fit the bill as a focal length she would be using here, but the 135 3.5 is longer and thinner than the lens in this photo. the 105 had both preset rings chromed (while this lens clearly only has one) that leaves the 83 and the 100. the 83 is the most likely length and based on this photo here of an 83 mounted on the same body, id say I'm 98% positive its the 83. thats pretty interesting really, since the 83 in m42 is considered to be very rare (though by my own understanding the 100 3.5 is just as) I wonder what ever happened to this camera and lens, or what other lenses she owned. As an owner of both the older 83/1.9 and 105/2.8 pre-sets I think it's the 105mm pre-set, but it's hard to determine based on this photo. My 105mm f/2.8 Takumar has exactly the same style though, with black/chrome preset rings. I've never seen one with two chrome rings. Here's my pre-set set. Of course, my 83/1.9 is older and from the Asaiflex era (it was modified to M42 although the M37 ring is still there).

01-07-2012, 01:02 PM	#13
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by Asahiflex As an owner of both the older 83/1.9 and 105/2.8 pre-sets I think it's the 105mm pre-set, but it's hard to determine based on this photo. My 105mm f/2.8 Takumar has exactly the same style though, with black/chrome preset rings. I've never seen one with two chrome rings. I made that decision based on this photo: it clearly shows both rings chromed, so not having the preset version myself I assumed this was standard. I looked through my own early takumar lens brochures and you are right, the 105 2.8 is shown with the standard chrome/black. and going with your photo, I think it could possibly be the 105. I would think it more likely the 105 based on nothing more than the 105 being much more common, but with someone like Eve, you never know what she'd have. I appreciate your input as that certainly corrected my knowledge of the 105. all my takumars save a few are Auto-Takumars, so I don't have much to go on for reference besides what I find online and in my literature as far as the presets are concerned.