I did get the 3.5/35mm Takumar in the end. However, for various reasons (selling house, but also simplifying my set-up), I'm selling it now, together with most of my other Taks (85, 135, 200). I am keeping the 8-element version of the 1.4/50mm.

Reason: when i have time, I prefer my 645N system. It is brilliant, and such a pleasure to work with. When I do not have the time, and just carry some along for the odd moment, I need a tiny, flexible system. Moreover, I would like autofocus after all—seeing it works well, and noticing that my eyes are not what they once used to be. So when I'm having some money again, I want the 77mm and, G-d forbid, one day the 31mm. The Tak 50mm fills the hole in the middle (although I may end up selling that as well). And before an FF comes along, I'll retain the 16-45mm.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Hi Willem,
I just saw your question and it's probably too late anyway, but here goes:

The Takumar is a very capable lens and I am wondering wheather the Flek has got a real edge on it with a crop-DSLR.

What the Flek does better is more pop to the colors and macro. Also it's easier to focus manually, because of the larger aperture.

I'm sure you already have gotten either of these (or both .-).

Best, Georg

Hi,

Thanks for your review of the Flektogon 2.4/35mm, which I found very helpful. I am considering a Takumar 3.5/35mm at the moment, or this Flektogon (which is quite a but more expensive). What are your thoughts on the Takumar, as I see you also have or had this lens?

To be used on a K-x for now, but with a FF in the future (one may dream).

All the best,

Willem