|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
03-23-2014, 10:15 AM
|
| |
I really enjoy the Super Tak 105/2.8, its sharp and the focal length is nice for the sensor size. I have a S-M-C 135/3.5 but I rarely use it. Again it is sharp, but I much prefer the 105. The Super Tak 28/3.5 I have is an early copy. If I want a wide angle I am more likely to use kit lens than this Takumar.
My opinion - and it is my preference - is of the three go for the 105/2.8.
Richard
---------- Post added 03-23-2014 at 10:20 AM ----------
Thanks for the replies. Its quite sad that, but for the eyepiece hazing, my K100 works fine. However its quite unusable like this. I guess its heading for a spares-or-repair on ebay.
I'll look out for used bodies.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
03-23-2014, 09:24 AM
|
| |
I have a K100D which is getting a bit tired and I am thinking of getting a new body - hopefully at the budget end. I have a collection of Takumars which I use regularly (SMC, S-M-C, but mostly Super Taks: 28, 35, 55, 105, 135, 150, 200). The K500D is attractive for its low price, but I see that it does not have autofocus confirm in the viewfinder, and on my K100D I use this when focusing a manual focus lens. I don't necessarily need the weather proofing of the K50D but it does have the autofocus confirm.
So my question is for those who use manual focus lens, is the K500D a good choice or should I sell some lenses and go for the K50D?
As for the K100D, well, I have hazing in the eye piece and I notice that the foam rubber that the mirror slaps against is starting to perish. (There are also quite a few hot pixels noticeable in night shots.) I may choose to have the body repaired and serviced if that would be cheaper, but, if the cost is high a new body may be more prudent.
Richard
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
04-27-2011, 02:29 PM
|
| |
That's a great shot. The SMC Tak 55/1.8 is a great lens.
I've not been on this forum for a while, so I may as well start my comeback with a recent shot with my SMC Tak 55/1.8 @f4 (king cups in the sun)
I've just won a preset Takumar 200/3.5 on eBay, so I am rather excited about what I can do with it once it turns up. It looks like it will be a bit of a monster.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
07-07-2010, 10:48 AM
|
| |
::sigh:: I was brought up near this chap's birthplace. Everyone in the area worked for "the Austin". Austin made cars there from 1905 to 2005. When the company went bankrupt in 2005 the factory was sold to the Nanjing Motor Co who literally moved the factory to Nanjing. The remainder was demolished and now, this poor mini's birthplace no longer exists. (The BMW Mini is made in the old Morris works in Cowley, Oxford.)
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-20-2010, 01:46 PM
|
| |
I have used methanol to clean fungus off the elements of a Super Takumar lens. It didn't do anything to the coating. Same can be said about the paint. The lens is fugus free and takes great photos.
Why did I decide to use methanol? Well, it is because I read on a bottle of Eclipse fluid that it "contains methanol"!
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
06-13-2010, 12:03 PM
|
| |
Yeah. I have cleaned fungus off several lenses and I have just cleaned the SMC Tak 55/2 from my last post. I use methanol and the elements are now fungus free. (A 55/2 is not worth much so I won't sell it - if I sell a camera I may provide this lens as a "body cap".)
Sure. The fungus-free lens has a name plate that moves easily, but I haven't been able to shift the name plate on the fungus lens :( I need to get some rubber gloves and have another try. As you say, the process is straight forward. The SMC Tak 55/2 had fungus behind the front element which was easy to clean once I had managed to get the metal ring holding it in place to shift (which took a quite a bit of brute force). It also had fungus in the rear element group but that was easier to dismantle.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
06-13-2010, 05:20 AM
|
| |
I have a collection of Takumars, I love the ones I have.
I recently bought two Auto Takumar 55/2.2 both "has no fungus". I bought two because I messed up - I forgot that I had bought the first when I bid for the second. No matter, they are very cheap lenses (I got one for £7 the other for £11). I believe that the vendors honestly thought that there was no fungus.
When I got the lenses I looked at them carefully and saw no fungus myself. I have bought lenses before with fungus and know what it looks like (see below for a horrible infection). After I got them, I wanted to choose between these two lenses, keep the best one and sell the other one.
Anyway, today I was at a lose end and I shone a very bright LED flashlight through the lenses and used a desktop magnifying lens (one of those on an arm with a light) to inspect what I could see. First, you have to be careful doing this, because it can dazzle you! Second, when you get the angle right, the light will show various elements within the lens.
I found that the first lens I had bought did have fungus on one internal element. Just a bit, but it was there. The other lens did not have fungus as far as I could see, but I noticed some very light scratches on the front element. Swings and roundabouts. Incidentally, these defects do not show up on images I have taken using the lenses. I have one lens that is (as far as I can tell) fungus-free, and the other has some minor fungus infection (it is older than me! and dates from around 1961, of course there will be a good chance that it may has fungus).
Then I did the same inspection with some of my other cherished Takumars, and found that my Super Takumar 105/2.8 has a few whispy fungus on an inner element. I hadn't noticed this before, and frankly I do not care.
So my message to you is this:
1) every lens has some fungus internally and you can never have a lens that is fungus free
2) most fungus will have zero effect on the images taken with the lens
3) most fungus will not spread to your other lenses - DO NOT WORRY!
4) a 40 year old lens is bound to have fungus somewhere, and you will not normally see this
5) let me reiterate this - most people do not know that their lenses have fungus, and will get wonderful images even with fungus
I will not re-sell the Auto Tak 55/2.2 that has fungus. There is no point because it is so cheap that I will not benefit from re-selling, and equally so, there is no point me making an issue with the vendor who I think was honest about their view. My reason for considering reselling was simply to give someone else the benefit of owning a wonderful lens.
Just for the record, here is a lens with a serious fungus infection. (SMC Takumar 55/2) I knew this was the case when I bought it (I wanted the Spotmatic it was attached to), because the infection was so obvious. When I get the time, I will take some photographs of the Auto-Tak with fungus and show how the vendor thought it was fungus-free and how I found it was not. But for now, here's an obvious example.
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
06-12-2010, 01:18 PM
|
| |
Ah, in that case they are owned by the Queen. The female is owned by Queen Elizabeth II, and the male by Queen Elizabeth I. :D
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
06-08-2010, 07:43 AM
|
| |
A recent purchase Auto Takumar 55/2.2 taken at f2.2. This lens is very sharp fully open and the background bokeh is nice and smooth.
 |
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-16-2010, 03:00 PM
|
| |
The problem with opening up the lens is that you may dislodge a detente spring and ball, the ball will inevitably fly across the room and never be retrieved. You could dismantle it in a plastic bag. Another option (this is what I do) is tape the aperture ring so that I don't accidentally dislodge it.
I have performed this surgery on a Hoya lens and inserted a tiny piece of plastic to keep the activator pin held in.
As to the superglue option, well you could always hold the lens so that the camera end is pointing downwards and use capillary action rather than gravity to insert the glue around the pin.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
05-07-2010, 12:01 PM
|
| |
LOL! Yeah, and we wear our pants under our trousers and pedestrians walk on the pavement. I won't go into what fanny means... :eek:
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
05-06-2010, 11:32 AM
|
| |
I've not posted for a while.
Last month I did some street photography on a march though London. It's been 20 years since I last went on a march and I forgot how colourful they are!
SMC Tak 55/1.8
SMC Tak 55/1.8
SMC Tak 55/1.8
SMC Tak 55/1.8
Super Tak 105/2.8
Super Tak 105/2.8
Super Tak 105/2.8
 |
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
03-30-2010, 01:16 PM
|
| |
Bokeh like this?
Pentax-A 50/1.7 at f1.7
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-03-2010, 11:45 AM
|
| |
Hmmm, still not quite there. I got a new battery (Accucell-1) which is silver oxide but altered to deliver 1.35V. The trouble is that the meter needle still doesn't move. (Set speed to B, then switched meter on, the lever moved to push the lens aperture pin but the meter needle didn't move.) I'm guessing that the meter has broke, so there isn't much I could do much moe about it. (I have checked the contacts, and taken off the bottom plate to check that the springed contact touches the rear contact of the battery.) It looks like I will still need my hand meter.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-01-2010, 10:20 AM
|
| |
I've just taken delivery of a purchase from eBay (£11).
First the bad news
I knew that this would be the case, and anyway the lens is an SMC Takumar 55/2 and since I already have an SMC Tak 55/1.8 I don't mind junking this lens. The infection is very thorough, when on the camera the view was very foggy.
Now the good news.
Spotmatic SP1000. There appears to be a bit of damage around the viewfinder where it looks like the camera was probably put down on a rock and hence scratched the paint work. But other than that, the mechanics are fine: wind-on works, mirror moves correctly and returns, and there is no sign of corrosion in the battery compartment. (I've got a hand held light meter, so I am not sure if I should bother adapting it to use a silver oxide battery.) There's no obviously pealing seals, which either means there aren't any, or everything is fine.
Since the camera came with a leather case I guess I have all I need to run a roll of film through it, other than the film! (I'll have to remember to get some when I am next near my local camera shop.)
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
12-10-2009, 10:07 AM
|
| |
It is just as you say. Turn the focus to the closest, pull the zoom to 210mm, so the barrel is pushed out as far as it will go. Now look at the push-pull barrel (the bit with the rubber grip), move your gaze along and you'll see the lens barrel inside it. About an inch up the barrel will indent in a bit. If you find that the barrel continues like that to the end, then the hood has been removed. If you find that there is just a line around the barrel and no indent, then the hood is there but fully retracted. The hood simply pulls out - you do not need to twist it, but you can twist if you wish.
I suspect that the hood has been removed, or is jammed fully retracted. That is not an issue. 58mm hoods for 200mm lenses are freely available used.
The lens is a good one, once you've got a hood you'll really like what it can do.
Richard
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-16-2009, 03:14 PM
|
| |
I haven't posted in a while.
This is with a Super Takumar 150/4 @ f8 with 12mm of extension tubes and AF280T held off camera.
I originally tried to use my Super Tak 105/2.8 (+12mm) but the results weren't too good. I think the results from the 150/4 are quite good, even though it is a compact, relatively slow lens.
Richard
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-30-2009, 08:17 AM
|
| |
How about pointillisme?
This is the kit lens @55mm f5.6 1/10sec and ISO3200 at low light at the end of the day.
I was deliberately trying to get a grainy image (hence the choice of a high ISO). I needed to adjust exposure by about 3 stops in post process, but that was all I did to it.
Richard
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-30-2009, 06:59 AM
|
| |
Peter, I bought a SMC Takumar 55/1.8 a couple of years ago for £25 from eBay and it is a very good lens. I have a early Super Tak 55/1.8 (so it is definitely single coated) and there is a difference in the rendering of the two. You only need to pay for the adapter once, after that you can use it with all the other lovely M42 lenses that your LBA forces you to buy! So I wouldn't add the cost of the adapter to the cost of the lens.
The SMC Takumar is the pre-cursor to the K55/1.8 you mention and I think is essentially the same except for the mount.
£119 for a SMC Tak 55/1.8 (+ a camera you don't want) is too much to spend since you can get the lens for a lot less on its own.
Richard
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
10-22-2009, 02:42 PM
|
| |
LOL Nass. Your first problem is finding the Japanese ladies in England. I used to work in Oxford and the city was a favourite of Japanese tourists, so I guess you should head there. As to the "dirty old man" part, well wear a fedora with a big piece of paper tucked under the hat band saying "Press". Even if it doesn't convince anyone, it would be an amusing talking point that will make you appear harmless.
However, I am not sure if the boys in blue would accept that as a proof that you are not a terrorist. Apparently (from other sites) it seems that the best course of action if you are approached by the police is to be polite and keep your cool. But whatever you do, do not give your name nor show any ID. The police have to suspect you of committing a crime before they are legally allowed to obtain your name (and they have to tell you what crime they suspect you of committing). If you do give your name then they will make a Police National Computer check and even if it comes back negative the check will be recorded, which may affect any Criminal Records Bureau checks made in the future.
Richard
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-19-2009, 02:03 PM
|
| |
I think I have the earlier version - there is no part number on the A/M switch (it is A/M not AUTO/MAN like on the later versions). To be honest I am quite pleased with it, even fully open. I cannot find an example fully open, but this is at f11
Richard
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-14-2009, 02:53 PM
|
| |
Bear in mind that a Takumar does not have auto aperture on an A-lens, so the complicated springs and things will not be present. As long as the diaphragm is working well, you will probably have little to do with any of the mechanical bits.
I took apart a very old Super-Tak 28/3.5 to clean the fungus and it was not too difficult once I got the name plate to move. Actually that was the main problem. The lens was pristine and older than my 46 years (I am far from pristine...) and the name plate was a real pain to move. After I got it to move I could get most of the lens elements out to clean.
A couple of tips.
- Get the right tools. If you improvise then you are bound to scratch something.
- Take photos as you proceed. It makes it easier when you reassemble the lens.
- Decide a protocol of which way up a lens element is and stick to it. Place the elements on a clean surface (lens cloths) as you remove them, in order and the right way up. Some elements look symmetrical, but are you really sure?
- If an element has black paint on its edges be careful not to scratch it off. A Sharpie can be used for a reasonable repair for a scratch, but it is not as good as the matt black paint you've scratched off.
- Do the disassembly in a 'box', ie something with edges so that small screws that fall out don't end up on the floor and lost.
- Do it in a place with lots of light and if you are anywhere near my age, get a desk light with a magnifying glass.
- If you get near disassembly anything with a dente do the disassembly in a plastic bag, or better, don't do it at all. Too many times I have heard a ball bearing ping across the room and I have spent literally hours on my hands and knees scanning the floor with a magnet looking for the tiny ball and spring. (You find *lots* of old staples that way!)
Finally (and don't shout at me for saying this) although both lenses are very good, they are also rather cheap. It may be better just to buy them used and fungus-free off someone else. But with that in mind, perhaps you may be persuaded to learn the art of lens cleaning with the knowledge that it won't matter too much if you fail to re-assemble the lens.
Richard
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
10-01-2009, 07:11 AM
|
| |
Whoa, Nass, you got a bargain there. One of those usually goes for about ten times that on eBay.co.uk. It is a great lens - it focuses closer than the 135 Takumars or the M135. In my opinion the images are better too from the CZJ.
Richard
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-30-2009, 06:12 AM
|
| |
Hmmm, the only explanation I can think of is that there is not enough thread on the lens to screw it into the adapter enough to get contact between the back face of the lens and the K mount. I have this problem with one of my lenses (and with an extension tube) with the genuine adapter. I find that one of my clone adapters (Kood) does allow the lens to be screwed in completely. However, I have to say that with all of my Takumars they screw into the genuine adapter far enough for there to be contact between the lens and mount.
Richard
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-30-2009, 05:45 AM
|
| |
I am not sure why you state that this is a new type, these clones have been available for many years.
Three years ago I bought one made by Kood. After using it for a week I found that the adapter had become jammed in my K100D. It took me a while, but eventually I managed to get the lens and adapter out. The screw and leaf spring were inside the camera, but I got them out before they could do any damage. Now I use that adapter without the spring, but it does mean that the adapter can unscrew out of the K mount if I use a lens with a stiff focus. That adapter is now permanently on my Flektogon and I have drilled a hole for the lens release catch.
Since then I have bought a genuine Pentax adapter and a couple of other clones. I use the genuine adapter the most and I have never had any problem with the leaf spring coming off. In my opinion this is the best adapter to use.
The two clones I bought on eBay both arrived without the spring or the screw to attach it. Clearly the previous owners had had the same problem as me. One of them was a perfect copy of the Pentax adapter (I think it was a Kood adapter, but the paint has rubbed off) and that works fine as long as I have a hole drilled in the M42 lens to prevent it from unscrewing from the K mount.
The other clone adapter is unusable. The flanges are slightly smaller than the genuine article and consequently when inserted in the K mount it only just stops when screwed in. However, if I move the lens (eg using a stiff focus) the adapter turns a bit more in the mount and after that it is loose. As I said, it is unusable.
So, in my opinion the Kood adapter is a cheap alternative as long as you remove the spring and you take some steps to lock the lens to the body. The problem is determining from an eBay picture whether the adapter is a perfect copy, or the slightly-smaller-flange copy. If it is very cheap then you can afford to throw it away if it proves to be unusable.
By the way. There is one case when the genuine adapter does not work. I have a set of genuine Asahi M42 extension tubes and the shortest one when screwed into the genuine adapter does not screw in enough for the back face of the tube to come in contact with the K mount face. This contact is important because the friction keeps the tube firmly in place. This combination - genuine adapter and genuine #1 extension tube - means that the tube is not firmly in place and wobbles. I found that when I used the Kood adapter I could screw the tube in enough to get a contact between the tube and the K mount. (In fact I don't bother - I use a Practika M42 extension tube with the genuine adapter.)
Richard
|
