|
Forum: Lens Clubs
05-22-2016, 09:24 AM
|
| |
Excellent series, JosQ.
All very appealing images.
I, also have a Tak 105 2.8.
You're inspiring me to take it out more often.
Mike :)
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
04-10-2016, 08:38 AM
|
| |
Q: Why don't ponies speak?
A: Because they're a little hoarse.
Mike :lol:
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
04-09-2016, 08:21 AM
|
| |
Here's my latest guitar purchase taken with my 55mm f2.2 Takumar @ f5.6.
I am always pleased with the results this lens gives, although I feel it is best used on a tripod, as it is not a lens that's easy to focus.
Mike
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-05-2016, 08:54 AM
|
| |
Jean, this is a very nice shot.
It's just pleasing to the eyes.
Mike :)
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
01-14-2016, 01:30 PM
|
| |
Paul, and anyone else having focusing problems:
I recently bought one of these: http://www.adorama.com/HNH32.html?
I'm 59 years old, and while my vision is still good, it's not what it used to be.
This focusing loupe is one of the best accessories I have bought.
Yes, it's on the expensive side, but it has made macro work, and checking exposures in bright light effortless.
It's made using my Taks, which were a bit hard to focus, a delight.
Best used on a tripod.
Mike :)
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
01-02-2016, 04:01 PM
|
| |
Pepe, your third shot, and the photo of the rose are absolutely gorgeous!
The bokeh in the third shot is what I like best.
Mike
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-21-2015, 10:11 PM
|
| |
Those tiger shots are great, BobKG.
I, too, used a Bogen 3047 head for years, but a few years back switched to a ball head, and love it.
Welcome to Pentaxforums.
Hope to see more of your work.
Mike :)
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
10-31-2015, 12:37 PM
|
| |
Jean, I was thinking along the same lines as you; the bokeh @ f2.8 is too busy, and distracting, while the image @ f5.6 is better overall. I originally said the bokeh @ f2.8 was nicer, but I have changed my mind.
The 105 was never a favorite of mine, but as you can see in the test I did of my three Taks on page 894 of this thread, the 105 is not a bad lens as long as you work within its limitations. That was a still life test; this is the portrait test.
This image was shot on an overcast day in late afternoon with no fill flash, so flare was not in the equation.
I should do another test @ f4.0, and f4.5 to see how those images look.
I really should not complain; my 105, and 55 Taks were both given to me attached to non-working cameras.
Thank you very much for your opinion, Jean.
It's nice to hear the thoughts of another photographer.
Happy Halloween! :eek:
Mike :)
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
10-25-2015, 01:46 PM
|
| |
Hello again, everyone.
I have three Taks, a 55mm f2.2, a 105mm f2.8, and a 150mm f4.0.
I love the 55, and the 150, but the 105 has never really impressed me until yesterday.
There's a neighbor of mine who goes a little over the top decorating his house for most holidays, with Halloween being one of his most elaborate efforts.
It's an opportunity to see what new decorations he's put up, and to photograph them.
Most of the figures he uses are life-size, so they're perfect for testing out a portrait lens. I usually use my favorite, my DA70mm, but something told me to give the 105 Tak a chance. I'm glad I did.
My DA70mm, and my 55 Tak are sharper, but I don't think I have to make any apologies for the 105 in any area.
I think this lens gives the expected creamy Tak colors in both shots, with the bokeh being much nicer at f2.8, but better sharpness at f5.6
What do you think?
Aperture was f5.6 in the first photo, f2.8 in the second.
Mike
P.S. Identical settings in Lightroom.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
09-13-2015, 10:53 AM
|
| |
Great Takumar colors, Cuthbert.
Mike
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
09-12-2015, 10:15 AM
|
| |
Thank you, Steve. ;)
I didn't mention the names of the restaurants.
As you look at the photo, Thai Rock is on the right, Bungalow Bar is on the left.
At The Bungalow Bar's site, you can see the bridge from where I took the photo.
Both places are very relaxing to eat at, as they are right on the bay. And both have very good food.
And both places were almost wiped out by hurricane, Sandy.
Thai Rock - Fine Thai Cuisine, Signature Cocktails and Live Music
BUNGALOW BAR & RESTAURANT
Mike
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
09-12-2015, 09:42 AM
|
| |
Thank you, Andrew.
I used to do low-light/night exposures on a regular basis, but haven't done that many in the last few years.
I've recently discovered that I prefer dusk, rather than night exposures.
Make the exposure just after the sun has set, and then continue every few minutes until dark.
I've found that the images that people find most appealing are made during that special window when there's still ambient light in the sky, and the location has turned its lights on.
Mike :)
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
09-10-2015, 10:14 PM
|
| |
Hello, Everyone.
I've been taking photos all summer, but I haven't been using my Taks, so a few days ago I decided to try a low-light exposure with my favorite Tak, my 55mm 2.2.
This is an exposure from a bridge of two of my favorite restaurants, which are side by side on Jamaica Bay in Rockaway Beach. Just beyond the buildings in the background is the Atlantic Ocean.
I must do this more often.
K-01, 55mm f2.2 Tak @ f 4.0, camera on tripod.
The EXIF was set at 100mm, which is incorrect.
Mike
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
08-31-2015, 11:00 AM
|
| |
A very nice shot, Arnold.
It demonstrates the pastel-like rendering that Taks are known for.
Mike :)
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
06-23-2015, 10:45 AM
|
| |
A very lovely photo, redcat! ^
Mike :)
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
06-04-2015, 11:03 PM
|
| |
This is a still life I did with my Takumar 55mm 2.2 lens.
When I put this little lens through a not-so-thorough test, it gave me decent results, but the more rigid the tests became, the better this lens performed.
I am now completely satisfied with this lens; it's earned its bowl of gruel! :lol:
Strong points:
1.) Creamy Takumar colors
2.) Very mushy at 2.2 to 2.8, but very sharp thereafter. 2.2 to 2.8 are good for images you deliberately want soft. This is a very versatile lens!
3.) Good close-focusing ability.
Weak points:
1.) Prone to flare in bright light.
2.) Not the most accurate color rendering compared to other lenses, but I think this adds to its magic.
F stop was f8.0.
The couple in the photo were my parents.
Mike
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
05-26-2015, 10:44 AM
|
| |
Utak, WOW!
The first photo is nice, but the second one is crazy sharp! :eek:
I always thought that my K55mm 1.8 was sharper than my 55mm 2.2 Tak, but they seem to be equal in sharpness.
The Tak is more difficult to focus, but there is something about a Tak image that makes so many of us use them.
Keep those images coming!
Mike :)
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
05-07-2015, 09:56 AM
|
| |
Regarding the lens: I bought my Tak 150 2 years ago, because the price was a giveaway, and I have always preferred prime lenses over zooms. One of my favorite lenses when I used a Canon film camera was my 200mm f2.8.
The 150 f4 comes in at a stop slower, and the equivalent of 25 millimeters longer. F2.8 would have been nice, but for a telephoto mostly used outdoors, it really doesn't matter to me. When I enlarge these images on my computer, they are very sharp.
The colors are also very accurate from what I can see, although the images I posted had the colors enhanced in Lightroom for aesthetic appeal.
As for the planes: I am an aircraft buff, always have been. When the wind is from the west, the planes at JFK takeoff to the west, and pass very low overhead, as you can see in these photos, which have have not been cropped.
An Airbus A380 is 238 feet long, and as you can see, it barely fits in some of the frames!
Airbus A380 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They are something to see when they almost become your hat. :lol:
If you get your ride in a 380, tim360, please give us a report.
Mike :)
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
05-05-2015, 09:00 AM
|
| |
Here are some more photos taken with the Takumar 150 f4 lens.
Note that the exif in the second photo is incorrect; the lens was the 150mm.
Also note that the air carrier in the third photo is Aeroflot!
I didn't realize this until I got the photos home, and looked at them more closely.
At first when I looked at its colors, I thought it was Delta!
Imagine getting on the wrong plane, and ending up in St. Petersburg, Russia, instead of St. Petersburg, Florida! :lol:
This is fast becoming my favorite lens!
An almost perfect focal length.
Mike
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
04-11-2015, 09:26 AM
|
| |
Thank you, Chuck.
Mike :)
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
04-09-2015, 09:09 AM
|
| |
Hello again, everyone.
After doing the indoor Tak test, I realized I should do an outdoor test, so I went to my local airport, JFK, and gave it a try.
I have to say that I'm very pleased with the results. I think this is a very sharp image.
This is a photo of a 747-8 taking off taken with the Takumar 150mm f4.0. F stop was f11.
The composition is off; I think the plane should be lower in the frame, but I'm not used to tracking moving objects with the K-01.
This was taken on a bright, sunny day with a cloudless sky; I want to go back and take more when there are some clouds to give the image some kind of background.
I'm beginning to use my Taks more and more.
When not in a rushed situation, I love these lenses.
Mike :)
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-28-2015, 05:33 PM
|
| |
You're very welcome, Jean.
Mike :)
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-27-2015, 05:12 PM
|
| |
Utak, I learned a few things from this controlled test:
1.) It pays to perform controlled tests! :lol:
2.) You never really know the gamut of a lens' performance until you actually do a test of all apertures with other lenses.
3.) I knew the 150mm was a good lens as soon as I bought it, but always thought the 55mm Tak was a mediocre performer, especially when compared with my K55. As it turns out, the Tak is at least equal to the K, if not superior. Wide open, it is fantastic for soft images!
4.) For some reason, I always assumed the 105 would be the best of the three, but the opposite is true. It really isn't a bad lens, it just has its limitations. Under the right lighting conditions, its low contrast and less-than-razor-sharpness could prove to be an asset for certain subjects.
I had been thinking of doing a test like this for a few years, I'm glad I finally did.
Your second shot taken with the 35 f 2.3 shows the magic of that lens. Below is a link to a site about early Pentax lenses. I'm not sure if someone here posted this a while ago or I stumbled upon it myself. There's also info there on other early Taks.
Early Pentax Takumar Lenses
Thanks for replying.
Mike :)
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-26-2015, 11:11 AM
|
| |
OK, everyone, here's the test I did with my 3 Takumars; The 55mm f2.2, 105mm f2.8, and 150mm f4.0.
I used my Lou Gehrig figure, which is about 8 inches tall.
I chose the red background, and blue place mat for warm and cool color rendering.
I chose the side-lighting, because I thought this type of lighting would be more interesting than an evenly exposed outdoor shot, and would show a lens' shortcomings as well as its strengths.
I did my best to keep the figure the same size in all three shots.
You'll notice as the focal length gets shorter, the camera angle gets higher.
I did a test of every f stop, full and half through f16 on all the lenses.
I'm posting the f11 shot first, and the wide open shot second. I'm starting with the 150, and working backwards to the 55.
All photos were edited the same in lightroom.
Photo 1 is the 150 @ f11
Photo 2 is the 150 @ f4.0
Photo 3 is the 105 @ f11
Photo 4 is the 105 @ f2.8
Photo 5 is the 55 @ f 11
Photo 6 is the 55 @ f2.2
My observations:
The 55, and the 150 are close in contrast and creaminess, but I feel the 55 is sharper.
The 105 has the lowest contrast and color saturation, and is the least sharp of the three, but overall it's not a bad lens.
I love the softness of the 55 wide open @ f2.2, but it was difficult to focus on such a small object.
Look at that beautiful mush where the background meets the mat!
This will probably make an excellent portrait lens when not in a rushed situation, such as a model workshop.
At f2.2, the 55 has an almost Lensbaby look to it.
What do you think?
Is there anything I should try to make this test more complete?
Mike :)
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-22-2015, 08:38 AM
|
| |
Hello again, everyone.
I finally did a thorough lens test of my three Takumars at the same time, with the same subject and at the same aperture.
I'll post some of those shots later, but for now, here is a comparison between two lens I like very much, but had never put through their paces equally.
I'm referring to my K55mm 1.8, and my Takumar 55mm 2.2.
In past tests, which were not that thorough, it always seemed that the K lens was noticeably sharper than the Tak, while the Tak had more pleasing colors.
Now, I'd like to show you all the results.
Photo #1 This is the Takumar K55mm 2.2 @ f8.0
Photo # 2 is the K 55mm 1.8 @ f8.0
Both photos were taken minutes apart. Only the time needed to carefully remove the Takumar and the M42 adapter ring, and mount the K55 with the camera on a tripod elapsed between the two exposures.
The only alteration done in Lightroom was to increase the whites by +20 to both photos, and to decrease the exposure on the K55 exposure by .26. This was done, because in other tests the K lens always seems to produce a slightly brighter image when compared with the Tak.
I believe I focused as carefully as I could.
I think the Tak is sharper, and yields a more pleasing image. It is, however, a slower lens to focus.
I would appreciate your opinions and observations.
Thanks,
Mike :)
|
