|
Forum: Lens Clubs
04-04-2014, 10:54 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-02-2014, 06:58 PM
|
| |
Thank you both. And yes, it's great having a baby - for this reason, and for many others!
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
02-27-2014, 01:32 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
10-19-2013, 10:31 AM
|
| |
Other way around. The top is the Tak, the bottom is the Ltd.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
10-17-2013, 11:15 AM
|
| |
When I shot a special lecture recently, I used the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135 f/2.5 (version 1) and the FA 77 f/1.8. Aside from field of view differences, I couldn't tell most of the shots apart. Here are two, cropped to similar FOV for comparison.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
10-14-2013, 05:13 PM
|
| |
This isn't a very special scene and there are things I don't like about it, but the light was very nice. I just knew the SMC Takumar 55 f/1.8 would capture it. This is f/5.6.
members only by Designosophy, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
06-12-2013, 06:41 AM
|
| |
My apologies. Somehow I got Canon into my head.
Get out of my head, Canon!
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
06-11-2013, 01:34 PM
|
| |
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the Canon adapter requires any glass, meaning there should be no reduction in quality.
Yes, they're lamps I saw at a craft fair this past weekend. I like them too, though I don't $175 like them.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
06-09-2013, 08:29 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
06-04-2013, 09:03 AM
|
| |
Now available with extra brassing!
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
06-01-2013, 09:22 AM
|
| |
It's 02. And the last metric measurement on the distance scale is 30, not 35. And the f-stops are very tightly spaced. And the distance marks are very tightly spaced. It's got all of the indicators of a version 1 model. After using it a bit more, I can say it seems slightly more clinical than the K 135 f/2.5. The Tak's bokeh is also slightly more busy than the K at some distances. But wow, is it sharp and contrasty. At f/2.5, in the focal plane, it is the sharpest 135 I've ever encountered. The longitudinal CA is a little annoying, but the K has the same problem.
I definitely feel like I got a good copy of this lens. I can't wait to do something meaningful with it. Here are two more shots - the first at f/2.5, the second at f/4.0.
Edit: Added a 100% crop of the most in-focus portion of the f/2.5 image to illustrate sharpness. This is from raw, with the sharpness setting in Lightroom at 0 (not the default 25).
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
05-31-2013, 06:40 PM
|
| |
I recently won an auction for a Super-Multi-Coated 1:2.5/135, thinking it was the one with the same optical formula as the K 1:2.5/135 (Version 2). Turns out I didn't understand the subtleties that would indicate which it was, and I got Version 1. It came in the mail today, and I took it out at lunchtime to test it out. It was an extremely bright, sunny day - the perfect conditions to bring out the worst in a wide-open prime. But I was surprised. I've owned a fairly good number of 135s, including the K 135 f/2.8, the M 135 f/3.5, the A 135 f/2.8, the Takumar Bayonet 135 f/2.5, a Vivitar 135 f/2.8, the Vivitar Series 1 135 f/2.3, and the non-macro zone Sears 135 f/2.8. I sold the K to buy a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 (which I recently had to sell). This Takumar is almost identical to the K in the way that it renders out of focus areas, including the CA. It's sharp and contrasty at f/2.5, but extremely sharp at f/4 (though hexagons are visible in the bokeh by that point). I haven't photographed any people yet, so I can't say that it has that Limited-like pixie dust that the K has, but I'm impressed, all the same. I went back and looked at the photos I took with the K, and they look so similar to the Tak. Definitely better than every single other 135 I've used, aside from the K.
The point is, I'm pretty excited. Here's an f/2.5 photo from today, just testing the lens out.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-10-2011, 08:01 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
05-25-2011, 07:38 AM
|
| |
If I had seen it before I got my M400/5.6, I'd be all over it.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
05-25-2011, 06:52 AM
|
| |
If anyone is in the Philadelphia area, I found a Super Takumar 300/4 for sale on Craigslist. Says it's in excellent condition and he wants about $120 for it. A decent price, but I can't justify another lens purchase right now...
Nikon, Vivtar, Takumar |
