Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Pentax Lens Review Database » Pentax M42 Screwmount Lenses » M42 Screwmount Wide-Angle Primes
S-M-C/Super Takumar 35mm F2 Review RSS Feed

S-M-C/Super Takumar 35mm F2

Sharpness 
 8.1
Aberrations 
 8.0
Bokeh 
 8.2
Handling 
 9.6
Value 
 8.3
Reviews Views Date of last review
19 121,753 Sat November 19, 2016
spacer
Recommended By Average Price Average User Rating
84% of reviewers $116.25 8.21
S-M-C/Super Takumar 35mm F2

S-M-C/Super Takumar 35mm F2
supersize
S-M-C/Super Takumar 35mm F2
supersize
S-M-C/Super Takumar 35mm F2
supersize
S-M-C/Super Takumar 35mm F2 S-M-C/Super Takumar 35mm F2

Description:
This is the faster version of the 35mm screwmount lens. Two models were made over time with different optics. The first model has a 67 mm filter size with the optical design shown in the leftmost diagram whereas the second model has a 49 mm filter size and the optical design shown in the rightmost diagram.

Each model came in two versions with no change in optics between the versions.

Super-Takumar, first model, early version (rightmost lens diagram):
Super-Takumar 35mm F2 (model 1 early)
Image Format
Full-frame / 35mm film
Lens Mount
M42
Aperture Ring
Yes
Diaphragm
Automatic, 5 blades
Optics
8 elements, 7 groups
Mount Variant
M42 Stop-down Pin
Max. Aperture
F2
Min. Aperture
F16
Focusing
Manual
Min. Focus
45 cm
Max. Magnification
0.09x
Filter Size
67 mm
Internal Focus
No
Field of View (Diag. / Horiz.)

APS-C: 45 ° / 38 °
Full frame: 63 ° / 54 °
Hood
Case
Lens Cap
Coating
Weather Sealing
No
Other Features
Diam x Length
mm
Weight
398 g
Production Years
1963 to 1966
Engraved Name
Super-Takumar 1:2/35
Product Code
368
Notes
First model (67mm filter size), early version
Variants

1: Super-Takumar first model, early: 67mm filter size (this lens)
2: Super-Takumar first model, late: 67mm filter size, optics unchanged
3: Super-Takumar second model: 49mm filter size and different optics
4: Super-Multi-Coated Takumar: Same optics as the third Super-Takumar



Super-Takumar 1:2/35, first model, late version (rightmost lens diagram and third photo):
Super-Takumar 35mm F2 (model 1 late)
Image Format
Full-frame / 35mm film
Lens Mount
M42
Aperture Ring
Yes
Diaphragm
Automatic, 5 blades
Optics
8 elements, 7 groups
Mount Variant
M42 Stop-down Pin
Max. Aperture
F2
Min. Aperture
F16
Focusing
Manual
Min. Focus
45 cm
Max. Magnification
0.09x
Filter Size
67 mm
Internal Focus
No
Field of View (Diag. / Horiz.)

APS-C: 45 ° / 38 °
Full frame: 63 ° / 54 °
Hood
Case
Lens Cap
Coating
Weather Sealing
No
Other Features
Diam x Length
mm
Weight
398 g
Production Years
1966 to 1967
Engraved Name
Super-Takumar 1:2/35
Product Code
43680
Notes
First model (67mm filter size), late version
Variants

1: Super-Takumar first model, early: 67mm filter size
2: Super-Takumar first model, late: 67mm filter size, optics unchanged (this lens)
3: Super-Takumar second model: 49mm filter size and different optics
4: Super-Multi-Coated Takumar: Same optics as the third Super-Takumar



Super-Takumar, second model (second photo and leftmost lens diagram):
Super-Takumar 35mm F2 (model 2)
Image Format
Full-frame / 35mm film
Lens Mount
M42
Aperture Ring
Yes
Diaphragm
Automatic, 6 blades
Optics
8 elements, 7 groups
Mount Variant
M42 Stop-down Pin
Max. Aperture
F2
Min. Aperture
F16
Focusing
Manual
Min. Focus
40 cm
Max. Magnification
0.11x
Filter Size
49 mm
Internal Focus
No
Field of View (Diag. / Horiz.)

APS-C: 45 ° / 38 °
Full frame: 63 ° / 54 °
Hood
Case
Lens Cap
Coating
Weather Sealing
No
Other Features
Diam x Length
58 x 54 mm
Weight
242 g
Production Years
1967 to 1971
Engraved Name
Super-Takumar 1:2/35
Product Code
43931
Notes
Second model, 49mm filter size
Variants

1: Super-Takumar first model, early: 67mm filter size
2: Super-Takumar first model, late: 67mm filter size, optics unchanged
3: Super-Takumar second model: 49mm filter size and different optics (this lens)
4: Super-Multi-Coated Takumar: Same optics as the third Super-Takumar



Super-Multi-Coated Takumar (first photo and leftmost lens diagram):
Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 35mm F2
Image Format
Full-frame / 35mm film
Lens Mount
M42
Aperture Ring
Yes
Diaphragm
Automatic, 6 blades
Optics
8 elements, 7 groups
Mount Variant
M42 Stop-down Pin
Max. Aperture
F2
Min. Aperture
F16
Focusing
Manual
Min. Focus
40 cm
Max. Magnification
0.12x
Filter Size
49 mm
Internal Focus
No
Field of View (Diag. / Horiz.)

APS-C: 45 ° / 38 °
Full frame: 63 ° / 54 °
Hood
Square clip-on type
Case
Lens Cap
Coating
SMC
Weather Sealing
No
Other Features
Diam x Length
58 x 54 mm
Weight
240 g
Production Years
1971 (start of production)
Engraved Name
Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:2/35
Product Code
43932
Notes
Same optics as the second Super-Takumar model
Variants
1: Super-Takumar first model, early: 67mm filter size
2: Super-Takumar first model, late: 67mm filter size, optics unchanged
3: Super-Takumar second model: 49mm filter size and different optics
4: Super-Multi-Coated Takumar: Same optics as the third Super-Takumar (this lens)
Features:
Manual FocusAperture RingFull-Frame SupportAdapter needed for DSLRsDiscontinued
Price History:



Add Review of S-M-C/Super Takumar 35mm F2
Author:
Sort Reviews by: Date | Author | Rating | Recommendation | Likes (Descending) Showing Reviews 1-15 of 19
New Member

Registered: April, 2015
Posts: 3

2 users found this helpful
Lens Review Date: November 19, 2016 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $150.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharp
Cons: large size
Sharpness: 10    Aberrations: 10    Bokeh: 8    Handling: 10    Value: 10    Camera Used: S1a - SV   

I am reviewing the early 35mm f2.0 with the 67mm filter thread. My example is mint and would be considered as new. My SV and S1a cameras are CLa'd by Erik and function as new. I feel it is important to be clear about the condition of the lens and camera before continuing with the review.

Being confident of a sharp image on the focusing screen must be fundamental to the image quality on the film plane. If the camera is not in the best of condition particularly the Frenzel screen there will be difficulty in pin sharp focus.

Distortion; There is a little barreling at the extream edges of the frame. I find this acceptable as one can quickly raise the enlarger 5% over image size and entirely eliminate this problem. If one indeed considers it a problem.

Fall Off - Vignetting; At f2.0 there is a slight vignetting in the corners of the frame, although I most often 'burn in' the edges of my prints, so this has never been a significant problem to me. By f4.0 the 'problem' is non-existent.

Contrast; At f2.0 contrast is average, although if you understand that this is not a disadvantage in certain situations, for example when photographing a high contrast subject or using a digital full frame, it will not prevent a photographer from investing in this lens. At 2.8 there is an improvement at f8.0 contrast is one grade of paper higher than wide open. I use Fomapan 100 and Rodinal 50+1 for 9 minutes and incident light reading for most of my work. Other film developer combinations will give differing contrast ratios. From my perspective even wide open I have no concerns about contrast. In the darkroom it is easy to increase a half grade, so no problems here.

Sharpness; The variation in reviewers comments upon the sharpness of this lens is interesting. Mounted on a tripod and focused carefully, at f2.0 the lens is impressive. The usual culprits of poor focus and camera shake must be one of its greatest enemies. I would use it at f2.0 without a second thought. At f4.0 and up to the half stop between 8 and 11 it will out resolve Tri-X. At 4 - 5.6 - 8 it is razor sharp with any correctly developed medium speed film (I tested Foma 100 ~ FP4s ~ Agfa 80s developed in D76 and the high acutance Rodinal combinations with this lens).

Conclusion; Look for a mint lens and pay a premium price or find a user without fungus or mist and have it serviced. It is a large and rewarding lens to use and my mint example is destined to become a 'user' it is as good as ANY 35mm I own. The weight of the lens and the now universally accepted quality of the S1a and SV bodies compliment each other very well indeed. I suspect 'pilot error' has much to do with focusing problems. The film photographer needs to have a full understanding of the way film/developer combinations affect the perceived sharpness of the final image.

I use about 100ft of 35mm film a month (20 x 30 exposure reloads) and between 6-8 rolls of E6 transparency film. I have an extensive knowledge of film and processing on a professional level. From this platform of experience, I feel there needs to be a clear understanding about older lenses used with digital sensors. Especially when reviewing an early M42 lens on a modern body using third party converters, other than a Pentax with a K mount converter. I tested 28mm 35mm 50mm 85mm Takumars and SMC on my 5d and there was no way I could achieve consistent results with focusing. About 10 % were way off. I believe there needs to be caution when reviewing lenses outside of the design parameters.

When digital videographers began to use 35mm prime lenses in the search for a so-called cinema effect, and digital stills photographers began to explore the possibilities of these older lenses. A new world of artistic possibilities was created. I suspect they expect too much from the lenses, not that the lenses 'underperform.' I suspect the converters are not 100% perfect and the older optics do not work to the sensors best advantage. And to achieve sharp focus is not as easy as it is with an autofocus lens. My Canon AF full frame is superb and not one manual focus vintage lenses returns as consistent results as the specifically designed lenses on this body. Leica, Nikon and Pentax K are the exception but remember lenses and the film - sensor position on the manufacturer bodies is exact to their lenses.

Photographers will continue to use these lenses because of the exceptional build quality and so long as the film, chemistry and paper are manufactured the 'art' of wet photography will allow them to be used in the exact way for which they were designed. I find it interesting this early 35mm f2.0 is often given poor reviews, my specimen is an exceptional performer and I end with the sentiments I wrote at the beginning of the review. Mounted on a camera which is maintained to first class order it will provide superb results.
   
Site Supporter

Registered: April, 2011
Location: Lost in translation ...
Posts: 16,461

1 user found this helpful
Lens Review Date: March 1, 2016 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: N/A | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Nice bokeh, can be quite sharp, build & handling ...
Cons: Flare, 67mm filters for version 1
Sharpness: 9    Aberrations: 8    Bokeh: 10    Handling: 9    Value: 9    Camera Used: K-3   

Bonjour,

My review is for the "first version" ST 35/2 with the 67mm thread.

Overall I find it to be a very cable lens and the sharpness is more than adequate from f/2.8 and on ...

I am not one to write long detailed reviews, so I will let a few images do the "speaking" ...

Backlit B&W with a bit of flare ... by Jean Poitiers, on Flickr

Empty candle holders by Jean Poitiers, on Flickr

Two hands, three balls by Jean Poitiers, on Flickr

Ceramic flowers on marble tomb by Jean Poitiers, on Flickr

Artichoke flower by Jean Poitiers, on Flickr
   
New Member

Registered: November, 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 7

2 users found this helpful
Lens Review Date: September 21, 2015 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $130.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: great bokeh, very sharp at 2.8
Cons: nothing really, slightly yellowish tone
Sharpness: 9    Aberrations: 9    Bokeh: 10    Handling: 9    Value: 10    Camera Used: Canon AE-1 Program, 5D Mark II/III   

I bought this lens in early 2013, (although I'm posting this in later 2015). So the price of $130.00 is probably outdated/higher, since everyone has been going crazy over the super multi coated takumar lenses since 2013.

ANYWAYS. This lens is great. I also have the 50mm 1.4, 28mm 3.5, 105mm 2.8, 135mm 3.5 takumars too.
And I gotta say, this 35mm is probably right under the 50mm in terms of how much I love it.



   
New Member

Registered: August, 2015
Posts: 1

1 user found this helpful
Lens Review Date: August 16, 2015 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $150.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Handling, Imaging Performance
Cons: Flare, Price
Sharpness: 9    Aberrations: 7    Bokeh: 7    Handling: 10    Value: 8    Camera Used: Sony Alpha 6000   

I am using this lens (67mm Super Takumar version) on a Sony Alpha 6000 (APS-C). The lens is quite heavy, but has its special strenghts (imaging quality, colors) with good light conditions and for night photography. I especially like, how the lens renders lights at night.

Here are two of my favorite shots (not in original resolution):





These and more photos can also be found in full resolution on my Flickr account:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dromm/tags/takumar35/

In my view, in good light conditions and at night, this lens is even better than the highly praised Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35/2.4

Highly recommended!

Olaf
   
Site Supporter

Registered: October, 2014
Posts: 33

3 users found this helpful
Lens Review Date: November 4, 2014 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $250.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: sharp, build quality
Cons: average bokeh
Sharpness: 10    Aberrations: 8    Bokeh: 7    Handling: 10    Value: 10   

All in all the Super-Takumar 1:2/35 (49mm filter thread) could be considered as a good manual standard prime lens for the modern APS-C digital cameras. Besides it's also a fast lens so you have the opportunity to experiment with the depth of field and bokeh (but don't expect the impressive results as with 1.8 or 1.4 lenses) and shoot in such light conditions where you usually get boring and noisy images with your 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6 kit lens. Plus the depth of field provided by this lens is not very narrow so you won't miss the focus and the manual focusing ring is comfortable and accurate. You can easily take this lens on a trip and you'll get the images which for sure will be reviewed by you far more than once.

My review of my copy of the lens with shots made at different apertures:

http://aflenses.net/reviews/a-subjective-look-at-asahi-super-takumar-f2-35-d...ujifilm-x-pro1
   
Senior Member

Registered: November, 2009
Location: Slovenija
Posts: 145
Lens Review Date: June 4, 2014 I can recommend this lens: No | Price: $120.00 | Rating: 5 

 
Pros: small, good build quality
Cons: mediocre optics, yellowing
Sharpness: 5    Aberrations: 7    Bokeh: 8    Handling: 8    Value: 6    Camera Used: Canon EOS 5DmkII   

This is FF review of the lens. I have two copies of this lens, Super Takumar V2 and S-M-C Takumar, both are optically mediocre, wide open sharpness is not good, maybe good enough for portret but 35mm lens is not really portret lens. By f4 lens become sharp enough in the center but FF corners are still poor, by f5.6-f8 there is sweet point of the lens, but corners are barely acceptable. There is also very visible field curvature. After achieving first one (super Tak version) i thought that I have lemon, but the second one (s-m-c version) which is in mint condition works the same way. Auto Takumar 35mm f2,3 and Takumar 35mm f3,5 are both much better lens. Both are at f5,6 very sharp across all FF frame.
Here is wide open photo with S-M-C Takumar 35mm f2
   
New Member

Registered: October, 2013
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany
Posts: 18

2 users found this helpful
Lens Review Date: December 4, 2013 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $110.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: small and handy but w/ typical Tak build, sharp wide open
Cons: ugly bokeh with busy backgrounds
Sharpness: 10    Aberrations: 10    Bokeh: 8    Handling: 10    Value: 10    Camera Used: CANON EOS 60D   

Got a mint S-M-C copy y'day, here a few observations from my 1st test:
- quite sharp wide open if you focus correctly. Contrast is relatively low even with hood, but hey, what's Photoshop there for?
- CA is very good controlled for a lens of this age - nothing Adobe Camera Raw can't handle w/o any problems. Actually my CANON EF 85mm ƒ/1.8 is worse :-)
- flare control, especially with a hood, is outstanding - which makes it perfekt for backlit portraits
- Bokeh is great IF the background is not too busy - if it is it gets real ugly real fast :-( Here a relatively harmless example - I really don't want to have the real bad ones in my photostream ;-)




OK, that out of the way let's get to the nice ones - all shot wide open on an APS-C CANON 60D. As I did the flickr lens pictures of this Tak with my Zenit Helios 44-3 58mm ƒ/2, I let the Tak return the favor:






...and while I was at it, my Pentacon 135mm ƒ/2.8 got jealous and wanted out of the bag :-)
This Tak looks like the perfekt lens to do eBay product pictures:




Next is a picture I did to check on CA and handling of fine lines - see for yourself, best in the large resolution on Flickr:




...and now lots of nice bokeh following:










Looks like it's the perfect lens for portraits - I'll take it with me on my next shooting with a model and give it a try :-)

If you shoot in situations with shallow DOF be very careful about the background - you want to avoid a busy one or the resulting bokeh will be very harsh and not pleasing. Otherwise I can recommend this lil beauty wholeheartedly - it has the typical Tak build and feel and it is quite sharp wide open.

More test pictures and a few of the lens itself
can be found here.

cheers

mike
   
Senior Member

Registered: May, 2012
Posts: 123
Lens Review Date: October 17, 2013 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $50.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: color rendition, overall image quality
Cons: flare, sharpness
Sharpness: 8    Aberrations: 7    Bokeh: 8    Handling: 10    Value: 10    Camera Used: K-5II   

I have only had this lens for a week or so, but have taken it out a couple of times. Note, I put $50 as the price, but in actuality, I paid $50 combined for this lens and a Super Tak 135/3.5. But the seller was not a Pentax guy so I don't think he appreciated these lenses. Overall, my assessment would be that this lens is greater than the sum of its parts. As others have said, not so sharp wide open, but does sharpen up stopped down. Having read the reviews before buying, i haven't really even taken many pics at F2 yet, but at F4, F5.6, it sharpens up well. But the real strength is in the color rendition, and the warm images it creates. Like all the Takumars, the lens is a pleasure to use, with buttery smooth focusing, well-defined aperture stops, and balance on the camera. I have the Super Takumar version, and it is definitely prone to flare. However, i don't see any CA, but without a hood, pointed in the direction of the light source, some of my shots are totally washed out, or have the artifact (not sure if that is the right term) that appears to be the aperture shape superimposed on the image. So to sum it up, while this lens does have its limitations, if you know what they are and work within them, it can produce some beautiful images, and it is a pleasure to use.
   
New Member

Registered: January, 2008
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 15
Lens Review Date: May 13, 2012 I can recommend this lens: No | Price: N/A | Rating: 5 

 
Pros: Build Quality, Size for Aperture
Cons: Image Quality (resolution, sharpness, flare)
Sharpness: 5    Aberrations: 4    Bokeh: 5    Handling: 9    Value: 5    Camera Used: NEX 3   

The lens is soft wide open, not great stopped down. The lateral CA is very high, longitudinal CA is noticeable at f/2. The lens has a lot of coma, spherical aberrations, some astigmatism. Terrible flare performance on the Super Takumar with 49mm threads. The DA 35mm f/2.4 out performs it by a large margin. However, it does offer unique character. It works well with a lower resolution camera like the Sigma SD14 or if you aren't pixel peeping it should be acceptable. The bokeh will be visible at any level though.
   
New Member

Registered: March, 2012
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6
Lens Review Date: March 7, 2012 I can recommend this lens: No | Price: $170.00 | Rating: 5 

 
Pros: small, well built.
Cons: rubbish performance
Sharpness: 3    Aberrations: 7    Bokeh: 9    Handling: 10    Value: 4    Camera Used: Canon 5D   

This lens is rubbish. This review is for the S-M-C Takumar 35/ƒ2 on film and digital. It's better on film where the resolution of 35mm hides a bit of the inherent softness of the lens. On digital there's nowhere to hide.I thought I must have a defective copy because it was so soft. Even stopped right down never really sharpened up. So I tried another and it was the same. Useless at ƒ2, kind of okay at ƒ4 and then never gets any better stopped further down. Then I came here and looked at everyones sample pictures raving about how great it is and the pictures are soft too. It's overrated and overpriced.

Of course it beautifully made - externally its like any other Takumar. Optically it doesn't deserve its name though.

So what should you do with it? Take a ride on a cruise ship in the Bermuda triangle and spend 3 days on the blackjack table trying to win enough money to buy a CZJ Flektogon 35/2.4 - that's a proper lens. then throw the Takumar overboard and hope it mysteriously disappears without a trace.

Or just spend 30 bucks on the razor sharp Tak 35/3.5 and forget all about this thing.
   
Site Supporter

Registered: November, 2010
Location: California
Posts: 2,056

1 user found this helpful
Lens Review Date: August 28, 2011 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $180.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Everything, what do you expect, it is a Super Takumar
Cons: You are kidding, aren't you?
Sharpness: 10    Aberrations: 10    Bokeh: 10    Handling: 10    Value: 10   

This lens is one of the best lenses I ever used. More later with some samples.

Update: January 15, 2015

I had forgotten about this lens until now. Here are some samples:

SMCTak35-2-LittleTokyo1-1 by Palenquero, on Flickr

SMCTak35-2-LittleTokyo3-1 by Palenquero, on Flickr



SMCTak35-2-Ambulance-1 by Palenquero, on Flickr


SMCTak35-2-Downtown1-1 by Palenquero, on Flickr


SMCTak35-2-Museum1-1 by Palenquero, on Flickr

SMCTak35-2-lmu2-1 by Palenquero, on Flickr
   
Veteran Member

Registered: January, 2008
Location: GTA, ON, Canada
Posts: 1,673
Lens Review Date: November 12, 2010 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $120.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Small, Sharp, Fast
Cons: all manual

I have the 49mm filter Super Takumar. I wouldn't have paid any more than I did for the Super Takumar version, but 120 was for an almost spotless copy at a camera show and I had been watching for a nice 35mm f/2 for several years.

I'm very happy with the colours and sharpness, and have been using the lens as a general purpose "normal" prime on my K10d with a lens hood originally intended for a 50mm focal length. I would suggest finding an appropriate hood to boost contrast and reduce the likelihood of flaring.

Samples: http://www.flickr.com/photos/steinback/sets/72157625201463936/
   
Junior Member

Registered: August, 2009
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 29

4 users found this helpful
Lens Review Date: November 20, 2009 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $125.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Tiny, fast, flare-resistant, S-M-C Takumar
Cons: None
Sharpness: 9    Aberrations: 9    Bokeh: 8    Handling: 10    Value: 8   

This is for an S-M-C version on a 14MP 1.5X crop digital. The lens is "minty" except for a tiny nick in the front element, which only shows up as a small dark spot in the PSF (point spread function) -- no worse than dust I've seen in some other lenses. There is no significant yellowing visible for my copy when holding a white sheet of paper behind it.

I have had a 35mm f/3.5 Super Takumar for a while, and it is a remarkable little lens... so I had some doubt that this f/2.0 would be an upgrade... it is!

I've quickly but well tested this lens and it seems to have the same crispness that the f/3.5 does. Colors are similar, but the f/2.0 is less intense and very natural when stopped down, which can be good or bad.

My copy is absolutely fine wide-open, but depth-of-focus is thinner than I expected, which might account for the feelings others expressed about softness wide open. My experiences with yellowed 50mm f/1.4 Taks suggest that yellowed lenses are also optically a tad off (yellowing changes refractive index slightly? -- but UV exposure fixes it), and that's another possible explanation. Anyway, no sharpness problems here. There is the very slightest glow around some high-contrast edges wide open, but its more character than defect. Here's an example:



Notice that the transition to out-of-focus is exceptionally smooth, but the bokeh have nasty ring artifacts. This is the result of the combination of a relatively short focal length and a PSF that has both a bright center (good) and relatively subtle build to a very thin outer ring (bad). Overall, it is usually pleasing, but not reliably so -- you have to watch it.

Stopping down increases depth of field and sharpens things a little, especially in the corners. Optimal performance is around f/5.6-f/8, at which point it is outresolving a 14MP APS-C sensor across the frame, but not quite at MTF 50. Stopped-down colors are very neutral and not overly intense as they are with the f/3.5; this looks like a photojournalism lens, which it historically is. For example:



Flare resistance is nothing short of spectacular. I could not get more than a single minor spot or a very faint partial ring. Unlike many other Takumars, including the SMC 50mm f/1.4, it never seems to go to a contrast wash-out. What's even more impressive is that I don't even have the hood. Here's a typical sun-in-the-shot image:



Although it is much bigger than the f/3.5, this lens is truly tiny for an f/2.0 retrofocus design. Build quality is very smooth and solid... like most other Takumars I own.

Only gripe: price. It took a while for me to find an S-M-C at this cost, whereas the Super Takumar version is sometimes under $100. I'm not sure the S-M-C version is worth the price premium, but flare control is quite remarkable on this lens. Honestly, this lens would not be a bad buy at $200.
   
New Member

Registered: March, 2009
Posts: 1
Lens Review Date: March 3, 2009 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $80.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: built quality, quick focussing
Cons: soft wide open

I have this lens for just a few months, but itīs almost one of my favourites. The built quality is outstanding and focusing is as smooth as it can get.

Thereīs also nothing to moan about itīs optical qualitys. But itīs somehow soft wide open... and the bokeh is not the best. Nothing to worry about... just donīt expect any miracles from this approx. 30-40 year old lens.
   
Pentaxian

Registered: January, 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 15,361
Lens Review Date: February 9, 2009 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $70.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: fast (for focal length) and easy to focus
Cons:

purchased this lens to fill out my MF collection as fast K mount primes are getting hard to find.

The lens is easy to use, and the 120 degree focusing collar rotation from minimum to infinity is a good trade off between precision and ease / speed of focusing.

the lens is very well constructed, and focusing is very smooth and consistant over the entire range. Aperature detents are firm and consistent. detents are every 1/2 stop except between F2 to2.8, and F11 to F16 (no intermediate detents)

metering on DSLRs

On the *istD the lens under exposes by about .75 stops wide open with the exposure improving so that when stopped down to F16 it is about .25 stops under exposed. Setting EV compensation to +.7 is a good way to use this lens.

on the K10D the lens under exposes by 1 stop at F2, 1.5 stops at F2.8 rising to over expose by 1 stop at F9.5 and then falling back to about .75 stops at minimum apature
Add Review of S-M-C/Super Takumar 35mm F2



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:08 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top