Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 
Log in or register to remove ads.

Pentax Lens Review Database » Pentax 67 Medium Format Lenses » 67 Wide-Angle Primes
SMC Pentax 67 / S-M-C Takumar 6x7 / Takumar 6x7 35mm F4.5 Fish Eye Review RSS Feed

SMC Pentax 67 / S-M-C Takumar 6x7 / Takumar 6x7 35mm F4.5 Fish Eye

Sharpness 
 6.8
Aberrations 
 5.8
Bokeh 
 6.3
Handling 
 8.3
Value 
 8.0
Reviews Views Date of last review
8 54,587 Thu May 6, 2021
spacer
Recommended By Average Price Average User Rating
88% of reviewers $541.25 8.00
SMC Pentax 67 / S-M-C Takumar 6x7 / Takumar 6x7 35mm F4.5 Fish Eye

SMC Pentax 67 / S-M-C Takumar 6x7 / Takumar 6x7 35mm F4.5 Fish Eye
supersize
SMC Pentax 67 / S-M-C Takumar 6x7 / Takumar 6x7 35mm F4.5 Fish Eye

Description:
A fish-eye lens with an angle of view 180 degrees diagonally. This lens came in three variants with the same optics and dimensions. The first version weighs 920g, the other are a little bit lighter at 900g. The photo shows the middle variant, from 1971.


 


FISH-EYE-Takumar 6x7 35mm F4.5
© www.pentaxforums.com, sharable with attribution | Check camera compatibility
Image Format
6x7
Lens Mount
Pentax 6x7
Aperture Ring
Yes (no A setting)
Diaphragm
Automatic
Optics
11 elements, 7 groups
Mount Variant
Inner Bayonet
Check camera compatibility
Max. Aperture
F4.5
Min. Aperture
F22
Focusing
Manual
Min. Focus
45 cm
Max. Magnification
0x
Filter Size
Internal Focus
No
Field of View (Diag. / Horiz.)
180 °
Hood
Not possible
Case
Lens Cap
Coating
Weather Sealing
No
Other Features
Built-in Filters,Fisheye
Diam x Length
102 x 73 mm
Weight
920 g
Production Years
1969 to 1971
Notes
Engraved name: FISH-EYE-TAKUMAR/6x7 1:4.5/35
User reviews
Built-in filters: UV, Y2, O2, R2
Variants

1969: FISH-EYE-TAKUMAR/6x7 1:4.5/35 (this lens)
1971: Super-Multi-Coated FISH-EYE-TAKUMAR/6x7 1:4.5/35 - see photo
1989: smc PENTAX 67 FISH-EYE 1:4.5 35mm


Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 6x7 35mm F4.5 FISH-EYE
© www.pentaxforums.com, sharable with attribution | Check camera compatibility
Image Format
6x7
Lens Mount
Pentax 6x7
Aperture Ring
Yes (no A setting)
Diaphragm
Automatic, 8 blades
Optics
11 elements, 7 groups
Mount Variant
Inner Bayonet
Check camera compatibility
Max. Aperture
F4.5
Min. Aperture
F22
Focusing
Manual
Min. Focus
45 cm
Max. Magnification
0x
Filter Size
Internal Focus
No
Field of View (Diag. / Horiz.)
180 °
Hood
Not possible
Case
Lens Cap
Coating
SMC
Weather Sealing
No
Other Features
Built-in Filters,Fisheye
Diam x Length
102 x 73 mm
Weight
900 g
Production Years
1971 to 1989
Notes
Engraved name: Super-Multi-Coated FISH-EYE-TAKUMAR/6x7 1:4.5/35
User reviews
Optics unchanged from previous model.
Built-in filters: UV, Y2, O2, R2.
Variants

1969: FISH-EYE-TAKUMAR/6x7 1:4.5/35
1971: Super-Multi-Coated FISH-EYE-TAKUMAR/6x7 1:4.5/35 (this lens)
1989: smc PENTAX 67 FISH-EYE 1:4.5 35mm


SMC Pentax 67 35mm F4.5 FISH-EYE
© www.pentaxforums.com, sharable with attribution | Check camera compatibility
Image Format
6x7
Lens Mount
Pentax 6x7
Aperture Ring
Yes (no A setting)
Diaphragm
Automatic, 8 blades
Optics
11 elements, 7 groups
Mount Variant
Inner Bayonet
Check camera compatibility
Max. Aperture
F4.5
Min. Aperture
F22
Focusing
Manual
Min. Focus
45 cm
Max. Magnification
0x
Filter Size
Internal Focus
No
Field of View (Diag. / Horiz.)
180 °
Hood
Not possible
Case
Lens Cap
Coating
SMC
Weather Sealing
No
Other Features
Built-in Filters,Fisheye
Diam x Length
102 x 73 mm
Weight
900 g
Production Years
1989 (start of production)
Notes
Engraved name: smc PENTAX 67 FISH-EYE 1:4.5 35mm
User reviews
Optics unchanged from previous model.
Built-in filters: UV, Y2, O2, R2.
Variants

1969: FISH-EYE-TAKUMAR/6x7 1:4.5/35
1971: Super-Multi-Coated FISH-EYE-TAKUMAR/6x7 1:4.5/35
1989: smc PENTAX 67 FISH-EYE 1:4.5 35mm (this lens)

Features:
Manual FocusAperture RingMedium-Format SupportAdapter needed for DSLRsDiscontinued
Price History:



Add Review of SMC Pentax 67 / S-M-C Takumar 6x7 / Takumar 6x7 35mm F4.5 Fish Eye
Author:
Sort Reviews by: Date | Author | Rating | Recommendation | Likes (Descending) Showing Reviews 1-8 of 8
Pentaxian

Registered: March, 2007
Location: Greater Copenhagen Area
Posts: 428

1 user found this helpful
Review Date: May 6, 2021 Recommended | Price: $350.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Sharp, enjoyable, a rare type of lens in medium-format
Cons: No skylight filter, quite exposed front element and no form of lens shade
Camera Used: Pentax 6x7   

Sharpness: looks good to me, but you have to nail the focus
Contrast: I would say not bad for this type of lens
Aberrations: haven't seen any, but I have only used B/W film
Bokeh: not what this lens is for
Ghosting: yes, it is there, but not as bad as I had feared from some reviews
Handling: just as good as most other Pentax 6x7 lenses. Some users criticize the long focus throw, but I find that a plus
Value: based on its current price level on the used market this lens is a bargain. It must have been quite expensive back in the day

I would love to rate this lens 10 overall, as it really has no competition. There is a fish-eye lens in the Hasselblad lineup, but that lens is way more expensive than this Pentax 6x7 lens.

Yes, it is quite large and heavy, but how could it be otherwise if it is to cover the entire 6x7 format properly. Some users find it quite slow at f:4.5, but had it been faster, it would also have been even larger and much heavier. I therefore find the form factor of this lens a fine compromise between size/weight on one hand and useability on the other.

I have the latest version from 1989 and would have liked the lens to have an in-built Skylight filter, perhaps at the expense of the UV filter, but I find the yellow, orange and red in-built filters useful for B/W photography and would not like to do without any of them.

Some reviewers mention ghosting as a problem, but again I would say that it is not surprising that ghosting occurs with a lens such as this. The large, exposed and curved front element will almost inevitably produce ghosting if the sun is anywhere in the shot. Ghosting may also be used creatively.

I would have liked the lens to have at least a hint of a lens shade like the K-mount version of the 17mm fish-eye lens. It would not have helped much towards preventing ghosting, but it might have helped to protect the large and exposed front element to some extent.

Here are some B/W sample shots:

There is ghosting, but I'm also shooting directly into the sun. Distortions are the name of the game with a fish-eye lens.


I think the 35mm Fish-Eye can be very useful for landscape photography. Here the sun is just included in the shot, so there is ghosting, but not so much that it is detrimental to the shot overall.


A fish-eye lens encourage you to get close to the subject. That can result in fun and creative distortions.


Here I'm shooting directly into the sun, so there is ghosting. On the other hand, I find the contrast quite good. Straight lines like the horizon and the mast can be kept straight when they are near the center lines of the shot.

All shots were made hand-held at F/11.
   
Junior Member

Registered: July, 2020
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 33
Review Date: October 23, 2020 Recommended | Price: $325.00 | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: Unmatched Wideangle for MF, Built in filters
Cons: Heavy distortion, dark f4.5 max aperature, difficult to focus
Sharpness: 7    Aberrations: 3    Bokeh: 6    Handling: 7    Value: 8    Camera Used: 6x7MLU   

I acquired this lens to aide in landscape photography and artistic portraits. The copy I have is of the S-M-C Takumar version, and despite the coatings it is really quite susceptible to ghosting if the sun is at all in the shot. The contrast on this lens is not outstanding to begin with, so a general decrease of contrast is not so much an issue when shooting into the sun, depending on the angle. It is something to look out for.
Focusing is not simple, it has a huge focus throw for a fish-eye and unlike sub 30mm lenses, nailing focus is critical for huge enlargements if you want maximum sharpness. With film, especially color film, there seems to be no issues with critical sharpness. This seems to be the case with many of Asahi's older film lenses, and this one is no different. It brings a character that is remarkably evocative of the production era. Another issue is the very slow f/4.5 maximum aperture, this also makes focus difficult in the 6x7's native viewfinder and I would imagine makes focusing with a WLF nearly impossible. This is not a lens for hand-holding.
The built in filters are a godsend if you shoot B&W, and I cannot stress enough: if you are shooting B&W, use them liberally. As mentioned above, the native contrast this lens brings is pretty poor, using even the Y2 filter brings a classic Takumar "pop" to the image. With the Red filter you can make stunning architectural shots and landscapes with near-black skies encompassing the massive 170º angle of view. If the horizon is centered and the lens level, distortions are minimal. Nothing like a rectilinear lens but the best we have for the P67 system.
   
New Member

Registered: August, 2013
Posts: 10

2 users found this helpful
Review Date: February 16, 2019 Recommended | Price: $450.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Unique fish-eye perspective, good ergonomics, relatively compact.
Cons: CA, difficult to focus, fairly sensitive to flare, exposed large front element can be easily damaged.
Sharpness: 8    Aberrations: 8    Bokeh: 5    Handling: 9    Value: 8    Camera Used: Pentax 6X7   

I've used several samples of this lens on many samples of Pentax 67 bodies over the years. It handles very well, it is relatively compact and also looks great on the camera. The built-in filters for B/W photography are a great plus. When precisely aligned with the horizon, the lens is capable of delivering surprisingly low-distortion ultra-wide angle images (see more on this below). It is fairly sensitive to flare, which is no surprise, given its huge, exposed front element and some CAs are noticeable in the corners and on the sides of the frame.

In spite of the above, I think, that in terms of optics this lens gets an unfair bad rap, primarily from impatient and/or incompetent users. It seems, most people expect this lens to be sharp with little or no focusing effort and their reasoning is that "this is a fish-eye!". And while such an astute and profound observation is very true, what most people do not understand is that this lens requires EXTREMELY precise focusing to show the superb performance it is fully capable of delivering, when used properly. Getting back to "this is a fish-eye" reasoning, the lens, as many other fish-eye designs, demonstrates incredible amount of field curvature. Therefore, the center and the corners of the image this lens produces must be focused separately, WITH THE LENS STOPPED DOWN TO THE TAKING APERTURE (normally, F16 or F22), using high-powered magnifier directly on the ground glass screen, and then carefully balanced using depth of field manipulations. Sometimes, it may even be impossible to achieve adequate sharpness across the frame due to lack of available depth of field - a design flaw by Pentax, in my opinion. For a fish-eye, this lens is surprisingly sensitive to focusing technique. To properly focus this lens, you must keep in mind, that in addition to the usual contributors to overall sharpness, there is one more element at work here - spatial orientation (not position) of the lens in relation to the subject. Even a small amount of rotating or tilting the lens in any direction will throw all or portions of your image out of critical focus and you will need to re-focus the lens.

Due to the aforementioned factors, there is no way you can get adequate corner-to-corner sharpness with this lens, unless you use F16 and F22 aperture settings only AND FOCUS VERY CAREFULLY.

Once you get everything properly focused and aligned, though, the lens is capable of delivering surprisingly sharp, crisp images that make my heart sing every time and that are always worth the considerable effort needed.





   
Veteran Member

Registered: October, 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,437
Review Date: February 28, 2014 Recommended | Price: $430.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Super wide, built-in filters, sharp in the center, fairly straight lines when on level with your subject
Cons: Unprotectable front element, slightly soft in the corners, lower contrast than I'd like
Sharpness: 7    Aberrations: 8    Bokeh: 8    Handling: 9    Value: 10    Camera Used: Pentax 6X7   

Recognizing I'm rating this an eight, I really love my fisheye Takumar. I've read complaints about corner softness, but to my eyes that's just part and parcel to the 180-degree field of view. In the center, where you'll most likely want to frame your focal point anyway with this lens, the performance is quite sharp and pleasing.

I've used this lens for star trails to great effect, architecture and landscape to mixed results, and portrait photography to really nice results. The central, maybe, 15% of the image exhibits minimal distortion, so a subject's face there can be rendered life-like and shot distorted. Also, that part of the lens is fairly sharp. Also for portraiture work, the lens' distortion can make models look much thinner or more waif-like than intended if you're pointing the lens downward.

I'll expand this review as I use the lens more, but in short I'm very glad that I bought this lens. If you're into creative portraiture, abstract photography, and getting as much of the world as possible in your images, this is a great choice.
   
Site Supporter

Registered: October, 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 8,085

2 users found this helpful
Review Date: February 7, 2014 Recommended | Price: $825.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: The widest 6x7 lens, fun to use
Cons: Heavy, no built-in Skylight filter, subject to flare
Camera Used: 6x7, 67 and 67II   

The 35/4.5 Fish-Eye is the widest lens for the Pentax 6x7 system and was initially released in 1969.

Usage:
I have the second (1971) SMC Takumar 6x7 version and it's identical optically to the original Super Takumar (1969) and the later 67 (1989) one.

I’m a fish-eye fan and have owned the Pentax K17/4 FE for years, so it was a must that I got the FE for the larger 6x7 system. The K17/4 is a very small lens and I was a bit socked at how much bigger the 35/4.5 is, about four times larger. However the size of the 35/4.5 does eliminate one issue with the K17/4 and that’s constantly getting your fingers included in the corners of shots. (You have to be very careful how you hold your camera using the K17/4 and where your fingers are placed.) One other major difference is DOF, you never had to bother to focus the K17/4 as the DOF was from about 0.6 meters/2 feet to infinity at f8. The 35/4.5 at f8 gives you a DOF of 1.5 meters/5 feet to infinity, so you do have to focus on closer subjects.

FISH-EYE EFFECT: I usually handhold the 35/4.5 when I want to emphasize the FE effect in a shot, even though the lens is heavy at 900g it’s doable using faster 400 ISO film. Just tilt the camera and let your creative juices run wild! This is a great fish-eye lens.

REDUCE THE FISH-EYE EFFECT: If you want to use the 35/4.5 for landscape shots and reduce the FE effect then a tripod works best. This will keep your camera level and help you compose the shot, a WLF works well as you can see 100% of the scene. If you compose your shot properly you can eliminate pretty well all of the FE effect and get some very WIDE scenic shots. The 35/4.5 makes an respectable ultra-wide lens.

EXTENSION TUBES/AUTO BELLOWS: Pentax does not recommend using the 35/4.5 FE with any extension tubes or the Auto Bellows.

REAR CONVERTERS: You can only use the late 2X with the 35/4.5 FE lens.

FILTER: The 35/4.5 FE has built-in filters (UV, Y2, O2 & R2) selected with a dial, or you can rear mount gelatin filters. Having no built-in Skylight filter is a big negative for me and I would have given up the R2 or Y2 in its place. (The K17/4 has a better built-in filter selection of: UV, Y2, O2 & Skylight) The 35/4.5 built-in filter selection is obviously geared towards b&w film and since the lens was originally released in 1969, match the shooting preference of the time. Colour slide film became more popular a few years later.

CASE: The SMC Takumar 6x7 35/4.5 FE comes with a dedicated hard lens case.

HOOD: There is no attempt at even a small built-in hood for the 35/4.5, so flare is a big issue with this lens. You have one big completely exposed front element, with no protection from damage or the sun.

Summary:
In a perfect world Pentax would have also released a rectilinear lens in the 30-35mm range to complement the 35/4.5 FE. Pentax did not, so if you want a lens wider than 45mm for landscapes the 35/4.5 FE has to do double duty. The 35/4.5 has some issues and is not going to win any sharpness awards, but it’s still a must have lens for me.

Price: I found my SMC Takumar 6x7 35/4.5 on eBay and it cost EUR650. It was mint condition and came with the original box and hard lens case.


Sample shots taken with the SMC Takumar 6x7 35/4.5. Photos are medium resolution Lab scans from original negatives and slides.

Camera: 67 Film: Kodak T-Max 400 ISO: 400





Camera: 67II Film: Fuji Provia 400X ISO: 400

   
New Member

Registered: March, 2010
Posts: 20

2 users found this helpful
Review Date: March 17, 2011 Recommended | Price: $700.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Good build, filters provided + gel filter tang at rear.
Cons: Heavy, no lens hood, not simple to use.

I give this lens a 10 to make up for the guy who gave it a 6, which is rather unfair!

Personally, I wouldn't part with this lens, which delivers crisp images, having a 180 degree diagonal angle of view, as advertised (focused at infinity). If you focus at 18 inches, the apparent angle of view will be less.

Depth of field is more important than some people are aware. That is why the lens stops down to f/22, though f/11 or f/16 is a good working aperture, free of diffraction. A lens of this design, which lets distortion run wild, also distorts distances. The closer we get the edge of the frame, the greater the distortion (compression of length and height). That is why edges may seem "soft" when we are actually incorporating image elements that are outside the working depth of field. You cannot compare image areas in a straight line, across the frame, because they are not equidistant, and the radius of curvature increases sharply near the edges.

What some photographers call "soft" is sometimes a region that is slightly out of focus, due to the larger radius of curvature near the edges of the frame. Since fisheye photography generally favors subjects in the near-field, photographers are likely to need greater depth-of-field than is immediately obvious.

Let me read some numbers from the lens barrel. At f/8, focused on an object 6 feet away, depth of field is not bad, extending from 4-18 feet. At 3 feet you run out of road fast! The region of focus is 2.6 to 4.8 feet. This is respectable depth of field, but not even close to a 35mm fisheye!

It's easy to get spoiled with the 15mm focal length available in 35mm photography, which is accompanied by immense depth-of-field. You can shoot all day without giving it a thought. In medium format, where f=35mm, focus is critical and careful attention to depth of field is required.

Canon makes a beautiful fisheye lens--very sharp--used by professionals all over the world. It doesn't hold a candle to the Pentax fisheye, because a Pentax image is 4.5 times the size of 35mm film. That is why Pentax sold quite a few 67 fisheye lenses at $ 2000 a whack, to professional photographers.

The Pentax 35mm f/4.5 is a terrific lens, but it's really just begging for a tripod!
You might think it can be hand held down to 1/30th of a second, using the little 1/f shutter speed rule. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! This lens weighs 2 pounds!!! Put the camera on a tripod, and if you want the edges of the frame to be sharp, focus on the middle field or far field, and stop down to f/11 or more. Then use depth of field preview to check focus in the near field. If you go to a higher shutter speed at the expense of requiring a larger aperture, know that compressed regions can lose focus.

You might still be in trouble. The lens does not accept a hood and flare can be a problem. It's not a problem when you see it. Flare is a problem when you can't see it, but it steals contrast and resolution from your image. Since the image circle is bigger than the film plane, the sun can be 30 degrees outside your frame and still cause problems. Shade the sunlit side with a magazine or umbrella and image quality will miraculously improve on the bright side of the frame. It's pretty easy to see this on a print using a loop, but the image is a done deal.

Whatever you do, the center will have somewhat better resolution than the corners. This is also true of the 45mm, the 55mm and 75mm shift lenses, which have a sterling reputation. The effect is proportional to focal length, like falloff of illumination, or a mild color shift across a wide field. It's no big deal. Floating elements can help your situation with short lenses, but I like the Pentax wide angle lenses just the way they are.

To make a long story short, my Pentax fisheye delivers excellent images that make me feel bad for 35mm photography. A tripod is recommended. Shading the lens by some means is recommended unless the sun is behind you. If your subject is close, use the small apertures. Like all Pentax lenses, this one has a large, readable distance scale. Use it! It does require more effort than usual to use this lens, but no other lens will get you 67 fisheye shot.
   
Pentaxian

Registered: February, 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,272
Review Date: March 2, 2009 Not Recommended | Price: $550.00 | Rating: 6 

 
Pros: Super wide
Cons: soft at the edges
Sharpness: 5    Aberrations: 4    Handling: 8    Value: 6   

This limited use lens has some virtues but I found it difficult to use. Its built in filters only seem to benefit black and white shooting. It is soft in the corners no matter which stop is used, which leads me to believe that it has a curvature of field issue. How can this be? Only curvature of field, distortion and lateral color are not affected by the diaphragm of the seven aberrations. We know that distortion does not affect sharpness, only image magnification, so the soft edges are most likely curvature of field (image at focus is curved) The center 80% of the frame is quite sharp though and I have been known to cut down the slides to 645, using just the center. Even when shooting objects at infinity, this lens produces soft edges, so the cause is not a DOF error.

The barrel distortion in this lens is caused by the design (very asymmetrical) and more importantly, it is the result of unequal image magnification across the frame. The marginal areas of the lens magnify less than the zonal and paraxial areas and therefore, objects at the edge of the frame will appear smaller than those in the middle. Even though objects at the edge of the field will be further from the film plane and appear slightly smaller in a rectilinear lens, this lens exaggerates this because it demagnifies at the edge of the field.

This lens comes in handy for huge expanses like the Grand Canyon. The optical design is similar to the fisheyes built for the Leicaflex cameras with very negative elements up front and positive ones at the rear. This lens is obviously not corrected for distortion, nor was it intended to be. This lens design does not employ thick elements like the 45mm, which was influenced by the older Biogon designs. One can use the 35mm for landscapes without distortion if one puts the horizon at the mid point of the frame. Its diagonal coverage is not 180 degrees at close focus; more like 160 degrees. It is still super wide. Color rendition and contrast are quite good but it is the softest of the 15 lenses that I have used for this system. I sold mine. I wish it were a rectilinear 35mm instead. I feel this lens can be used for pro work but only when cropped down to eliminate the edge softness.
   
Junior Member

Registered: February, 2007
Location: Okinawa, Japan
Posts: 25
Review Date: March 3, 2007 Recommended | Price: $700.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: super wide
Cons: soft at the edges

There are not many fish eye lenses for medium format cameras, but that's one big advantage of the Pentax 67 system - so many lenses to choose from.
The fisheye lens is a little soft around the edges but I dont think this is a real problem. You need to be careful not to get lens flare with such a wide field of view , but I guess this is an issue with all fisheye lenses.
I don't take this lens on most of my trips but I'm usually glad when I do.

http://www.travel67.com/features/southern_comfort/7/

http://www.travel67.com/features/southern_comfort/3/

Chris
Add Review of SMC Pentax 67 / S-M-C Takumar 6x7 / Takumar 6x7 35mm F4.5 Fish Eye



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:08 AM. | 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