| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
peterqd
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 7448
Location: near High Wycombe, UK
Expire: 2014-01-04
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:19 pm Post subject: Super- or S-M-C Takumar 2.0/35 |
 |
|
peterqd wrote:
Anybody have any experience of this lens they can share? I have a 3.5/35 Super-Tak that makes green pictures so I've been thinking of upgrading to this one, but it's quite a lot more expensive. I already have the Flek and Mir-24M, how does the Tak compare?
_________________
Peter - Moderator |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
luisalegria
Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 6602
Location: San Francisco, USA
Expire: 2018-01-18
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
luisalegria wrote:
Green pictures ?
_________________
I like Pentax DSLR's, Exaktas, M42 bodies of all kinds, strange and cheap Japanese lenses, and am dabbling in medium format/Speed Graphic work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peterqd
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 7448
Location: near High Wycombe, UK
Expire: 2014-01-04
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
peterqd wrote:
Green pictures 
_________________
Peter - Moderator |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thePiRaTE!!
Joined: 31 Oct 2008
Posts: 416
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
thePiRaTE!! wrote:
Many older Takumars experience a yellowing of certain (radioactive?) elements - perhaps this tinge is due to this? If you expose the lens to sunlight in a window sill with the caps off and diaphragm open for a month or so it'll clear up.
If you get the urge to use the lens in the meantime, just use a little white balance.
There are several interim stages of Takumars from Super-Tak to Super Multi-coated to S-M-C (I think thats the correct order). There may be a difference in coatings, but in practice with the ones I've used, they all looked really nice.
Kelly.
I really like those pics btw - particularly #1 and 3.
_________________
kellysereda.com
Sony A7ii, A900, NEX-5
_______________________
Helios: 1.5/85 40-2.
Meyer-Optik: Trioplan 2.8/100, Oreston 1.8/50.
Minolta: Rokkor-PG 1.2/58.
Porst: 1.2/55 Color Reflex.
Sony: 4-5.6/70-400 G.
Takumar: Super Takumar 3.5/135, Super Takumar 1.4/50, SMC Takumar 3.5/28.
Topcon: Topcor 1.4/58.
Voigtländer: Nokton Classic SC 1.4/35.
Zeiss: Planar T*1.2/85 "60 jahre" C/Y, Vario-Sonnar T*3.4/35-70 C/Y, Vario-Sonnar T*2.8/16-35 ZA, Distagon T*2/24 ZA.
lenses for sale here |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peterqd
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 7448
Location: near High Wycombe, UK
Expire: 2014-01-04
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
peterqd wrote:
Thanks Kelly. Good thinking, but the S-Tak 3.5/35 doesn't have the Thorium element and is not supposed to yellow. There's no obvious colouring of the glass at all.
I took several pics on the same roll using a S-M-C Tak 1.4/50 which certainly has yellowed. I don't know how to use WB with film scans, I use the Curves tool in PS CS2. Here's an example of the yellowing and corrected with Curves:
_________________
Peter - Moderator |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thePiRaTE!!
Joined: 31 Oct 2008
Posts: 416
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
thePiRaTE!! wrote:
You're one step ahead of me! I forget I've joined a forum of devotees to the cause here. Maybe instead of a radioactive element they used a biohazardous one in that lens 
I want to say though, no slight to your PS work on the yellowing example, but I think you've just convinced me not to de-yellow my Super-Tak. The yellow caste in the original shot adds something for me.
I'll be curious to see if a solution is found here, good luck.
_________________
kellysereda.com
Sony A7ii, A900, NEX-5
_______________________
Helios: 1.5/85 40-2.
Meyer-Optik: Trioplan 2.8/100, Oreston 1.8/50.
Minolta: Rokkor-PG 1.2/58.
Porst: 1.2/55 Color Reflex.
Sony: 4-5.6/70-400 G.
Takumar: Super Takumar 3.5/135, Super Takumar 1.4/50, SMC Takumar 3.5/28.
Topcon: Topcor 1.4/58.
Voigtländer: Nokton Classic SC 1.4/35.
Zeiss: Planar T*1.2/85 "60 jahre" C/Y, Vario-Sonnar T*3.4/35-70 C/Y, Vario-Sonnar T*2.8/16-35 ZA, Distagon T*2/24 ZA.
lenses for sale here |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luisalegria
Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 6602
Location: San Francisco, USA
Expire: 2018-01-18
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
luisalegria wrote:
Strange result !
I have the same lens, no green. Weird.
I also have a very yellow Takumar 50/1.4, and I like it that way. I think its "golden".
_________________
I like Pentax DSLR's, Exaktas, M42 bodies of all kinds, strange and cheap Japanese lenses, and am dabbling in medium format/Speed Graphic work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peterqd
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 7448
Location: near High Wycombe, UK
Expire: 2014-01-04
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
peterqd wrote:
| thePiRaTE!! wrote: |
You're one step ahead of me! I forget I've joined a forum of devotees to the cause here. Maybe instead of a radioactive element they used a biohazardous one in that lens
I want to say though, no slight to your PS work on the yellowing example, but I think you've just convinced me not to de-yellow my Super-Tak. The yellow caste in the original shot adds something for me.
I'll be curious to see if a solution is found here, good luck. |
Thanks Kelly. All thoughts and contributions are valuable even if they just make you think twice, which you did! Don't be discouraged.
I have absolutely no idea why the pics turned green. I have tried scanning the negs in all three modes of the Epson software, and with Vuescan and Silverfast and the results are always the same. The lens is perfectly clear to the eye.
The yellowing of a Thoriated lens happens when it is stored for many years with the caps on and/or in a closed camera bag so that no light can get to it, and it starts to cure as soon as light enters the lens again. Putting the lens on a sunny window cill just speeds up the process. If you want to maintain the yellowing you'll need to keep it in the dark and only use it occasionally, but even then I think it will cure itself eventually, albeit over a much longer period. But don't worry - you could always use a filter! 
_________________
Peter - Moderator |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
patrickh
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 8551
Location: Oregon
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
patrickh wrote:
See if you can take a picture with it on a digital camera. If the result is the same, then you can discount the medium. And it's much easier to adjust the colour balance.
patrickh
_________________
DSLR: Nikon D300 Nikon D200 Nex 5N
MF Zooms: Kiron 28-85/3.5, 28-105/3.2, 75-150/3.5, Nikkor 50-135/3.5 AIS // MF Primes: Nikkor 20/4 AI, 24/2 AI, 28/2 AI, 28/2.8 AIS, 28/3.5 AI, 35/1.4 AIS, 35/2 AIS, 35/2.8 PC, 45/2.8 P, 50/1.4 AIS, 50/1.8 AIS, 50/2 AI, 55/2.8 AIS micro, 55/3.5 AI micro, 85/2 AI, 100/2,8 E, 105/1,8 AIS, 105/2,5 AIS, 135/2 AIS, 135/2.8 AIS, 200/4 AI, 200/4 AIS micro, 300/4.5 AI, 300/4.5 AI ED, Arsat 50/1.4, Kiron 28/2, Vivitar 28/2.5, Panagor 135/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Tamron 90/2.5 macro, Vivitar 90/2.5 macro (Tokina) Voigtlander 90/3.5 Vivitar 105/2.5 macro (Kiron) Kaleinar 100/2.8 AI Tamron 135/2.5, Vivitar 135/2.8CF, 200/3.5, Tokina 400/5,6
M42: Vivitar 28/2.5, Tamron 28/2.5, Formula5 28/2.8, Mamiya 28/2.8, Pentacon 29/2.8, Flektogon 35/2.4, Flektogon 35/2.8, Takumar 35/3.5, Curtagon 35/4, Takumar 50/1.4, Volna-6 50/2.8 macro, Mamiya 50/1.4, CZJ Pancolar 50/1,8, Oreston 50/1.8, Takumar 50/2, Industar 50/3.5, Sears 55/1.4, Helios 58/2, Jupiter 85/2, Helios 85/1.5, Takumar 105/2.8, Steinheil macro 105/4.5, Tamron 135/2.5, Jupiter 135/4, CZ 135/4, Steinheil Culminar 135/4,5, Jupiter 135/3.5, Takumar 135/3.5, Tair 135/2.8, Pentacon 135/2.8, CZ 135/2.8, Taika 135/3.5, Takumar 150/4, Jupiter 200/4, Takumar 200/4
Exakta: Topcon 100/2.8(M42), 35/2.8, 58/1.8, 135/2.8, 135/2.8 (M42), Kyoei Acall 135/3.5
C/Y: Yashica 28/2.8, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, Zeiss Planar 50/1.4, Distagon 25/2.8
Hexanon: 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 40/1.8, 50/1.7, 52/1.8, 135/3.2, 135/3.5, 35-70/3.5, 200/3.5
P6 : Mir 38 65/3.5, Biometar 80/2.8, Kaleinar 150/2.8, Sonnar 180/2.8
Minolta SR: 28/2.8, 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 45/2, 50/2, 58/1.4, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, 200/3.5
RF: Industar 53/2.8, Jupiter 8 50/2
Enlarg: Rodagon 50/5,6, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, Vario 44-52/4, 150/5.6 180/5.6 El Nikkor 50/2,8,63/2.8,75/4, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, 135/5.6 Schneider 60/5.6, 80/5.6, 80/4S,100/5.6S,105/5.6,135/5.6, 135/5.6S, 150/5.6S, Leica 95/4 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008
Posts: 2495
Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
I have SMC 35/2 and old (big "PRO") version of Super Takumar 35/2. The new small thoriated one is not better than 35/3.5 - more CA, less sharp, more purple fringe. It's only faster - results at f/2 or f/2.8 are not bad, but for higher f-stops 35/3.5 is better.
The old big PRO version of 35/2 has lower CA and purple fringe, at f/2-f/2.8 is less sharp (no MC), but it's sharper further - similar to 35/3.5, but slightly lower edge resolution.
_________________
(almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008
Posts: 2495
Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peterqd
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 7448
Location: near High Wycombe, UK
Expire: 2014-01-04
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
peterqd wrote:
Patrick, thanks for the idea - doh - why didn't I think of that? Some very quick and rough shots with the 400D this morning don't have an obvious green tint like the film shots, but certainly look very cool compared to the Flek, which has about the most "normal" colour temp of my lenses. Also the sunshine today is much brighter than the gloomy day I took those green shots so that may be a factor.
No-X, thank you very much indeed - exactly what I was looking for and very interesting results too. The SMC 3.5 seems to stand up extremely well against its faster sisters. Their only virtue is the extra speed and, considering the greater cost, at wide apertures the IQ isn't that great in your examples. My lens is the Super-Tak version and the man who sold it to me mentioned later (on another forum) that he'd never really felt comfortable with it, so I think it will be up for sale shortly.
Of all my 35s I love the Flek the best, followed by the Mir-24, but I particularly want a Tak to accompany my Pentax cameras. I'll look out for a SMC 3.5 but if I see a larger 2/35 Super-Tak going cheap I might give it a try. Thanks again.
_________________
Peter - Moderator |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 6950
Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
If you set auto white balance, then wouldn't the 400D compensate for slight tints?
I think the better option would be to try 2 lenses side by side using the same WB setting.
_________________
Casual attendance these days |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
Expired film!! OK. Not ill lens, good for you.
I like the Pic n° 5, so much. The golden tone of the Tak do a great image.
Rino.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peterqd
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 7448
Location: near High Wycombe, UK
Expire: 2014-01-04
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
peterqd wrote:
| martinsmith99 wrote: |
If you set auto white balance, then wouldn't the 400D compensate for slight tints?
I think the better option would be to try 2 lenses side by side using the same WB setting. |
I tried it, using Daylight WB not Auto. Strange thing, in Av mode the camera seems to want to use a slightly slower shutter speed for the Tak and overexpose a little compared to the Flek. In manual mode using the same speed and aperture, the exposures are similar although the indicator is showing underexposure for the Tak. The colours are as before, the Tak is cooler and the Av mode pics look a little faded.
But remember I want to use this lens mainly for film. I'll give it another shot with a different film, but I don't have a lot of confidence in it.
Thanks for the ideas.
_________________
Peter - Moderator |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
