Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in
Takumar 300/6.3
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:37 pm    Post subject: Takumar 300/6.3 Reply with quote

I tested out the Tele-Tak 300/6.3 a little more, last time at Shi Shi
Beach. Here's an image that shows some of the output of the lens.

NOT a beauty image, just wanted to work the lens. I'll post more
(and better) images from the Tele-Tak 300/6.3 as soon as I can
scan a few more.

The Great Blue Heron has a pretty darn skinny neck
from behind. Shocked He was sure intent on watching
something. Maybe just watching the surf? Laughing

Pretty muted colors here, but I thought Mr. Long Neck was
fun to see.


Revueflex 3003
Tele-Takumar 300/6.3
approx. f:8
Provia


PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's a bush with pretty berries - don't know the taxonomy of
the species. This taken with the Tele-Tak 300/6.3 at closest focus
(about 12 feet / 3 meters).

Decent bokeh, actually. Not great, but not disgusting either.

Revueflex 3003
Tele-Takumar 300/6.3
f:6.3
Provia



PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Laurence.

I really like your pics and the rendering of the takumar. I found similities between your 300 and the tele takumar 5,6/200 pics in terms of color rendering Do you agree with that?

Rino.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

estudleon wrote:
Hi Laurence.

I really like your pics and the rendering of the takumar. I found similities between your 300 and the tele takumar 5,6/200 pics in terms of color rendering Do you agree with that?

Rino.


I certainly do, Rino. A bit cool in rendition. Even the brown tones in
the first image have a bit of blue mixed in, I think. The purple
berries were pretty close to "true color", but my eyes detected just
a little more to the red side of the spectrum than this image.

I think the bokeh is decent, and might be affected, in part, by the
large number of blades in the diaphragm. I don't have the lens in
front of me, but I think there are 12 or more blades. Take a look
along the stem away from the focal point: the falloff in focus looks
actually quite smooth and consistent to me. Not bad at all.

One thing I HAVE noticed, is the minimum amount of flare. There
are other images from this lens where I expected much more flare,
but it was "tamed" pretty well. There is a built in hood, but it seems
rather short. However, even a short hood is better than no hood at
all, of course. I am not even that enamored with hoods, since I can
do just about as good with my hand shading a lens. So, I don't buy
many hoods for those lenses without the built-in hood. The only "extra"
hood I've bought is for the Electro 35, because I want it to be a "fast
action" camera, and not have to shield with my hand when I need to
be ready for a quick shot.

I wonder if the lens configuration is similar to the 5.6/200?

This lens is NOT a speed king! But it doesn't matter to me,
shooting mostly from a tripod.

I frankly decided to keep the lens after finding that the flare
was handled pretty well. I am going to stay with this lens for a
while, and see how familiar I can become with its strengths
and weaknesses. For the price ($24) I think I should at least give
it all the chances possible.

Just to clarify, I don't feel the "cool" color rendition is necessarily
a drawback...it's fairly subtle, and of course "fixable" if one wants
to tweak the image. The lens is quite lightweight, and as usual with
Takumars, it is built beautifully, and is smooth as butter.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A really great find at $24.00 - and capable of some fine results too.

Whilst the 6.3/300 does look like the Takumar/Tele-Takumar 5.6/200, the lens configuration is different. The 200 has 5 elements in 5 groups, whilst the 300 has 5 elements in 4 groups.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This also might have been interesting to play with, but all a gamble with the importer...... Hanimex

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Hanimex-Tele-Lens-1-5-5-300mm_W0QQitemZ160401625343QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_CameraLensesFilters_JN?hash=item2558ae90ff


PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

great 24$! a superb bargain


PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laurence wrote:
estudleon wrote:
Hi Laurence.

I really like your pics and the rendering of the takumar. I found similities between your 300 and the tele takumar 5,6/200 pics in terms of color rendering Do you agree with that?

Rino.


I certainly do, Rino. A bit cool in rendition. Even the brown tones in
the first image have a bit of blue mixed in, I think. The purple
berries were pretty close to "true color", but my eyes detected just
a little more to the red side of the spectrum than this image.

I think the bokeh is decent, and might be affected, in part, by the
large number of blades in the diaphragm. I don't have the lens in
front of me, but I think there are 12 or more blades. Take a look
along the stem away from the focal point: the falloff in focus looks
actually quite smooth and consistent to me. Not bad at all.

One thing I HAVE noticed, is the minimum amount of flare. There
are other images from this lens where I expected much more flare,
but it was "tamed" pretty well. There is a built in hood, but it seems
rather short. However, even a short hood is better than no hood at
all, of course. I am not even that enamored with hoods, since I can
do just about as good with my hand shading a lens. So, I don't buy
many hoods for those lenses without the built-in hood. The only "extra"
hood I've bought is for the Electro 35, because I want it to be a "fast
action" camera, and not have to shield with my hand when I need to
be ready for a quick shot.

I wonder if the lens configuration is similar to the 5.6/200?

This lens is NOT a speed king! But it doesn't matter to me,
shooting mostly from a tripod.

I frankly decided to keep the lens after finding that the flare
was handled pretty well. I am going to stay with this lens for a
while, and see how familiar I can become with its strengths
and weaknesses. For the price ($24) I think I should at least give
it all the chances possible.

Just to clarify, I don't feel the "cool" color rendition is necessarily
a drawback...it's fairly subtle, and of course "fixable" if one wants
to tweak the image. The lens is quite lightweight, and as usual with
Takumars, it is built beautifully, and is smooth as butter.


Great price, a bargain !!!

I like the cool colors (as I like the Leica M pre minolta), far from to be a drawback.

It seems to be a lens to look for. Congrats !!!

Rino.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mal1905 wrote:
A really great find at $24.00 - and capable of some fine results too.

Whilst the 6.3/300 does look like the Takumar/Tele-Takumar 5.6/200, the lens configuration is different. The 200 has 5 elements in 5 groups, whilst the 300 has 5 elements in 4 groups.


Great information! Thanks for posting this. You sure know your lenses! Shocked


PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excalibur wrote:
This also might have been interesting to play with, but all a gamble with the importer...... Hanimex

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Hanimex-Tele-Lens-1-5-5-300mm_W0QQitemZ160401625343QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_CameraLensesFilters_JN?hash=item2558ae90ff


Wow, what a nice looking style, at least! It would have been fun to use it and see how it handled.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

poilu wrote:
great 24$! a superb bargain


It certainly does seem like a bargain, poilu. You never know...but maybe this lens will ultimately be well worth it!


PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great price, a bargain !!!

I like the cool colors (as I like the Leica M pre minolta), far from to be a drawback.

It seems to be a lens to look for. Congrats !!!

Rino.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Rino! We'll see how it goes. Cool


PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This post inspired me to take mine for a spin. Thanks! Very Happy

Laurence your lens has a built in hood? Mine has typical Takumar metal screwin hood.

This small light lens goes hiking where other 300 can't. Wink

Confusing is my source has 5 lenses in 5 groups for both 5.6/200 and 6.3/300.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

siriusdogstar wrote:
This post inspired me to take mine for a spin. Thanks! Very Happy

Laurence your lens has a built in hood? Mine has typical Takumar metal screwin hood.

This small light lens goes hiking where other 300 can't. Wink

Confusing is my source has 5 lenses in 5 groups for both 5.6/200 and 6.3/300.


I just kicked myself for good measure! Razz You are CORRECT, it's a screw-in hood that nests with the lens when carrying around. I have just taken some black and whites with BWCN C-21 process Kodak film. I'll be interested to see how well the lens performs in b&w. I put it on a heavy tripod, locked it down, and REALLY came down to a precise focus. The old Revueflex has mirror lock-up, so I expect (hope) to see how sharp the lens might be in these good shooting conditions.

Of course, even a "slow at f:6.3 lens" like this one still must have the Pentax quality - maybe even more so, since it's old and a lot of calibration must have taken place by technicians.

I'll look for some images from yours too, Sirius Dog Star!

I agree that it is a pretty darn light weight lens, which is a big bonus to me!


PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

siriusdogstar wrote:
Confusing is my source has 5 lenses in 5 groups for both 5.6/200 and 6.3/300.


My original source (G van Oosten's book) gave me the 5/4 & 5/5 information, whereas I've just now checked the Honeywell Pentax Takumar Lens Manual and it tells me both are 5/5...


PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's a heavy crop from the center of an image with the Tak 300.
Wide open, and closest focus possible (about 4 meters or so). Not
sharpened or enhanced. I cropped approximately 2/3 of the image
away.

For wide open (6.3), it looks pretty good to me. I caught most of
it within the narrow depth of field, and I realize that the center is
going to look better than the edges. But overall, I'm pleased with
the output at least on this heavily cropped image.

Patriotic Wreath at Gravesite
Pentax K110D with M42 adapter
Takumar 300/6.3 wide open
Shutter speed not recorded


PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mal1905 wrote:
siriusdogstar wrote:
Confusing is my source has 5 lenses in 5 groups for both 5.6/200 and 6.3/300.


My original source (G van Oosten's book) gave me the 5/4 & 5/5 information, whereas I've just now checked the Honeywell Pentax Takumar Lens Manual and it tells me both are 5/5...


GREAT lookup! That is nice, to have the configuration confirmed. THANK YOU!


PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laurence wrote:
GREAT lookup! That is nice, to have the configuration confirmed. THANK YOU!


Checked Mr van Oosten's book again - the schematic for the lens is correct (5/5), he was off with the elements/groups data though when typing!

Yet again, the 'measure twice, cut once' nugget applies to me Embarassed


PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 2:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Asahi Tele-Takumar 6.3/300 wide open 5D1 ISO1600 1/2000 handheld actual pixels:



Last edited by visualopsins on Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:48 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Impressive output, considering these are actual pixels! Shocked Coloration seems very good, and no flare or other problems that
I can readily see.

siriusdogstar wrote:
Asahi Tele-Takumar 6.3/300 wide open 5D1 actual pixels:



PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actual pixels cropped from


5D1 ISO1600 1/2000 Handheld + M42 Asahi Tele-Takumar 6.3/300 @f/6.3
RAW developed and resized 16-bit Tiff then converted to jpeg in Canon DPP; no adjustments to levels or curves.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very nice acquisition Laurence. Would look nice next to my 200mm Tele-tak. I've looked at several of these but they keep getting the price bumped so high I couldn't see spending that much. Have you any photos of the lens itself?