Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Uncommon focal length. Super Takumar 150 f4
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 10:53 pm    Post subject: Uncommon focal length. Super Takumar 150 f4 Reply with quote

Ok so I wasn't looking for this lens. It was in a camera bag with a Spotmatic SP100 and an SMC Tak 50/1.4 that I picked up for $40. So I threw it on my little Pentax Kx just to see what to expect. Needless to say I am both surprised and pleased. A good deal of my older non multicoated lenses suffer in the contrast department, Not so with this little oddity.

These shots are all wide open. The first two are jpg's from the camera. The first shot was adjusted in levels only to brighten it very slightly. No curves or sharpening because I wanted to show what the contrast is like with the camera settings zeroed out. The second shot is straight from camera again settings zeroed out.

The final shot has been sharpened very heavily( well at least heavily for my taste) Just to show that images with this lens will stand up to some aggressive sharpening.

Obviously these are both backlit shots without much contrast loss or any noticeable flair. This was my biggest suprise along with the fact that I quite like this focul length on the crop sensor dslr. I am hoping I like it on my film cameras too.

Eric
#1

#2

#3


PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Third one looks quite contrasty but the other two look quite flat on my screen so I wouldn't say it's all that contrasty. Nice rendering though.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Third one looks quite contrasty but the other two look quite flat on my screen so I wouldn't say it's all that contrasty. Nice rendering though.


I suppose this amount of contrast is a relative thing for me. I don't have another 150mm lens to compare it to but comparing it to any of my old single coated 135mm lenses ( Meyer, Isco, Sears.....) Shooting into the light like this would bring quite different results.

Eric


PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 6:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You nailed my taste by showing unprocessed images. But i say second is shaky thus not optimally sharp.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It has the typical rendering of a portrait lens. Smooth colors, medium contrast.

Something long focal distance, too much far from the subject?

Why 150 mm? Pentax said anything about this?

Anyway, nice lens.


Rino.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pancolart wrote:
You nailed my taste by showing unprocessed images. But i say second is shaky thus not optimally sharp.


You are quite likely correct about it being shaky. I don't often use anything over 105mm handheld. It's hard for me to determine if a lens has qualities I like on film unless I see shots posted without a great deal of post processing work .

Quote:
Why 150 mm? Pentax said anything about this?


I don't believe I have ever read anything that would explain this focul length, And I've never seen another 150mm. It would work as a portrait lens on film for me but it's pretty tight on my dslr.

One other thing I like about this lens is that it is smaller than most of my 135mm lenses. actually it's about the size of my Spiratone 105mm.

Eric


PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just found one on ebay.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pentax-M42-Screw-Mount-Super-Takumar-150mm-1-4-F4-Camera-Lens-100-Working-/300606880883?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item45fd90fc73

And there appears to be 3 others there as well.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

#3 looks a decent image. I struggle to find subjects when shooting at 135mm let alone longer; plus I don't shoot on a crop, so well done.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't recall another 150mm for 35mm slrs. It was never a good seller - I recall having a new one in stock for almost three years! We eventually sold it by putting it in the secondhand section and pricing it just below a new 135mm Super Takumat . . .

Somebody at Asahi must have a good reason for creating it, but it seemed to me to combine the "weaker" points of both the 135 and 200 lenses without giving anything that was distinctive or significantly better than either of them.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The two teles more sold were the 135 and the 200, almost sure. Perhaps the idea that the point between (150 mm lens) should be a good business.
And with the 50 mm lens, the 150 should complete an amateur kit (with a wide angle). I think that Pentax had think anythig like that.

But the theory is only that, the reality win.

Rino


PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rino - yes, that theory would indeed make sense taking into account that Pentax owners got a 55mm as standard and usually bought a 35mm as their first wideangle in the mid to late 1960s. The "logical outfit" could have been sold as 35 - 55 - 150mm. But I think the 150 was more expensive than the 135 and all the textbooks banged on about the 135 being the "normal" telephoto. As you say, the reality will always win.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have the Pentax M 150/3.5, smaller than the Takumar. Very sharp. Agree it's an uncommon focal, but still a joy to use.

Last edited by hoanpham on Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:08 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The 120 may be the option when you have the 50 mm and the 135 should be so longer for you. Between the 100 and the 135, the 120 had found his own place. One more toime, the theory is only that.

Rino.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The first photo shows very promising detail wide open. What about a few photos slightly stopped down?
The third photo has horrible sharpening halos, I don't think it proves anything except that too much sharpening ruins images Wink .


PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you everyone for your comments and replies !

I've reread my post and see that I didn't mention that the third shot is just an over sharpened version of the second shot. Sorry for omitting that info.

I was unaware that there was an M version of this lens as well. If it is smaller than the Tak it's pretty compact indeed. I too have sought the SMC M 120 but haven't had much luck.

Orio,

I agree totally with you on the ability of over sharpening ruining an image Smile I will try to take some photos with this lens stopped down a bit, If I can catch some Shots between rain showers Smile I am also hoping to get some images with this lens on my Pentax MX or H3v and will post some results of this lens on film. I am hoping that it will perform pretty well

Thank you folks again.

Eric


PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

scsambrook wrote:
I can't recall another 150mm for 35mm slrs.


http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1136361.html#1136361


PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Because I have quite a few different tele Takumars at home I can write a bit more about 150mm and why it is different from the rest. Takumar 120 mm is primarily intended for portrait photography. It works best up to 10m, at the infinite is not one of the best lenses. Wide open it has very nice bokeh. 135mm lenses are a kind of compromise, they are good all-round lenses. Takumar 150mm is more telephoto lens for objects that are close to infinte. In that range it is more sharp than 120mm and 135mm lenses, but it doesn't have plesant bokeh and has a lot of longitudinal CA.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2012 4:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wide open into the sun. Why I like Easter Very Happy
#1

#2

#3


PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2012 7:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice results, shows the strength of the SMC coating. Last one is wonderful.

I'd call that bokeh very pleasant, not unusual for a longer lens.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2012 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The last three are very nice shots especially as mentioned the last one. Thanks for sharing.
Seems you got a really good deal on a very good older lens, congrats! Smile


PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've come to really like this lens . There may be some truth to the supposition that the late Super Taks may have had the early S-M-C coatings. Whichever it is this Super Tak has very good coatings compared to other lenses of this vintage that I use.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 4:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Found this one at the markets in a bag of old lenses - all covered in dust.
This one was full of fungus - every element had spidery veins.
I had it cleaned and it is now rather good.



Here are some quick samples with image crops following.
I know - not flowers again!
Both taken wide open @f4
My standard PP from RAW in LR5 but no sharpening.
OH







PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 5:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mine is a Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 4/150, it's the 2nd version made between 1971-75, 6 blades, MFD 180cm

One of our fellow member runs this wonderful web site where you'll find all you need to know on all Takumar's :
http://kajiwara.weebly.com/index.html

Straight out of the camera Jpegs, no PP...


#1 a couple of older shots...

#2

#3 Last week...

#4

#5


PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:43 am    Post subject: also 150 2,8 Reply with quote

"scsambrook wrote:
I can't recall another 150mm for 35mm slrs.


http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1136361.html#1136361
_________________
Regards,
Woodrim"

which reminds me that there is also the Kinoptik 150\2,8. The interchangeable mount version and the "auto aperture" version.

p.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I concur with what has been said about the 150mm

I fell into it too because of its strange focal length. Small, light, I suppose that's Pentax to a Tea. Optically it's not an odd focal length by any stretch, just non-popular I suppose. I too confess to not having had a discrete reason where 150 was better then 138, or 200mm yet Razz

But The Grand Prix is coming up, maybe it will make it into my bag.

actually where is the silly thing...



That's a 105 f2.8, 150 f4 and the 138 f3.5

And actually I only notice now the 138 actually has a smaller cap on the bottom Razz So yes. its a small dam thing.


Last edited by tromboads on Tue Feb 25, 2014 12:56 pm; edited 1 time in total