| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Prometheus
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 878
Location: Garphyttan, Sweden
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:39 am Post subject: First test with Super Takumar 28mm / 3.5 |
 |
|
Prometheus wrote:
Sunflower, my first image with lens.
Bumblebee, 100% crop from very windy field!
_________________
Retrocamera.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 29545
Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
Fantastic image quality in the first picture!
Did you use a polarizer?
_________________
Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prometheus
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 878
Location: Garphyttan, Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Prometheus wrote:
| Orio wrote: |
Fantastic image quality in the first picture!
Did you use a polarizer? |
Thanks. No, I draw the levels in Photoshop a bit, but not very much though (didn't want to change to much).
The sky was very blue and I'm a bit surprised that the sunflower look like it's sunshine on it, because it wasn't that much sun... just between cloudy and sunny, if you know what I mean.
The aperture I think was quite small.
The flower is on my gardentable, so I had a lot of oppotunity to look from different angles.
One regret: the birchtree in the background really annoys me!
_________________
Retrocamera.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prometheus
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 878
Location: Garphyttan, Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Prometheus wrote:
Oh, yes - and I shot .jpg in the Canon camera, decided to try that for a while instead of raw 
_________________
Retrocamera.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 10471
Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
congrats Mattias! nice shot
superb lightning, composition & colors
_________________
T* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nesster
Joined: 24 Apr 2008
Posts: 5883
Location: NJ, USA
Expire: 2014-02-20
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nesster wrote:
Excellent results Mattias!
_________________
-Jussi
Camera photos
Print Photographica
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peterqd
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 7448
Location: near High Wycombe, UK
Expire: 2014-01-04
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
peterqd wrote:
Beautiful! Great colours and sharpness from this little lens, I must use mine more. I don't care about the tree, it's just nice to see some sunshine!
(Yet another grey day here today.)
_________________
Peter - Moderator |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prometheus
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 878
Location: Garphyttan, Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Prometheus wrote:
Thanks
| peterqd wrote: |
| I must use mine more. |
According to zewrak the quality varys much from copy to copy, his copy not being so sharp. This is one of the later manufactured, -66 I think.
_________________
Retrocamera.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peterqd
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 7448
Location: near High Wycombe, UK
Expire: 2014-01-04
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
peterqd wrote:
| Prometheus wrote: |
Thanks
| peterqd wrote: |
| I must use mine more. |
According to zewrak the quality varys much from copy to copy, his copy not being so sharp. This is one of the later manufactured, -66 I think. |
Mine is the S-M-C version, part number 43872, so it's even later. It's impossible to make a proper comparison with two people and two different cameras, but I can try to get the best out of mine (when it stops raining)!
_________________
Peter - Moderator |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prometheus
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 878
Location: Garphyttan, Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Prometheus wrote:
| peterqd wrote: |
| Mine is the S-M-C version, part number 43872, so it's even later. |
Nice, then it's probably good
_________________
Retrocamera.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nesster
Joined: 24 Apr 2008
Posts: 5883
Location: NJ, USA
Expire: 2014-02-20
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nesster wrote:
I think a lot has to do with production tolerances AND life experience (nature and nurture? LOL) Of my 2 Taks and 1 SMC-A, the SMC-A is slightly better, then followed by the Super and finally the SMC. The differences are so slight that they are insignificant. But thy are there, the jpeg sizes of the same shot tell the story.
_________________
-Jussi
Camera photos
Print Photographica
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zewrak
Joined: 12 Apr 2008
Posts: 1212
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
zewrak wrote:
Well, there is no chance in hell that my Super Tak would be that sharp, I have the model prior to Proms. though.
Also worth noting is that the Pentax-K SMC-M 28mm I had did not perform that well either. So now I am on the look for the same as Prometheus got, to see if it is me that sucks so badly or if it is that the Super Tak with part number 43871 is just superior (Mine was an earlier one with 58mm filter ring).
I tested my lens on a tripod on a well lit flowerpot and the result was nowhere near that sunflower. I took several shots, because I was so disappointed with it.
Kind of explains all the mixed reviews of the lens though.
_________________
My homepage, all manual shots |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
