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

Is this indeed a rare takumar 500mm lense?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:50 am    Post subject: Is this indeed a rare takumar 500mm lense? Reply with quote

Click here to see on Ebay


PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Fungus". Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Could be the worlds biggest petri dish??
So there is no hope once fungus is in a lens this size?


PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know, but I do know that I don't like older longer lenses. In my experience they are somewhat soft and show lots of CA.

It's 4 elements in 4 groups, not bad for a lens this size (the older 500/5 only has two elements). But it still doesn't touch the 12 elements in 9 groups of my AF Sigma 500/4.5 APO EX Very Happy


PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is the third time it is listed, and I think there are not "little", but a lot of fungus, according to pics Confused


PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CarbonR wrote:
This is the third time it is listed, and I think there are not "little", but a lot of fungus, according to pics Confused

I think he means "little" as "you still can see through the lens" Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're right, it is a little, because if we eat them, we will be still hungry Very Happy


PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spotmatic wrote:
I don't know, but I do know that I don't like older longer lenses. In my experience they are somewhat soft and show lots of CA.

It's 4 elements in 4 groups, not bad for a lens this size (the older 500/5 only has two elements). But it still doesn't touch the 12 elements in 9 groups of my AF Sigma 500/4.5 APO EX Very Happy


I'm not quite convinced that the number of elements actually equates with higher levels of performance ... nor that older longer lenses are necessarily somewhat soft. However, my experiences with l - o - n - g lenses are by no means extensive so I must tread carefully!


PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

scsambrook wrote:
Spotmatic wrote:
I don't know, but I do know that I don't like older longer lenses. In my experience they are somewhat soft and show lots of CA.

It's 4 elements in 4 groups, not bad for a lens this size (the older 500/5 only has two elements). But it still doesn't touch the 12 elements in 9 groups of my AF Sigma 500/4.5 APO EX Very Happy


I'm not quite convinced that the number of elements actually equates with higher levels of performance ... nor that older longer lenses are necessarily somewhat soft. However, my experiences with l - o - n - g lenses are by no means extensive so I must tread carefully!


Just like you I have to rely on my own experiences. I haven't seen longer lenses I was completely satisfied with. I think that lenses with fewer elements are somewhat less corrected for certain distortions and abberations and that this clearly shows up in our demaning APS-C cameras.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, rare to find in marketplace these days.

"A little fungus" seems understatement, but maybe "little" in sellers experience. Seller did good job taking photos showing fungus. Fungus maybe not as bad as photos show. Maybe easily cleaned. Probably little effect on photos as is.

Reasonable low starting price ($11.50AU), but I would ask for shipping charge before bidding. Lens weighs several kilos; shipping overseas probably more expensive than lens value. Seller has reasonably good feedback. Appears to be antique dealer, not photo related.

Could be good deal here, if you have the money and don't mind taking a chance on not being able to clean to perfection; almost certainly can be cleaned at least somewhat.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It all depends on final price.
It is probably soft wide open, probably still a bit at F5.6, so dunno if its worth it. It does not have SMC coatings, so CA will be worse.
Good body though, just needs a clean. Fungus is plenty, but look more opaque than then probably are. They seem to be well spread though.
If they aren't etched much, than there might be hope.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

edumad wrote:
It all depends on final price.
It is probably soft wide open, probably still a bit at F5.6, so dunno if its worth it. It does not have SMC coatings, so CA will be worse.
Good body though, just needs a clean. Fungus is plenty, but look more opaque than then probably are. They seem to be well spread though.
If they aren't etched much, than there might be hope.


Biggest trouble is lens is huge , hard to handle. I have had a few lens size like this I never used them more than once.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I already asked for the shipping price to France, it is 175 AUD, I think it is not interesting, as the lens is not in good state + fungus + no leather case Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shipping within Australia would be around $30 aud by registered post maybe less. From what I've read elsewhere the Super and SMC versions of the lens produce much nicer results.
What would hurt the wallet is if the lens had to go to a professional for cleaning.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, the rare Pentax Mushroom Farm...


PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

All depend you need or don't if need easy to clean.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I own one there is no mashroom farm in it .... but was much more expensive Crying or Very sad

manufactured between 1962 and 1965 (thanks again Peter for providing me with the info)