| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
andyw
Joined: 15 Aug 2009
Posts: 624
Location: Surrey. UK
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 8:18 pm Post subject: Super Tak 135mm on it's way to me!! |
 |
|
andyw wrote:
I saw a nice Super Takumar f3.5 on ebay for £39 pay now or offers so i bid £30 and won it which was a very nice surprise. It looks really good with only a little ware on the filter thread.
Is £30 a good price for a good 135mm?
Pics to follow when it turns up 
_________________
Andy
My Flickr |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Keysersoze27
Joined: 19 Feb 2009
Posts: 466
Location: Greece
Expire: 2012-12-24
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Keysersoze27 wrote:
Your Tak average price in Ebay in the past month is around £36 so you got is a little cheaper 
You are going to love it's colour rendering ...you will see 
_________________
Canon EOS 5D MkII , EOS 50E, Contax RTS, Olympus OM2n, Nikon Z6ii
28mm: Zeiss Distagon 2.8/28 MMJ
35mm: CZ Distagon 2/35 ZE , S-M-C Takumar 3.5/35
40mm: CZJ Tessar T 4.5/40 1Q
50mm: CZ Planar 1.4/50 MMJ,CZ Planar 1.7/50 AEJ+MMJ,Leica Summicron 2/50 v3,S-M-C Takumar 1.4/50,Pentax SMC 1.4/50 K,Pentax SMC 1.8/55 K,Nikkor 1.8/50 ,CZJ Tessar T 3.5/50 1Q , CZ Planar 1.8/50 (QBM),Zuiko 1.4/50, Zuiko 1.8/50, Icarex Tessar 2.8/50, Nikkor 2/50 Ai,Schneider Kreuznach Xenar 2.8/50 Preset, Pentacon Prakticar 2.4/50 MC v1, CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50 Zebra , Rikenon 1.4/50 P
55mm: Fujinon 1.8/55 EBC
58mm: Helios MC 44-3 2/58
85mm: Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/85 AEJ
90mm: Voigtl�nder APO-Lanthar 3.5/90 SLII , Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/90 v2
100~105mm:Zeiss Sonnar 3.5/100 MM, Nikkor 2.5/105 AiS, S-M-C Takumar 2.8/105
135mm: Leica Elmarit R 2.8/135 v2, S-M-C Takumar 3.5/135, CZJ 4/135 Sonnar Exakta leatherette (1963),CZJ 4/135 Triotar
Macro:Leica Macro-Elmarit R 2.8/60, Micro-Nikkor Auto 3.5/55 Compensating type (1964)
Last edited by Keysersoze27 on Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 489
Location: London
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
William wrote:
I think I was after that one Would like to see your results |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xjjohnno
Joined: 07 Apr 2009
Posts: 1270
Location: Melbourne Australia
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
xjjohnno wrote:
You should be quite pleased with the results from your Super Tak 135mm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Helios
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 537
Location: East of France
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Helios wrote:
This lens (3,5/135) was my second m42 135mm, after ... the czj 3,5/135 ! It was in 1977 ! Bought second hand with my smc Takumar 1,8/85mm ...
I have another 135mm which is very close (physically, optically...) : fujinon 3,5/135mm . I'm sure you'll keep the Tak ever . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andyw
Joined: 15 Aug 2009
Posts: 624
Location: Surrey. UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
andyw wrote:
| Helios wrote: |
This lens (3,5/135) was my second m42 135mm, after ... the czj 3,5/135 ! It was in 1977 ! Bought second hand with my smc Takumar 1,8/85mm ...
I have another 135mm which is very close (physically, optically...) : fujinon 3,5/135mm . I'm sure you'll keep the Tak ever . |
How does the Tak compare to the czj 3,5/135?
_________________
Andy
My Flickr |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
patrickh
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 8551
Location: Oregon
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
patrickh wrote:
Very well, but not as good as the CZJ 135/4. Remember the 135's are rather like the 50's - a lot were made and sold and the manufacturers tended to produce good stuff in both fl's.
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 |
|
|
ramiller500
Joined: 20 Nov 2007
Posts: 124
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ramiller500 wrote:
The Super Takumar 135mm/3.5 lens came in two optical designs. The first had 5 elements in 4 groups, while the second had 4 elements in 4 groups. As best I can tell, the 5/4 version included the aperture number "4" on its aperture ring, while the 4/4 did not. The change appears to have occurred around 1967.
_________________
Sincerely,
Bob Miller |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009
Posts: 5019
Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
| ramiller500 wrote: |
| The Super Takumar 135mm/3.5 lens came in two optical designs. The first had 5 elements in 4 groups, while the second had 4 elements in 4 groups. As best I can tell, the 5/4 version included the aperture number "4" on its aperture ring, while the 4/4 did not. The change appears to have occurred around 1967. |
But which is the sharper one?
_________________
Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ramiller500
Joined: 20 Nov 2007
Posts: 124
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ramiller500 wrote:
The two Super Takumar versions may vary in sharpness, bokeh, etc., but I haven't found good info. The answer may lie in the reason for the change---whether it was mainly to reduce manufacturing costs or mainly to improve performance. It's something to wonder about whenever a newer design eliminates a cemented pair of elements. For example, Canon switched its FD 135mm/3.5 S.C. optical design (originally very close to CZJ Sonnar) from 4/3 to 4/4 at one point. The new design had no cemented elements and lower total glass weight.
_________________
Sincerely,
Bob Miller |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Helios
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 537
Location: East of France
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Helios wrote:
I'm so sorry , the czj sonnar is not over the asahi optical 135's mm . I have 6 copies , all the versions (from "alu" to last "electric") Smc-Takumar 3,5/135 is better at full aperture , and shows a similar or higher contrast at f/5,6,- f/8 . I'm tired to read the same "legend" things for a while (saying 8-10 years) about the czj 135 . It seems to be good only due to his name ... fashion effect ...
Mechanic is so-so , I had 3 copies under repair (diaph ..) . I have two dozens of tak's of 4 generations (from M42 to recent FA's) , I use them and I got never any problem... I fixed 3 times my Flek 2,4/35 , bought brand new in 1980 , and now I prefer to use my Tak 3,5/35...
So , in my 135mm hierachy , tak's are well placed ... (2,5/135 M42, 3,5/135 M42 and "M")
Let's try a J-37 ....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mflex-on
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mflex-on wrote:
My father uses CZJ since 1962 - I took over some of his lenses in the early 80ies - no, null, zero problems so far. Only relubrication was needed. Just another experience.
Anyway, Takumar is better for sure.
(I hope this statement cools down Flek prices to average and appropriate prices!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 6943
Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
The Tak v CZJ arguement comes up a lot. I think they may be very close and copies are variable. I have both and the CZJ is sharper.
_________________
Casual attendance these days |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
