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

Asahi Auto Takumar 2.3/35 after cleaning
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:27 pm    Post subject: Asahi Auto Takumar 2.3/35 after cleaning Reply with quote

I got this lens something like a year ago, it looked nice but it wasn't working right: it didn't reach infinity, focus ring resistance was uneven, it had some serious dust inside and one of the inner elements had a short but quite deep scratch, luckily not in the center.
When I opened it i found it was in awful condition inside: there were metal bits ground away, missing screws. a misaligned element, grease everywhere a comlete mess, clearly the result of a repair attempt.
Little by little, i managed to bring it back to a acceptable working condition: I'm only missing the little metal tab that keeps the ball that makes aperture ring click pressed towards the ring itself, and finally today i brought it out for a walk, in the lovely medieval village of Castellarquato.
I wasn't really inspired in taking photos, but I think the lens behaved quite well: all pics between f5.6 and f8.
A little PP: slightly sharpened and straightened, flare was quite an issue in most case (i still haven't got a hood that fits this lens) so i pushed contrast in some.

1


2


3


4


5


6


7


8


PostPosted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

very good, you've saved a nice lens. Great pictures as well, you live in a beautiful place.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 7:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is something about the old autotakumars that i love, always have great blues and warmth to them
Very nice


PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lloydy wrote:
very good, you've saved a nice lens. Great pictures as well, you live in a beautiful place.

Thanks Lloyd,I'm really happy I was able to put it back into service. It's the oldest of the lenses I own (1959), and a beautiful piece of engineering. When I first opened it it was such a mess that I thought there was nothing to do.

eddieitman wrote:
There is something about the old autotakumars that i love, always have great blues and warmth to them
Very nice

Thanks. I adore older Takumars too, they render colors beautifully, sometimes I like them even more than the more recent ones.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

congrats for saving this special lens.
beautiful photos, beautiful place, amazing colors!
a hood for this lens is a good idea Wink

Aanything wrote:

Thanks. I adore older Takumars too, they render colors beautifully, sometimes I like them even more than the more recent ones.


right! sometimes I wonder why not more people have discovered that yet Wink


PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like the pictures a lot. Clear and crisp with beautiful colors.

Nice save on an obvious very nice lense.

Edit: I forgot to ask what you are using for a camera?


PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kuuan wrote:
congrats for saving this special lens.
beautiful photos, beautiful place, amazing colors!
a hood for this lens is a good idea Wink

Thanks Andreas: indeed, it's a Special one.

kuuan wrote:

Aanything wrote:

Thanks. I adore older Takumars too, they render colors beautifully, sometimes I like them even more than the more recent ones.

right! sometimes I wonder why not more people have discovered that yet Wink

There are already collectors hunting for them, let's hope users will concentrate on SMC's Wink


Schnauzer wrote:
I like the pictures a lot. Clear and crisp with beautiful colors.

Nice save on an obvious very nice lense.

Edit: I forgot to ask what you are using for a camera?


Thanks!
All pics are shot with my Sony a55.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for posting.

Far corners seem to remain fuzzy, even stopped down. See #4 for example.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bille wrote:
Thanks for posting.

Far corners seem to remain fuzzy, even stopped down. See #4 for example.


True, also in #7: I have to do some more aimed tests about that: thanks for pointing that out.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Obviously a success story. #7 has fine nostalgic mood. Top 2cm (sky) might be cropped.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very nice. Photogenic area too. 35mm has become one of my favorite focal lengths.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aanything wrote:

Thanks. I adore older Takumars too, they render colors beautifully, sometimes I like them even more than the more recent ones.

kuuan wrote:

right! sometimes I wonder why not more people have discovered that yet Wink

Aanything wrote:
There are already collectors hunting for them, let's hope users will concentrate on SMC's Wink


This particular lens has attracted collectors, I believe, because of it's beautiful and unique looking body, it's also rel. rare and supposedly at it's time had made strides for Pentax with reporters for being fast.

I consider most of the more common early Takumars rel. 'undiscovered'. Though not true for this particular lens they are very small and light and the presets, some Auto Taks have the aperture ring in front which makes them specially good for small mirrorless cameras.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pancolart wrote:
Obviously a success story. #7 has fine nostalgic mood. Top 2cm (sky) might be cropped.


Agree about cropping, thanks.

woodrim wrote:
Very nice. Photogenic area too. 35mm has become one of my favorite focal lengths.

Thanks woodrim.
The old village actually looks so good that it was chosen as a set for some shots from the movie Ladyhawke: the pics here don't fully do justice to the area, it's really a lovely location. 35mm is the FL I'd choose 90%of the times if I could bring only one lens.

kuuan wrote:
This particular lens has attracted collectors, I believe, because of it's beautiful and unique looking body, it's also rel. rare and supposedly at it's time had made strides for Pentax with reporters for being fast.

I consider most of the more common early Takumars rel. 'undiscovered'. Though not true for this particular lens they are very small and light and the presets, some Auto Taks have the aperture ring in front which makes them specially good for small mirrorless cameras.


Right, I think for example of the auto tak 200/5.6: it is for sure a little underrated.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aanything wrote:

Right, I think for example of the auto tak 200/5.6: it is for sure a little underrated.

There is no Auto-Takumar 200/5.6; I presume you mean the Tele-Takumar 200/5.6 (which is a preset lens), and I wholly agree with you; I have one and really love it. It always does amaze me how everyone loves the color rendring of SMC Pentax lenses, yet all of the the non-SMC Takumar lenses I've tried have had phenomenal colour rendering as well.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MacTak wrote:
Aanything wrote:

Right, I think for example of the auto tak 200/5.6: it is for sure a little underrated.

There is no Auto-Takumar 200/5.6; I presume you mean the Tele-Takumar 200/5.6 (which is a preset lens), and I wholly agree with you; I have one and really love it. It always does amaze me how everyone loves the color rendring of SMC Pentax lenses, yet all of the the non-SMC Takumar lenses I've tried have had phenomenal colour rendering as well.


You're right, I made confusion with names. A great lens, one of the few I regret selling.


PostPosted: Thu May 16, 2013 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NICE pics!

I have one but didn't use it too much. Hard to let it go


PostPosted: Thu May 16, 2013 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

feixianhu wrote:
NICE pics!

I have one but didn't use it too much. Hard to let it go


Thanks. Indeed it's a special lens. Not the most suitable for everyday use maybe, but a really nice one.
I'd love to try one in good condition to see how it works


PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2013 4:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I use Auto Takumar 35mm f2,3 on Canon EOS 5dmkII and it is one special lens. Unique bokeh, colors a bit on a cold side (like all Auto Takumars) and from f4 very sharp. Even far corners on FF camera are very good. Strange thing about the lens is that it produce more vigneting on f8 and f11 than wide open. Here is photo taken on f8:



PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2013 5:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

beautiful picture


PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:43 pm    Post subject: Takumar 35mm f2.3 Reply with quote

Hi

I'm new on this forum, not sure quite how things work here. I have a query for 'Aanything' but would be delighted to get help from anyone
with knowledge of this lens.

I have recently bought an Auto Takumar 35 f2.3 it appears to be in quite good nick for it's age both cosmetically and optically
however it does not focus to infinity and I would like to be able to adjust it.

I have spent a fair amount of time searching for information on this lens to no avail until I came across your (aanything) post suggesting that you had
pretty much done a full disassembly and service including adjusting infinity focus on this lens.

I realise that my query possibly opens a can of worms in terms of whether the lens really needs adjustment, I'm basing my assessment on trying the lens on a
Canon FD A1 body via a Canon lens mount converter P. I have a couple of other M42 lenses that work perfectly on this combination.
Also tried on both straight and Speedbooster versions of FD to E-mount adaptor (again using the Canon 'P' converter) these combinations have been adjusted by me to work perfectly with a wide assortment of FD lenses and with my other M42 mount lenses.

Back to the main issue, I have removed the front element and the front 'cone' (for want of a better description) and also the focus ring, at this point it is clear that things are quite different to other Takumars I have read about, and own. It may be that the lens has been incorrectly reassembled at some point and the wrong helicoid thread inpoint used, but I'm thinking that there must be some fine focus adjustment possible (I don't think it's that far out) but I can't for the life of me work out how to begin, and I'm reasonably practical.

For the record, I am no expert but have had a few lenses apart in the past and got them back together cleanly with no damage, and I'm fussy!! And like a challenge!

Basically...Help! Any advice you can give me based on your experience of having this interesting lens apart would be gratefully received. Apologies for the rather long post
hopefully it addresses most of the preliminary questions that I might have been asked!

David


PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

First thing I would do is see how far from infinity you actually are. If you have a mirrorless digital (it sounds as though you do) free lens it with the E-mount to canon adapter without the m42 and see if you can get infinity just holding a smidgen away from the canon mount. With imported m42 adapters there can be some variation. If it isn't too far off, the simplest solution might be purchase another m42 adapter and shave it with sandpaper.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank's for the reply, surely there is a way of correctly setting infinity focus rather than me fashioning a dedicated adaptor for this one lens!!


PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd like to explore the possibility of doing it properly before resorting to bodging it !

I'll give a few weeks at least! Wink

I have measured the adaptors I'm using, and I believe them to be spot on, so I have little doubt that the lens is out of adjustment.

I would be very surprised to find that a lens of this type does not have any means of adjustment, but if that really turns out to be the case then I will certainly consider grinding a cheap adaptor down to make it work!


PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just lost an auction for this lens, a few days ago. The winner bought it with approximately $ 3 extra. But now when I see what the problems are with this lens it can be better as I have not spent the money ... but the bokeh of this lens is a unique dream.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ha! Hi Edri, I guess it's likely it was me that beat you to it! Sorry! As you say, maybe you had a lucky escape! However in my limited experience, lenses this age
often have some issues, and this one, while far from perfect, actually looks pretty good and gives clean images as far as I've seen so far.

I've decided to keep it! and treat it as (hopefully) an interesting challenge. It is actually quite a lovely thing.

From the point of view of my being able to use it personally as a practical, and interesting piece of glass, I have some very cheap and easy solutions, including the very good
solution pointed out by the previous poster, the other simple thing that I can see should work would be for me to remove the end stop screw. Obviously the distance scale will not line up, or be in any way accurate, but the lens should be able to focus to infinity which is all I need from a purely practical point of view.

From a purist point of view, and for possible resale at some point, I'd love to do things properly.

It appears to be a very solid, well made bit of kit so I'm sure that it will be possible to carry out the necessary adjustments, hopefully with some guidance from the knowledgeable folk on this forum rather than a potentially more risky process of trial and error!!


Last edited by Kinosaur on Fri Dec 16, 2016 5:26 pm; edited 1 time in total