| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Stoneman227
Joined: 24 Oct 2021
Posts: 13
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2021 6:10 pm Post subject: S-M-C Takumar 120/2.8 |
 |
|
Stoneman227 wrote:
Finally got a chance to try this lens on full frame (Sony A7II)
 Takumar 120 2.8 by stoneman227, on Flickr
 Takumar 120 2.8 g by stoneman227, on Flickr
 Takumar 120 2.8 f by stoneman227, on Flickr
 Takumar 120 2.8 e by stoneman227, on Flickr
 Takumar 120 2.8 d by stoneman227, on Flickr
 Takumar 120 2.8 c by stoneman227, on Flickr
 Takumar 120 2.8 b by stoneman227, on Flickr |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DigiChromeEd
Joined: 29 Dec 2009
Posts: 3462
Location: Northern Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2021 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DigiChromeEd wrote:
_________________
"I've got a Nikon camera, I like to take a photograph" - Paul Simon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dejan
Joined: 05 Jan 2021
Posts: 142
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2021 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dejan wrote:
Wonderful set of images. I'm not overly familiar with the lens' qualities, but I do like what I see here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019
Posts: 834
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2021 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
Looks like a nice balance between sharpness and bokeh.
_________________
Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stoneman227
Joined: 24 Oct 2021
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2021 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Stoneman227 wrote:
I didn't keep notes but the F-stops were as follows
#1 , f 2.8
#2 , f 5.6
#3 , f 16
#4 , f 5.6
#5 , f 2.8
#6 , f 2.8
#7 , f 5.6 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manichaean
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 68
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 7:00 am Post subject: Re: S-M-C Takumar 120/2.8 |
|
|
Manichaean wrote:
| Stoneman227 wrote: |
| Finally got a chance to try this lens on full frame (Sony A7II) |
Is it the same design as SMC Pentax 120mm f2.8 (K-series)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013
Posts: 6009
Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 7:13 am Post subject: Re: S-M-C Takumar 120/2.8 |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
| Manichaean wrote: |
| Stoneman227 wrote: |
| Finally got a chance to try this lens on full frame (Sony A7II) |
Is it the same design as SMC Pentax 120mm f2.8 (K-series)? |
Very similar, but I don't think that they are identical.
Tom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 2494
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 9:17 am Post subject: Re: S-M-C Takumar 120/2.8 |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
| Oldhand wrote: |
| Manichaean wrote: |
| Stoneman227 wrote: |
| Finally got a chance to try this lens on full frame (Sony A7II) |
Is it the same design as SMC Pentax 120mm f2.8 (K-series)? |
Very similar, but I don't think that they are identical.
Tom |
The optical formula was carried over from the takumar, but the K-series takes 52mm filters so maybe slightly adapted, but then again. That wouldn't be very economical because they couldn't use the same glass in both lenses. Their production overlaps in 1975/76 The K version is more rare than the Takumar. The Pentax-M 120mm F2.8 is a totally new design.
_________________
pentaxian
Last edited by D1N0 on Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:29 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 2926
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
I used to have the ‘K’ version of this lens. I bought it out of curiosity. Its performance however, was IMO comparable to most Japanese A brand 135/2.8’s, so pretty solid. In some reviews softness wide open is reported. I didn’t see that really. Improper manual focusing skills are often confused with ‘softness wide open’ 😋.
I finally sold it because I prefer slightly shorter focal lengths for portraits. But for some photographers 120mm may just be perfect 👍. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Sharptail
Joined: 23 Nov 2020
Posts: 993
Location: Winnipeg Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Doc Sharptail wrote:
| caspert79 wrote: |
I used to have the ‘K’ version of this lens. I bought it out of curiosity. Its performance however, was IMO comparable to most Japanese A brand 135/2.8’s, so pretty solid. In some reviews softness wide open is reported. I didn’t see that really. Improper manual focusing skills are often confused with ‘softness wide open’ 😋.
I finally sold it because I prefer slightly shorter focal lengths for portraits. But for some photographers 120mm may just be perfect 👍. |
I'll agree with this ~ up to a point.
Some well known internet reviewers have maligned some of the lenses I own, and I really don't see why they deserve the negative commentary.
When I think about it, it could be something as simple as sample variation - but in the Nikkor line?
Perhaps. Could be a combination of both the above, and sample variation.
Don't get me wrong... I've had some junk 3rd party lenses pass through my hands.
I think if it's a reasonably priced film era first party lens in reasonable shape at a good price, it's worth a try...
-D.S.
_________________
D-810, F2, FTN.
35mm f2 O.C. nikkor
50 f2 H nikkor, 50 f 1.4 AI-s, 135 f3.5 Q,
50 f2 K nikkor 2x, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 35-105 3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 200mm f4 Micro A/I, partial list.
"Ain't no half-way" -S.R.V.
"Oh Yeah... Alright" -Paul Simon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jamaeolus
Joined: 19 Mar 2014
Posts: 2929
Location: Eugene
Expire: 2015-08-20
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jamaeolus wrote:
_________________
photos are moments frozen in time |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stoneman227
Joined: 24 Oct 2021
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Stoneman227 wrote:
| caspert79 wrote: |
In some reviews softness wide open is reported. I didn’t see that really. Improper manual focusing skills are often confused with ‘softness wide open’ 😋.
|
For some reason I had issues nailing the focus with this lens when I first got it. Not sure why , as oddly enough, it was the only lens that I felt it was a crap shoot to get perfect focus with and I've focused with everything from non-coupled rangefinders to ground glass large format. The zoom assist on my current camera helps reliably hit the focus I want now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 2926
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
| Stoneman227 wrote: |
| caspert79 wrote: |
In some reviews softness wide open is reported. I didn’t see that really. Improper manual focusing skills are often confused with ‘softness wide open’ 😋.
|
For some reason I had issues nailing the focus with this lens when I first got it. Not sure why , as oddly enough, it was the only lens that I felt it was a crap shoot to get perfect focus with and I've focused with everything from non-coupled rangefinders to ground glass large format. The zoom assist on my current camera helps reliably hit the focus I want now. |
To be fair, that's the only reliable way to nail the focus at wider apertures (at least on my Sony A7R2). On some systems, like (older) dSLR's without live view, it may be very hard. I remember this from when I was a student, when I used camera's such as the Eos 350d and Nikon D200. On some camera's I replaced the focusing glass by an ultra bright one. The optical viewfinders of these camera's were very small, especially because I was used to the incredibly great viewfinder of my last analogue camera, the Dynax 9xi. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KEO
Joined: 27 Sep 2018
Posts: 761
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2021 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
KEO wrote:
I'm surprised there aren't a few more 120mm lenses out there, frankly. I find the focal length quite comfortable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 2494
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2021 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
It was a Pentax thing to make intermediate focal lengths. 120,150mm but they also had a 30, 40mm (more common). Later on they came with the limited series with 31,43 and 77mm. The rise of zooms killed the 120 and 150
_________________
pentaxian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011
Posts: 3669
Location: Calgary
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/Super-Multi-Coated-TAKUMAR-120mm-F2.8.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-K-120mm-F2.8-Lens.html
Formula looks the same, I don't know if there was a revision to the curvature of surfaces.
_________________
A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 2494
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
Takumar/K
Pentax-M
Still hunting for this one
The Takumar version is a variation on the 105 and 135 takumars
_________________
pentaxian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stoneman227
Joined: 24 Oct 2021
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2021 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Stoneman227 wrote:
| D1N0 wrote: |
The Takumar version is a variation on the 105 and 135 takumars |
This jogged a memory .
When I bought this lens , my local pro camera dealer let me take this lens and a SMC 135 / 2.5 home to play with . Maybe it was just that particular 135 , but my 120 Tak was in a totally different class performance wise and the 135 was returned and I kept the 120. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stoneman227
Joined: 24 Oct 2021
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2021 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Stoneman227 wrote:
Here is a blast from the past (2008) taken with this lens and Sony's original A100 . I got lucky and hit the focus fairly well.
 dog smc 120_edited-1web by stoneman227, on Flickr |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 10541
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2021 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
| Stoneman227 wrote: |
| D1N0 wrote: |
The Takumar version is a variation on the 105 and 135 takumars |
This jogged a memory .
When I bought this lens , my local pro camera dealer let me take this lens and a SMC 135 / 2.5 home to play with . Maybe it was just that particular 135 , but my 120 Tak was in a totally different class performance wise and the 135 was returned and I kept the 120. |
Was that a K-mount SMC Pentax 1:2.5 / 135 or or one of the two M42 Super-Multi-Coated 1:2.5 / 135 versions? 
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stoneman227
Joined: 24 Oct 2021
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2021 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Stoneman227 wrote:
| visualopsins wrote: |
| Stoneman227 wrote: |
| D1N0 wrote: |
The Takumar version is a variation on the 105 and 135 takumars |
This jogged a memory .
When I bought this lens , my local pro camera dealer let me take this lens and a SMC 135 / 2.5 home to play with . Maybe it was just that particular 135 , but my 120 Tak was in a totally different class performance wise and the 135 was returned and I kept the 120. |
Was that a K-mount SMC Pentax 1:2.5 / 135 or or one of the two M42 Super-Multi-Coated 1:2.5 / 135 versions? |
It was a m42 mount , beyond that I'm not sure if it was the earlier or later design. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 2494
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2021 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
| Stoneman227 wrote: |
| D1N0 wrote: |
The Takumar version is a variation on the 105 and 135 takumars |
This jogged a memory .
When I bought this lens , my local pro camera dealer let me take this lens and a SMC 135 / 2.5 home to play with . Maybe it was just that particular 135 , but my 120 Tak was in a totally different class performance wise and the 135 was returned and I kept the 120. |
I was referring to the 135mm F3.5 The F2.5 had different designs especially the second version which is excellent. The first version is a bit meh
_________________
pentaxian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stoneman227
Joined: 24 Oct 2021
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Stoneman227 wrote:
| D1N0 wrote: |
| Stoneman227 wrote: |
| D1N0 wrote: |
The Takumar version is a variation on the 105 and 135 takumars |
This jogged a memory .
When I bought this lens , my local pro camera dealer let me take this lens and a SMC 135 / 2.5 home to play with . Maybe it was just that particular 135 , but my 120 Tak was in a totally different class performance wise and the 135 was returned and I kept the 120. |
I was referring to the 135mm F3.5 The F2.5 had different designs especially the second version which is excellent. The first version is a bit meh |
I see , I have passed on the 3.5 a few times and never gave it a go . The first version of the 2.5 may well have been the one I tried. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manichaean
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 68
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Manichaean wrote:
Just got the K-mount version of this lens in good condition and full set (hood, case, original caps)  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stoneman227
Joined: 24 Oct 2021
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2021 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Stoneman227 wrote:
| Manichaean wrote: |
| Just got the K-mount version of this lens in good condition and full set (hood, case, original caps) |
Excellent !
Be sure to post some examples from it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
