MFlenses - A new life in a digital age
MFLenses 2026

Manual Focus Lenses Forum

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.
DiskFreeVault safely moves Mac apps and data to external storage.
Spotlight

Featured partner placement for the forum front page.

My Takumar collection ( from 15 to 1000mm )
Post new topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  


Post
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:42 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:42 pm
Post subject:
Reply
rawhead wrote:

I take that to mean that when it comes to the IQ, you prefer the 135/2.8? I only ask because a 135 is most likely going to be my next purchase (and it will be my first 135) and so I'm keen learning about that focal length.


Whats exactly IQ ?

In my 135mm, I prefer the S-M-C 135/2.5 V2, far away. An extremely sharp lens, even wide opened Shocked The preset one is a bit too subject to flare, the S-M-C 135/3.5 is smaller but very sharp too, it's more a money question beetween 2.5 and 3.5 I think Wink I had the Super Takumar 135/2.5 (5/4 construction), it was much soft than the S-M-C 135/2.5 V2 (6/6 construction) Wink

Mal1905 wrote:


A truly beautiful lens, and beautifully photographed too - I want one of these Wink


I was selling one at 40 EUR (the price I paid it in a professionnal shop with 6 months warranty), it was sold few days ago with my S-M-C 135/2.5 V2 Rolling Eyes


New Takumar of the day :


(self picture)


Post
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:17 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:17 am
Post subject:
Reply
CarbonR, that 35/2.3 is a beautiful piece of glass. Can we have a side view of the lens? Very Happy


Post
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:28 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:28 am
Post subject:
Reply
Laurence wrote:
CarbonR, that 35/2.3 is a beautiful piece of glass. Can we have a side view of the lens? Very Happy


He's teasing us!!! Rolling Eyes


Post
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:24 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:24 pm
Post subject:
Reply
35/2.3 is the longest 35mm Takumar lens. The first high-speed 35mm retrofocal design. Very sharp at f/8 and has zero CA. Till f/5 the lens isn't sharp (too many air-glass surfaces without MC layers: 6/5 design), but at f/8 it's very, very good.

Unfortunately, I sold this lens. It was the most stupid decision I have ever made in relation to MFL.


Post
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:28 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:28 pm
Post subject:
Reply
no-X wrote:
35/2.3 is the longest 35mm Takumar lens. The first high-speed 35mm retrofocal design. Very sharp at f/8 and has zero CA. Till f/5 the lens isn't sharp (too many air-glass surfaces without MC layers: 6/5 design), but at f/8 it's very, very good.


Unfortunately, I sold this lens. It was the most stupid decision I have ever made in relation to MFL.



HI, No-X

And compared with the flektogon 2,4/35?


Rino.


Post
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:30 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:30 pm
Post subject:
Reply
no-X wrote:
Unfortunately, I sold this lens. It was the most stupid decision I have ever made in relation to MFL.


You think that was stupid? I once owned and sold:

- 35mm f/2.3 Auto-Takumar
- 35mm f/4 Takumar
- 17mm f/4 S-M-C Fish-Eye Takumar (a mint one, dammit!)
- 400mm f/5.6 Tele-Takumar
- 100mm f/4 S-M-C Macro-Takumar

And now I don't have them in my collection anymore Crying or Very sad


Post
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:46 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:46 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Spotmatic: 35/2.3 is piece of history. 35/4 can be interesting, but I think it can be similar to Primagon 35/4.5 (same design, same time). The others aren't as interesting to me as the 35/2.3 Smile

estudleon: My Auto Tak had really zero CA. Flektogon isn't CA-free. Comparing results for f/7 or above, Takumar had a bit higher centre resolution and a bit softer cornes, but despite this, the results looked more natural to me. I like Flektogon as a close-up lens and Takumars (35/2.3, 35/2 PRO, 35/3.5) for landscapes.


Post
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:19 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:19 pm
Post subject:
Reply
I have a question. I'm hearing many people say great things about the Tak. 35/3.5. I have a Super-Takumar 35/3.5, and frankly, haven't thought too much about it. I picked it up on Ebay for $30 to use primarily as a cheap macro lens, reversed or on a bellows (and in that respect, it's great, although I've since bought the D FA 100m f2.8 Macro, so it's seldom used for that now). I've taken snaps, but that's really what they looked like, plain ol' snaps. Nothing to write home about.


So, are we talking about different lenses here? Is the SMC 35/3.5 something different? Does it have to do with the fact that I've only seen this at work on an APS-C dSLR? What's the deal?


Post
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:54 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:54 pm
Post subject:
Reply
I thought that Super-Tak and S-M-C Tak 35/3.5 use the same optical design.

Anyway, I have experience only with S-M-C. Sharpness is good (of course slightly lower than on 50mm lenses, but compared to other 35mm lenses, this one is one of the best):

RAW conversions, no sharpening applied:



Post
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:58 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:58 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Spotmatic wrote:
no-X wrote:
Unfortunately, I sold this lens. It was the most stupid decision I have ever made in relation to MFL.


You think that was stupid? I once owned and sold:

- 35mm f/2.3 Auto-Takumar
- 35mm f/4 Takumar
- 17mm f/4 S-M-C Fish-Eye Takumar (a mint one, dammit!)
- 400mm f/5.6 Tele-Takumar
- 100mm f/4 S-M-C Macro-Takumar

And now I don't have them in my collection anymore Crying or Very sad


The only Takumar I sell are the ones whiwch I have twice times, each time I sell one, I keep the best lens Razz

I received my Tele Takumar few days ago but it will need some servicing, even I paid for professionnal servicing, it won't be expensive : I paid it 61 EUR including shipping Razz
The 17/4 I don't have yet, I lost some too good auctions (including one mint in box, sold approx 200 EUR), and the 100/4 does not interest me so far, I don't like the focusing ring with rubber Laughing

I'll post few pics of the 35/2.3 ASAP Wink


Post
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:32 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:32 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Auto Takumar 35/2.3 :

Family portrait with S-M-C 35/2 (left) and S-M-C 35/3.5 (right) :


With the brother Auto Takumar 55/2.2 :


To give an idea of the heigh, next to the S-M-C 135/2.5 V2 :


A 100% crop @2.3, handheld :


Post
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:41 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:41 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Greats family pics

The grandpa and grandma are very well conservated.Smile


Rino.


Post
Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:36 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:36 am
Post subject:
Reply
Well, after having kept up with this thread for a while, I just had to put in a bid for this... and apparetnly won it Wink



Click here to see on Ebay



We'll see if the thing is really what the seller says it is, in the condition that s/he said it was in... after all, no pictures, no nothing Laughing At least it's cheap enough so that it won't be too big of a loss if not." target="_blank">Click here to see on Ebay.de


Post
Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 1:53 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 1:53 am
Post subject:
Reply
rawhead wrote:
Well, after having kept up with this thread for a while, I just had to put in a bid for this... and apparetnly won it Wink

Click here to see on Ebay

We'll see if the thing is really what the seller says it is, in the condition that s/he said it was in... after all, no pictures, no nothing Laughing At least it's cheap enough so that it won't be too big of a loss if not." target="_blank">Click here to see on Ebay.de


I am betting it's in good shape. I haven't seen very many thrashed Pentax lenses. And...NICE price! These are very fine lenses from what I hear, and the pre-set is always a very handy thing to have, in my opinion. Can't wait to see your images of the lens, and images from the lens.


Post
Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 2:23 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 2:23 am
Post subject:
Reply
Laurence wrote:
NICE price!



I know! Don't you think? It's probably because there wasn't a photo, and how the seller spelled "Asehi Takumer" Laughing Laughing Laughing


Will do some uploading as soon as it arrives!


Post
Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 6:27 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 6:27 am
Post subject:
Reply
Laurence wrote:


I am betting it's in good shape. I haven't seen very many thrashed Pentax lenses. And...NICE price! These are very fine lenses from what I hear, and the pre-set is always a very handy thing to have, in my opinion. Can't wait to see your images of the lens, and images from the lens.




You were right, it was in good shape! Cosmetically near perfect. Optically, several very fine hairline wipe marks on the front element, and your usual specks of dust inside, but no fungus, and no clouding. I like how it mounts on my Spotmatic, kind of phalic if you ask me :-DDD


I'll throw it on my Kiss F within the next couple of days to see how it performs.

[EDIT: Image resized to 900w]


Post
Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:47 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:47 am
Post subject:
Reply
I just ordered my first Takumar lens. Found it in an interesting little used camera store with an online inventory. I'm excited; I thought I'd never find one of these!



It's that pesky Asahiflex mount and I don't know how I'll mount it (though a forum member tells me he's got a bunch of adapters being machined at the moment).


Post
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:31 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:31 am
Post subject:
Reply
Just a couple of quckie test shots from the Takumar 135/3.5. So far I like! Wink





Post
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:09 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:09 am
Post subject:
Reply
Today I receiced some macro equipment Very Happy

Asahi Pentax Bellows II, Asahi Pentax Slide Copier, Asahi Pentax Microscope Adapter II, all is like new, absolutely no scratches or paint loss Twisted Evil And I'm waiting S-M-C 28/3.5 and 150/4 Razz


Post
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:08 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:08 pm
Post subject:
Reply
rawhead wrote:
Just a couple of quckie test shots from the Takumar 135/3.5. So far I like! Wink


Message to rawhead:

I have had to resize your pictures again. I think you already know that the maximum width is 900px in this forum. If you can't resize them yourself then could you please use the Upload Picture button above the message panel, which resizes them automatically, or if they really need to be over 900 wide, post them in the Oversize Gallery. Thanks, Peter.


Post
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 2:10 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 2:10 pm
Post subject:
Reply
peterqd wrote:
rawhead wrote:
Just a couple of quckie test shots from the Takumar 135/3.5. So far I like! Wink


Message to rawhead:

I have had to resize your pictures again. I think you already know that the maximum width is 900px in this forum. If you can't resize them yourself then could you please use the Upload Picture button above the message panel, which resizes them automatically, or if they really need to be over 900 wide, post them in the Oversize Gallery. Thanks, Peter.



Oops, sorry about that, I wasn't thinking about sizes when I linked photos. I'll be careful. I figured linking would be better so that I wouldn't be using your bandwidth, but since Flickr won't let me select specific sizes (and I default to 1024px for all my Flickr uploads), I guess I'll just have to stick w/ uploading.

Incidentally, what happens when I upload to the oversize gallery and link that picture here? Does it get automatically resized to 900px?


Post
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 2:41 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 2:41 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Better yet, if there could be a "width=" tag that can be used with [img], that would be perfect. So, even for a 1024 px external image that I'm linking to (e.g., at Flickr), I could do something like


[img width="900px"]http://www.somesite.com/biggerthan900pximage.jpg[/img]


or, even better than that, there could be a maxwidth="900px" parameter that would be the default, so that any external pic that is linked will stay the same size if smaller than 900px, but will get resized to 900px if larger. Please consider Smile


Post
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 7:15 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 7:15 pm
Post subject:
Reply
rawhead wrote:
Oops, sorry about that, I wasn't thinking about sizes when I linked photos. I'll be careful. I figured linking would be better so that I wouldn't be using your bandwidth, but since Flickr won't let me select specific sizes (and I default to 1024px for all my Flickr uploads), I guess I'll just have to stick w/ uploading.

Incidentally, what happens when I upload to the oversize gallery and link that picture here? Does it get automatically resized to 900px?

Thanks for your understanding. We had a very long discussion about this last year which unfortunately became heated at times, so I don't want to go over all that ground again. You can read the whole thread here:
http://forum.mflenses.com/protest-about-picture-widths-t9871.html

On page 4, 3rd message, I posted 2 pics to show what happens when someone posts a picture over 900 wide. The problem is not so much the picture itself, but that it forces the text to extend well beyond the right edge of the screen, making it necessary to scroll backwards and forwards to read every line. And this affects every message on that page of the thread, not just the one message.

So, as Chris pointed out, it's really a text wrapping problem, but this doesn't happen (at 1280x1024 resolution) if pictures are kept within the 900 limit. I don't have any privileges to add BBCode tags myself, I think only Attila can do that but, as you'll see, this was discussed in the thread too.

If you use the Upload Picture button, it will always resize pics to max 900px wide or 785px high, even in the Oversized Gallery. We created this gallery for posting pics over 900 wide, such as panoramas, so that's the place to post anything >900 if you feel it's that important. Alternatively you can resize a picture yourself to 900 max (or use the Upload button) or post a clickable "thumbnail" with a link to the full size image. Here's the syntax if you need it.

Code:
[url=URL of large image][img]URL of thumbnail[/img][/url]


Thanks again Smile


Post
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:07 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:07 pm
Post subject:
Reply
peterqd wrote:

Thanks for your understanding.



No worries, I see what the issue is. Whenever I wanted to post a pic that I already have uploaded on Flickr, I thought it would be better for your server if I linked to it rather than upload it, but then I didn't think about the size issue when I did. I will be happy to upload every time rather than link, and I'm usually not self-conscious enough to think my pictures have to be viewed at larger than 900px Very HappyD


Still, for the sake of bandwidth preservation on your end (end some convenience on our end), it would be great if there can be a very simple html tag that takes care of the linked images' size issue by specifying a max width.

Thanks for giving me those links, I will certainly read up!


Post
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:52 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:52 pm
Post subject:
Reply
rawhead wrote:
Still, for the sake of bandwidth preservation on your end (end some convenience on our end), it would be great if there can be a very simple html tag that takes care of the linked images' size issue by specifying a max width.

Thanks for giving me those links, I will certainly read up!

It's nothing to do with me, rawhead. Attila owns the forum and chooses the server, and I think he is the person you should talk to about tags. I don't think there's any problem about storage space but you'll have to ask him to confirm.

When you read the thread in the link you 'll see there were suggestions about using tags for resizing images, but some people felt this was a bad idea because most browsers have a pretty poor resizing algorithm that damages the IQ. Also smaller images are upsized, which makes things even worse, so the idea was dropped.

Just for info, I don't use Flikr etc. What I do is size images myself and upload them to my personal web storage space with FTP, and link to there in the message.
Post new topic Reply to topic
Goto pagePrevious 1 2 3 4 … 15 16 17 Next
Page 3 of 17