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

Uncommon focal length. Super Takumar 150 f4
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

oh whats a thread without some more photos Laughing Laughing





Yeah it's night time here so what wanna fight about it?

Goodness me, wide open (f4), hand held at 1/30th at iso1600 and you can still read our names on the fridge.


These ones still at f4, flash on, iso100 s=1/60th






Oh that wedding should be a bit of a hoot too Laughing

But yes. the old thing is plenty fine.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This 150mm is part of a incredible range of lenses with the same 49mm filter thread . This is the logic and in addition it means compact size.
I think that the biggest was a 200mm f5.6.
I have 28,55,105,150. I look for a 35 . Having the full range would be funny ( crazy?)


PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All 150mm Pentax lenses except 645 and 67`s

M42 Takumar:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/S-M-C-Super-Takumar-150mm-F4.html

SMC Pentax:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-K-150mm-F4-Lens.html

SMC Pentax-M:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-M-150mm-F3.5-Lens.html


PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

memetph wrote:
Having the full range would be funny ( crazy?)


Yes. I was laughing very much! A crazy laugh too. Laughing I sold 35/3.5 (keep 35/2) and sold 135/3.5 (keep 135/2.5) and sold 150...


Last edited by visualopsins on Wed Mar 05, 2014 3:20 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

nah when you have the whole set Voltron becomes unstoppable.... oh right..



Anyway I wanted to champion the 150mm more so I turned it back on. Everything wide open on a Pentax K10 at iso400 unless stated otherwise. , oh and jpegs of jpegs of course hahaha/






Are potato's still a thing? These dam things were growing wildly in my yard. Cheers lads. Bit of Green and purple. the problem I noticed right away is the short focus distance. In that it's not short. If you are 1800cm away its ok. otherwise forget it. Hence why others have found more use for this thing to be a mid distance lens I suspect.



But because of that you get stupid shallow dof with 150mm at f4. So all you who carry on about blur and crap. Surely short light tele's are your thing?




Here we have f4, and then f8. Focuses down to 1800cm. yeah.. Blur alright.




By now this guy was like. *SH!!!!!!!!!T.. is that a 150mm Super Takumar? Daaaaaaaaam!

Note the bright sky right behind him and the lack of green and purple dragons. yeah its not so bad. But then..




Yes that last image was so blown, so where the fringes hahaha. Yep green and purple for everyone. But sh1t man. That is the afternoon sun overhead.

Do you guys have Magpies over there?

Aaaah 150mm.. You Son of a B.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Man that is the oldest Hills hoist I have ever seen. Shocked
Looks like it has survived the depredations of swinging children with a few scars Very Happy
OH


PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laughing Laughing

It does come from an old style house in an old suburb of Melbourne. But yes, more metal in that thing then a new car.

They really were made of building girders weren't they? :p


PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some images this morning with this light, short-tele Super-Takumar.
Quite pleased.
Tom


#1


#2


#3


#4


PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have just realised that there is no picture of this lens still on this thread.
Here we go
T


#1


PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lovely shots Thomas. Seems to me that during that era Pentax had more FL than most lens makers. 20,24,28,35,50,55,85,105, 120, 135, 150, 200, 300, and 500. You would need a pack mule but you would be ready for ANYTHING! I have at least one of each FL except the 500mm. Many of them in super takumar and S-M-C.I like them a lot.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like 1 Like 1 Like 1 rare find!! Great results!!


PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jamaeolus wrote:
Lovely shots Thomas. Seems to me that during that era Pentax had more FL than most lens makers. 20,24,28,35,50,55,85,105, 120, 135, 150, 200, 300, and 500. You would need a pack mule but you would be ready for ANYTHING! I have at least one of each FL except the 500mm. Many of them in super takumar and S-M-C.I like them a lot.


Remember the 1000mm! And the 15mm, 17mm! Those are the primes. There are zooms too!


PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was tempted by these flowers which opened this morning.
Taken with a small extension tube to decrease the mfd.
Tom


#1


#2


#3


#4


PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice pics with a nice lens. I have one too but find myself rarely using it because it's slower than the 135s I own and doesn't give me a noticeably big difference in field of view, nor better quality than the Vivitar 135 CF, nor the super sharp (and really heavy) Samyang 135/2. But I should probably drag it out more.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In most ways extremely close in specs and performance to the very common Super Takumar 135/3.5, for most purposes, so a bit of a collectors item, but perhaps the bokeh is smoother. Its a very different formula than the 135/3.5.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very nice Tom, obviously a nice lens as well. Like 1 small


PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

luisalegria wrote:
In most ways extremely close in specs and performance to the very common Super Takumar 135/3.5, for most purposes, so a bit of a collectors item, but perhaps the bokeh is smoother. Its a very different formula than the 135/3.5.


Yes!

From Gerjan:

ST version I marked on A/M switch 43740 with 5/4 formula, 320g.
ST version II 43741 5/5 325g.

There was short period before August 1967 where version I lenses had the 43741 marking. The formula for those is unclear...might be determined by 5g greater weight of 5/5. Gerjan implies they are 5/4.

Edit: 5/4 has larger rear element. ST II switch is labeled Auto/Man.

Which lenses are on display here? Laughing


PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
luisalegria wrote:
In most ways extremely close in specs and performance to the very common Super Takumar 135/3.5, for most purposes, so a bit of a collectors item, but perhaps the bokeh is smoother. Its a very different formula than the 135/3.5.


Yes!

From Gerjan:

ST version I marked on A/M switch 43740 with 5/4 formula, 320g.
ST version II 43741 5/5 325g.

There was short period before August 1967 where version I lenses had the 43741 marking. The formula for those is unclear...might be determined by 5g greater weight of 5/5. Gerjan implies they are 5/4.

Edit: 5/4 has larger rear element. ST II switch is labeled Auto/Man.

Which lenses are on display here? Laughing


Thanks for the kind words everyone.
Hmmmm - which version?
Well it has 43741 on the auto/man switch and it might be 320g - my kitchen scales are not what I would call critically accurate.
So it could be the before August 1967 where version I lenses had the 43741 marking, or possibly the ST version II 43741 5/5 325g
The Switch is labelled Auto/Man - so ST II????
Tom


PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

erkie wrote:


I don't believe I have ever read anything that would explain this focul length, And I've never seen another 150mm. It would work as a portrait lens on film for me but it's pretty tight on my dslr.

Eric


I have a couple of 150mm primes, one is a Schneider-kreuznach componon - s 5.6 150 enlarger lens, and the other is a really weird process thing that probably doesn't count as a photographic lens. It's a 'Fax Rokkor' I have removed the mirror that was behind the lens but not yet sorted a way to mount it (it has unusual screw threads). So far the mirror has proved more useful for photography than the lens.

I also have 120mm & 180mm lenses that I consider to be unusual focal lengths (135 & 200 being the regulars in this region)


PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excuse my fascination with these lilies but they are an excellent subject for this lens.
Tom


#1


#1


#2


#3


PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ST II!

Takumar colors on display. Smile (Those lillies are excellent subject for photography period, yes!)