Takumar 300/f4

[Arturo]

I just purchased a non-SMC Takumar 300mm/f4. It came with original case and lens cap. Features:

- 18 blade, front-mounted aperture
- closes to f32
- tripod sleeve
- integrated retractable hood

This was something of an impulse buy so I have no idea if it's good or not. Does anyone have this exact configuration? Comments? Images? I'll use it with a 5D and Scarlet.

Thank you!

[luisalegria]

If its the big old preset one (no stopdown pin on the lens mount, just labelled "Takumar") its rather soft wide open.
I had one for a few years.

http://forum.mflenses.com/takumar-300-4-manual-a-big-hunk-of-glass-t7746,highlight,%2Btakumar.html

If its the automatic Super Takumar, its a darn good lens indeed.

[Arturo]

Yes, I believe that is my lens, although I don't know what a stop-down pin is (no pin at all on this mount). I'm sorry to hear it's soft. I should have done my homework. In any case, I could probably sell it for what I paid, particularly since it comes with the orignal lens cap and case.

[luisalegria]

The automatic M42 mount has a pin protruding from the edge of the screw mount barrel that is pressed by a plate inside the camera when the shutter is tripped. This pin closes the aperture blades to the taking aperture you selected.
Thats what was at the time called "automatic" operation.

Before this the aperture blades had to be closed manually.

The old Takumar preset and manual lenses had no such pins. The mount was just a screw.

[cooltouch]

[tromboads]

f8 is far to late. More so, I haven't come across any lens that is not good by f8.

When I wss looking for a 300mm and settled for the Tair 3. It had a closer focusing distance, and a tripod collar built in. Happy happy Joy joy. But then i read your early Tak has one too. That's good

[Rolf]

I own this lens too as well as the S-M-C Tak 4/300 mm.

Overall the later one is the better performer and more lightweight and shorter.

L. mentioned it before, the older one is (very) soft. Anyway it is usable for special situations.

[luisalegria]

I find, with long tele lenses, that if you want one with large aperture its because you need to use it at that aperture.
If you didn't need a 300/4 you could be using instead a much smaller and cheaper 300/5.6.
So a 300/4 should be good enough at f/4
Some people say that on the old large aperture types the wide apertures are just for focusing, and the taking aperture something less.
I don't find this especially useful, as if a lens is not sharp enough to use for taking wide open its probably not going to be very good for focusing wide open either.

[Arturo]

I'll try to shoot and publish some tests this weekend. I'm hoping it's a good lens but I'm not holding my breath. If it's no good I'll sell it.

[cooltouch]

I gotta agree with your reasoning Luis.

I personally select fast lenses based on their performance wide open because there will definitely be times that I'll want to take advantage of the shallow depth of field, but I don't want to be giving up IQ. So if sharpness isn't there, or if it has other problems like ghosting flare, for example, when shooting wide open, then much of the lens's value has been eliminated for me. And yes, if it's soft wide open that often makes it from difficult to impossible to focus accurately. I'm reminded of a very rare Vivitar Professional 135mm f/1.5 that I owned for years. It was a huge lens, but man was it soft wide open, and it was just about impossible to focus at f/1.5.