Old Takumar 200/3.5 preset - Frankensteins monster !

[luisalegria]

I brought this lens back from the dead -



Just some surgery, a few bolts in the neck, some electricity (in the Dremel) and "Its Aliiive !".

This was purchased cheap as "parts or repair". Someone had dropped the lens on the screw mount, bending various parts, And then someone tried to repair it, with a hammer apparently. I straightened the mount ring (with a hammer), bolted it on with some tapped holes, and voila, not really as good as new, but functioning. All its parts are loose and the whole thing rattles, but the glass is good, with just a bit of fungus.

This is the second generation of Takumar 200mm lenses, but still plain "Takumar", not "Super", and still preset, not automatic. Compared to the elegant, later 200/4, its a cumbersome monster. I see Attila rates it quite low.

In use its quite nice actually. Its rather soft wide open, but I like the rendering, and it sharpens up very well when stopped down a bit.


































The bird -




crop -

[voytek]

Very sharp!

[Attila]

Very nice ! Especially last samples!

[luisalegria]

I have been rethinking some of my old opinions, after considering the differences in results I've been seeing between old and new pictures taken with some of my collection.
All my old posts were done with the Pentax K100D, a 6mp camera.
These days I am using a Pentax k-x, 12mp
So its reasonably to assume that a denser sensor may reach the limits of some lenses.
12mp on APS-C is a fairly dense sensor, equivalent to 28mp on a full frame body, though of course there are denser ones yet.

As for this lens in particular - for some reason I decided it was rather soft wide open.
I have literally not touched it in years, so I thought to give it a test.

So, my usual benchmarks, the seagull closeup and the SF Bay bridge at infinity. On a foggy afternoon, because as Attila says, bright sunshine does make the best of bad lenses. All wide open, no contrast enhancement and no sharpening beyond whatever the camera does to make jpg's.
My opinion now is that 12mp is a bit much for this lens at infinity, but its quite decent close up. I have certainly seen worse.
Of course my copy isn't in perfect shape, and it could easily be misaligned because it was was badly mistreated at some point.





The bird -

[cooltouch]

Whohooa! Nice sharp pics, that first set, Luis! Still respectable, the second set.

You weren't kidding about that being a Frankenstein lens, were ya? I can see the bolts! Look like big brass ones! Okay, screws, but a little creative license, please.

One thing I've always known about Pentax from the first time I ever shot with their lenses, which was over 20 years ago, is that they are just simply scary sharp. I was shooting K-mount lenses when I developed this opinion, observation, whatever. But I've seen enough images here and elsewhere in recent years, taken with M42 Taks, so that I now realize their reputation extends well beyond the advent of the K mount. I have known indirectly about the quality of the old M42 Takumars, based on the praise I often heard. But the praise wasn't confirmed for me until some years later.

Back some twenty years ago and more, when I used to go to camera shows to sell and buy photo equipment, I would occasionally be given an impromptu lecture by more than one crusty old curmudgeon about the quality of the M42 Pentax gear. These old fellows were loyal and adamant, proudly wearing their Spotmatics like medals as they perused and rummaged through all the old gear. If I ever felt like being entertained with a Pentax history lesson, I'd innocently ask one of these old guys a question regarding the minutia of a given camera or lens. Stuff like, 'was the Spotmatic II's metering pattern any different from the original Spotmatic?' or 'is the SMC Tak really all that much better than just the plain old Super Tak?' Man-o-man, ask one of those guys a question like that, and it would be good for a half-hour lecture, easy. I really enjoyed those old dudes. Seems like, back in those days, Pentax had a much more passionately loyal following than either Canon or Nikon. And you know what, it sure seems that much of that attitude is still alive and well. Priced any LXes lately?

[quidam]

Lovely!

[luisalegria]

Thanks !

My objective in re-doing this was to see what the lens could do on a higher density sensor, and as you can see, on this camera I think its reached its limits, at least wide open. So its not in fact very sharp.

I have seen many good opinions of this but I always was wondering about that.

As it happens I have an LX (among many other Pentaxes), but it badly needs an overhaul. The LX is not a camera that ages well. There are rubber bits that need renewing or you will get nasty stuff happening, such as the point of focus between film and viewfinder getting unsynced (rubber mirror rest/buffer gets soft and distorts), the electrical system goes, with shorts and failed metering, etc.

[cooltouch]

That's too bad. First I've heard of LXes not aging well. Sure doesn't seem to discourage those folks on eBay from asking sky high prices for thieir LXes, though.