Super Takumar 105/2.8

[luisalegria]

A lens I picked up, as usual cheaply, in order mainly to fill out my Takumar collection - this certainly isn't a rare or little known lens.



Its rather worn, but in every other respect it is in perfect working order. This lens was someones old reliable, and it looks it.

I now have, of the Super and Super-multi-coated Takumars, the 28/3.5, 35/3.5, 55/1.8, 50/1.4, 100/2.8, 135/3.5, 200/4, and 300/4, plus the 70-150/4.5(a very strange beast). I like the cheaper Takumars! In truth I could shoot with nothing but these and not be ill-equipped.

The Super Takumar 105/2.8 is a conventional short tele of the period, and a typical Takumar, with the same compact size and build standard you should expect. Its a five element-four group formula that seems to be something like a modified Tessar, with an additional front element. Its supposed to be very similar to the Super Takumar 85/1.8 (early version), the 85/1.9 and the 120/2.8, none of which I have, so I cant say whether there is a family resemblance otherwise.

In use it is very Takumar, with smooth, excellent damping of focus, very long focus throw for precision, very compact, 49mm filter, A/M switch so its easy to use on digital, etc. Its a small enough thing to fit in a jacket pocket with a small hood, not bigger than the tiny 135/3.5 but more useful. The rather deep hood for the 135/3.5 is perfectly suitable on APS-C, the native hood for the 105 is fairly hard to get. Of course, pretty much any 49mm hood will do.

Performance - well, this lens has a mixed reputation, and I can more or less confirm it. It is a bit soft wide open, moreso at infinity. It is much better close up, where I cant see more than a hint of it pixel peeping (16mp APS-C sensor on my Pentax K30). If you are going to shoot at f/2.8, do it close. One stop down and its as sharp as anything. I couldnt get it to flare. Close focus is what you would expect of a prime of its era, a bit under 4ft-1.3 meters or so. Bokeh seems very nice, I actually got some bokeh going. Out of focus highlights are more donut than disks. Colors are very Pentax, very saturated, though I cant say how much is the camera here.

All in all, yes I certainly could use this daily. Its more compact than many of the alternatives anyway, and is excellent for flowers and seagulls.






























The bird -




crop -

[RAART]

I thought as well to add the same lens to my collection of Takumars... I heard that is unique in rendering but still did not had it in my hands to check it out. Your results are promising but your comment about being not sharp at infinity let me thinking if it is your copy or in general this lens is like this. Hope someone else will elaborate here.

P.S. I really like Takumar lenses and their performance on modern DSLR's. I am using K-3 with very good results.

[kds315*]

Congrats Luis!!

[tromboads]

I think as always, it comes back to what you consider sharp.

I love using my 105 as a short Tele on my k5. I confess I can't remember what its like at infinity at f2.8.

I'll shoot the moon later tonight and you can have a look.

[Pancolart]

Worn lenses should deserve more respect and higher collectors status.

[Oldhand]

[tromboads]

Yes absolutely!

You know I think it was someone here that said whilst hunting for 2nd hand lenses, they sought out the tatty worn ones as it often meant they were good, and hence used

[blotafton]

Looks good. I was on the verge of buying it once but decided to hunt for a 6 element 105mm Nikkor instead.

[tromboads]

errrrr so I snapped a picture of the moon wide open.. yaa don't want to see it.

[Oldhand]

[kryss]

Very nice luis.. great colours

[RAART]

[Gardener]

I've never tried early versions, but S-M-C is excellent and right now is an absolute steal, compared to similar lenses from other major brands.

[blotafton]

[jamaeolus]

I agree on the worn lens category, I really like the all metal era as you never wear out aluminum knurls. My all time favorite are the pentax s-m-c as they have the good coating but still have the all metal barrels. I do very much like the 105 2.8 as well. Plenty sharp for most types of photos.

[visualopsins]

[tromboads]

Nope, although I did take a few of those. 105 @ f2.8 focused at infinity, yeah ain't much detail going on. I was impressed that some of the major structures where visible however. And you will have to excuse the tree, was unable to get a clearer shot before it went back under the clouds.

100% crop from a K5 jpg.

[visualopsins]

For me that is impressive result! Any stopped down shots to compare sharpness?

[tromboads]

Didn't bother sorry, and perhaps it's not that bad. .. I've been spoiled by looking at craters as captured by the Tair 3 however.

[WNG555]

Very nice shots! Congrats on your acquisition. I finally got a 105mm this past Winter and was pleasantly surprised how well it renders.
Also trying to build up my Takumar collection.

[Nordentro]

Nice lens and results, I never had this Takumar either...