How rare/good is the Pentax Takumar 105mm f2.8?

[andyw]

As title: How rare/good is the Pentax Takumar 105mm f2.8?

Ta

[CarbonR]

If you speak about the Takumar (not Super or S-M6C), it is rather rare, but I can tell on its performances. I have the S-M-C 105/2.8 (second version of optical scheme), I dont often use it, but I never was disappointed

[aoleg]

This lens optical construction is very similar to Contax Zeiss Sonnar 85/2.8, yet in my experience, my Super-Takumar never reaches the Zeiss in sharpness, contrast, and bokeh.

Super-Takumar 105/2.8 is single-coated (OK, there are in fact about 3 levels of coatings, but still it's not SMC and not T* in terms of contrast), and the S-M-C version is multi-coated. I paid about $100 for my Super-Tak, and about $200 for the Sonnar 85/2.8. I guess the S-M-C version would cost more. The Takumar is built better, but in my opinion the Zeiss is simply a better lens and well worth the premium price.

Having said that, Super and S-M-C Takumars are excellent lenses, and just about perfect for portraits where wide-open sharpness is not required.

If you are looking for a 105mm lens, Nikkor 105/2.5 is sharper still. There are many versions, but just two types of optical construction: Nikkor-P 105/2.5 (Sonnar design, single-coated, but excellent sharpness and contrast regardless!), and later Gauss-type 105/2.5 (about as sharp, later versions multi-coated, smoother rendering than the earlier Sonnar design). All of them are excellent lenses (I have both variants), and all of them I rate higher than the Takumar.


Super / S-M-C Takumar 105/2.8




Contax Zeiss Sonnar 85/2.8

[Blue]

This applies to Super Taks in general regarding to coating. Many of the Super Taks made in 1971 were actually smc coated. This is especially true for those the shared the optical formulae with those in S-M-C and SMC barrels.

[gcrimmins]

Hi Andy,

I have one of these lenses, if there's anything you'd like to know about it, or would like me to take some sample photos let me know. I've only had it a month or two, so I haven't used it a lot. My initial impression is the sharpness is fine (neither bad nor stunning), and the bokeh can be a bit busy for my tastes. It's a nicely built, very small lens.

--Geoff

[zewrak]

I got one. so +1 on above. Preset and all black. Appearently there are two versions.

[kuuan]

it's an excellent lens, but I believe every word of aoleg' great post.

I got an overkill of 2.8/105 Taks, see my pics taken with the
Takumar 2.8/105, the preset which I have used more often than the others because of it's small size and being a preset which is very handy on a dSLR, though the S-M-C may well be the better lens: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/sets/72157613165660802/
the Super Tak: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/sets/72157605550800834/
the S-M-C: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/sets/72157604973101206/

[andyw]

WOW! Thanks for the great responses, much appreciated.

I thought i would ask as there is one on ebay at £21 at the moment with 11 hrs to go which means it finishing at about 6.30 this evening, hmmmmmm

[kuuan]

buy now prize for ST or S-M-C Taks usually is about 100 or a bit over ( the Nikkor around 130 )

[aoleg]

[indianadinos]

Hy Andy,

Judge by yourself:

At f/8:



At f/4:



Sorry, don't have the full res pics available here right now, must search in the storage DVDs ...

Hope this helps

[Helios]

Sample from my copy of smc-takumar 2,8/105 . Here f/4 , film Konica vx-400, Pentax Spotmatic-F Body .




This lens is a bit sharper than Meyer Orestor , and is very close to the Rokkor 2,5/100mm.

[kuuan]

ok, hard to choose, but one sample of various 2.8/105 Taks:

Takumar preset:

( bigger: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/3484954979/sizes/l/in/set-72157613165660802/ )

Super Takumar:

( bigger: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/2568902819/sizes/l/in/set-72157605550800834/ )

S-M-C:

( bigger: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/3855962497/sizes/l/in/set-72157604973101206/ )

Andreas

[peterm1]

Shot with the preset version. Nothing wrong with the image that I can see.

[stevemark]

[Sciolist]

[visualopsins]

Thanks Stephan for verifying my experiences with the 105mm S-M-C. I couldn't find what was the fuss about it being so great. It didn't quite fit with the exceptional quality of the other taks. It was designed as a portrait lens however, which use I didn't try. I never got any results indicating it was more than average performance. Cost lot comparatively; one of the first taks I sold. Now all that doesn't mean it isn't a great lens. Just that I didn't think k so.

[D1N0]

One for sale here https://buyee.jp/item/yahoo/auction/d533069113

Almost no followers. It is the first version with 46mm filter thread. Condition looks acceptable and for 3000 yen a great deal.

My album with this lens:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/randomdump/albums/72157715271321267

[KEO]

I prefer my silver and black preset Takumar 105 2.8 to my SMC Takumar 105 2.8. The SMC is a very good lens, and it's sharper than the early Takumar, but the silver one has much more interesting character and better bokeh. It also makes beautiful soap bubble highlights.

[yoyomaoz]

[visualopsins]

The silver and black preset Takumar and Auto-Takumar have 4/4 formula; the all black preset and the later versions are 5/4...

[D1N0]

I think the combination of older coating and smaller design( 46mm filters) adds some interest to the early version. It is also makes it nice and compact.

[visualopsins]

I bought an early 4/4 silver and black and a 5/4 all black, both presets today to give those a try.

[D1N0]

I could get the Auto-Takumar just for it's looks

Here with the early Takumar:

Takumar 2.8/105 vs Auto-Takumar 2.8/105 by Willi Nemski, on Flickr

[titrisol70]

According to Gerjan van Oosten, there were 70-100K of the super takumars made, and 55-60K of the S-M-C takumars
that makes it a not-so-rare lens despite being a good one.
The presents (~5-9K) or the AUto-takumar (9-13K) are more rare but still not super-rare