SMC Takumar 55/1.8

[Laurence]

I have a chance to pick this SMC Takumar 55/1.8 for about $20 from a camera club member. Would this be worth my money? I see the reviews, both here and elsewhere on the net. The reviews are mixed.

There is also a Takumar 200/5.6 for $35 available, and I know NOTHING about this lens. Web reviews are scattered and don't tell me much.

Both lenses are as good as new, very little use if any at all.

Yes...I know! Probably I should just get the lenses and see for myself...right?

Anyway, any opinions would help.

Larry

[orly_andico]

both ought to be good deals

if you're really persistent you can get a 50mm or 55mm takumar for $10 on ebay. but the seller will charge you $10 for shipping.

the 200/5.6 also seems a nice bet. for $35 what you can usually get is only a third-party 200mm lens.

[Nesster]

They both are good deals, I think. You might bargain the prices down a few dollars, especially if you offer to buy both.

I bought my AUTO-tak 55 for $10 at a camera fair, but then spent a few extra $$ at the next table to get the missing lens caps for it.

Regarding reviews, you have to take them with a bit of salt: even new lenses have sample variability, and old ones magnify that. And given the nature of the net and humanity, if someone can trump everyone else by 'proving' the lens is crappy, they probably will.

My lowly AUTO is just as sharp as my two samples of the 50/1.4 (as Super and a SMC) and in fact doesn't have the CA wide open on digital the faster lenses have. The 55 S-M-C that passed through my hands was even better.

[peterqd]

Yep, I agree about the 55mm. $20 is a great price for zewrak's currently favourite lens:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zewrak/2710667252/in/photostream
http://forum.mflenses.com/super-takumar-55mm-f-1-8-fiddler-girls-t8398.html

$35 for a 5.6/200 is a good price too, but I think I'd rather spend just a bit more on a 4/200.

[zewrak]

Seriously. You hardly get a ticket to the movies for 20$. The 55/1.8 is the most underpriced lens there is. Simple as that. Sure you can get the Helios 58/2 cheaper or wait until the right time on ebay. But 20$ is nothing, considering what you get.

The 5.6 I don't know much about. But same thing applies here. Don't buy a few pizzas this month and you can afford it. Albeit, you can probably get a 200/4 for same or less, but then you have to pay shipping etc. I bought my last 200/4 for £17.

Most of my pictures are taken with 55 on my flickr. And it is hard to beat, even though I now got the more expensive (alot more expensive) 85/1.9 I still do struggle to decide what lens to take out when I go out for casual shooting.

Conclusion, get them both. If you dont like the 200 I am sure you can sell it with no loss. The 55 I have no doubt about that you will keep.

[kuuan]

Made curious by zewrak and attracted by the 55mm which make abt. 82mm on my Pentax I got a Super Tak 55mm 1.8 ( and recently ran acrioss a SMC Tak 55mm f1.8 and got it as well )
Most users would rate the 50mm f1.4 higher, but I prefer the 55mm when shooting daytime. Both my Super Tak and S.M.C. Tak 50mm f1.4 often produce a 'smeared' image when used during daytime and rather open, the 55mm doesn't do that and has a pleasant out of focus rendition as well.

I second zewrak, this is a very underrated lens!
- and can be had cheaply, highly recommended.

Super Tak 55mm f1.8:
( did I post this photo before? )



SMC Tak 55mm f1.8
( don't have much choice yet, but taken today: )



best greetings,
Andreas

[peterqd]

Another thread ruined! Could you please stick to the 900 wide limit when you post pictures.

[kuuan]

sorry Peterqd, I corrected that

( My photos are hosted with flickr which gives the option to link to 'medium' or 'big' size. Medium - the one shown now - seemes too small to appreciate the lens performance and therefore usually choose 'big'. As this is just over the 900 px I had asked various times in previous posts of mine if anybody had a problem with that, and so far nobody has had.
Now that you do have a problem with that I reposted them in smaller size )

[peterqd]

[Attila]

[koji]

But this is one of the most radioactive lenses Pentax ever made, see another thread about "radioactive lens".

[Attila]

200mm f5.6 rather crap than good one

[peterqd]

[Attila]

[peterm1]

Both are good lenses. If their condition is OK, grab them. The 55mm is rated as one of Pentaxes sharpest and best perfoming early lenses. The 200mm f5.6 (preset ) is also very well regarded.

[kuuan]

[peterqd]

Thanks again Andreas The 900 size is perfect, and make your pictures much better to see. The flower is superb. I make 2 sizes when I'm converting from RAW - full size and 900w for displaying on the forum.

I feel the top two performers of my 50mm lenses are the 1.8/50 Pancolar and the 1.4/50 Super-Tak. The 1.8/55 S-M-C Tak is next, just not quite as sharp, but still excellent. But the individual variation of lenses could easily give different results with other copies.

[Razster]

Same Radioactive goes for my Super-Tak 55mm, It has a yellowish tint to the lens because of the wonderful elemits, but I fixed that thanks too http://www.flickr.com/groups/spotmatic/discuss/121461/

I left it out in the Wonderful Redding, CA sun and in 4 days noticed the yellow tint was going away - though I admit I like the yellow tone to all of my photos, giving it a warm feel, but I like it even better now.
Same for the 35m Super-Tak :/