|
Mr. Despair posted:The SMC Takumar 35/3.5 is great. Looks like KEH only has the uncoated version (which is good but not as good if you're going to be shooting color film mostly), but keep an eye out on ebay or keh in the future and you should be able to find one for fairly cheap, and an m42 adapter is dirt cheap. There's a k-mount version of the lens, but it's rarer and more expensive and all it gets you is auto aperture. Are most Takumar lenses good (or at least worth grabbing)? I've seen quite a few at the flea market and don't want to end up with a bunch of vivitar-grade poo poo lenses just going to waste on my desk.
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 12:10 |
|
|
Yes, most super or smc tak is pretty decent at least when it comes to primes. The 50/1.4 is particularly good. That said, a lot a vivtar glass in the era is also good, so don't walk by them. The series 1 70-210 is considered notibily good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
change my name posted:Are most Takumar lenses good (or at least worth grabbing)? I've seen quite a few at the flea market and don't want to end up with a bunch of vivitar-grade poo poo lenses just going to waste on my desk. Within their context they were great lenses. SMC coating was decades ahead of its time and pretty much everyone ended up either licensing it (Zeiss, as T*) or quietly copying it when the patent expired. And Pentax didn't pull their punches with the Takumar lens designs, they were as good as can be expected for the 50s/60s/70s. However there are limitations. Long lens design is pretty straightforward but superwide retrofocal lenses have always been pretty tough to design. Anything 28mm and longer is just fine and totally worth picking up. The 15mm lens came later (same time and design as the K-mount version) and is also OK (not great value, but it's fine optically). But most of the 24mm and 20mm lenses are on the weak side by modern standards - they won't be useless, but you'll want to stop down for maximum sharpness. Also most of the super-telephoto designs are pretty standard triplet-derived designs that don't have ED glass and suffer some CA, particularly the faster-ish ones. And using a sensor with a crop factor sours the deal somewhat - a 35mm f/3.5 is nice, a 50mm f/3.5 equivalent is not so attractive in comparison to a 35/1.8 DX or a Sigma 30/2.8. You have to remember that at the time Pentax started doing lenses 35mm was a wide-angle lens and 28mm was a superwide, and most of the wide lens offerings at the time were slower than today. There weren't as many exotic glasses and aspherics weren't something put into mass-produced lenses. Those things really help "exotic" lenses like superwides and superfast lenses. So I look at it like this, at the time it came out a 35mm f/2 or a 24mm f/3.5 was a top shelf lens (and people didn't expect such lenses to behave perfectly wide open), but nowadays they're kicked around by a cheap Samyang and they still cost nearly as much. In comparison the "modest" designs like the 35mm f/3.5 or the 50/1.4 or even the 135/2.5 have aged into classics and can be had for photo-dollar pocket change. I have the same complaint about Nikon and others too - an AI-S Nikkor 35/1.4 costs way too much in comparison to a Samyang. So I wouldn't go paying top dollar for any of it, particularly not some of the more exotic lenses, but if you see cheap Takumars they're usually worth picking up to shoot. The early Asahiflex M37 stuff or some of the early M42 lenses with the same formulas are very collectible and definitely worth picking up. There's some interesting stuff there - in the process of figuring out retrofocus SLR lens design they made about four completely different 50mm lens designs, including a Sonnar and a Heliar type. However, they're all inferior to the later Super/SMCs for actual shooting. Of course this only applies to prime lenses, with the exception of the 70-200 type most zooms were garbage until about the 90s. And of course they'll be manual-focus, manual aperture, etc. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 00:09 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Note that for collect-ability, the early 8 element super tak is probably more valuable that the later 7 element super and SMC. Arguably, it takes better photos than the 7 element, but I'd go for the better coating every day (though you should be using a lens hood with any of these lens, the coating is no where near as good as modern lens). If you see a cheap (<$100) 85mm tak (as you're at flea markets), buy it. I've never shot one as they cost as much as modern lens, but if it sucks or isn't that great, you can sell them for quite a bit. The 85/1.8 SMC is pretty expensive ($600 at keh), I haven't a clue if it is worth it. Also, I do really enjoy the 50 and 100mm macro lenses, though with full manual, shooting things at move probably isn't productive. When you get it just right, it is really sharp and is pretty rewarding.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
I found an SMC Tak 85mm F1.8 at a Pawn shop for $20 in a bag of other crap. Sold it the next day for $500. Could have gotten 7 if I wanted to deal with eBay. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
So basically pick up any cheap takumar stuff I find, because even if I don't need it I can flip it for a profit. Got it!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
There is one exception. Non-screw mount takumars are budget Pentax lenses. They revived the name in the 80s briefly and featured simpler designs, worse coatings and build quality. Kind of like nikon E series but worse.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:I found an SMC Tak 85mm F1.8 at a Pawn shop for $20 in a bag of other crap. Sold it the next day for $500. Could have gotten 7 if I wanted to deal with eBay. I hate you. That is a loving score. change my name posted:So basically pick up any cheap takumar stuff I find, because even if I don't need it I can flip it for a profit. Got it! nm fucked around with this message at 03:52 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
nm posted:I hate you. That is a loving score. quote:That said, there are very few M42 taks that are worth more than $100-150 dollars. Basically only the 85... Something about 85's in any mount make them weirdly expensive.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:Something about 85's in any mount make them weirdly expensive. The Nikkor-H/AI 85/1.8 isn't too absurdly priced ($190) and the modern Canon EF 85/1.8 is dirt cheap. But yeah, it's still quite a bit more than a 105/2.5 or something like that, and as a rule it's strangely true. I always wondered why that was.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The Nikkor-H/AI 85/1.8 isn't too absurdly priced ($190) and the modern Canon EF 85/1.8 is dirt cheap. Probably because of low circulation? Are there a ton of uses for an 85mm lens? Especially on a crop frame camera?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
change my name posted:Probably because of low circulation? Are there a ton of uses for an 85mm lens? Especially on a crop frame camera? They're a pretty standard portrait lens. You'd think they would be pretty commonly circulated, but I actually just did the math and Nikon (for example) made twice as many 105/2.5s as 85/1.8 and 85/2s (pre-AI, AI, AIS) combined, so I think you're right.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
I've got this old thing now The release cycle seems to miss sometimes and stop midway. I can only unlock the mecanism by moving the shutter switch from auto to another position. According to the kyphoto link on the first page the mirrorbox needs to cleaned ? I might give it a shot if it's an easy enough procedure for a dumb. On the other hand I bought local and the guy would'nt mind taking it back if its' too broken.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:I've got this old thing now Does it ever hang up in 125x mode? If that always works you might have a dead battery.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Does it ever hang up in 125x mode? If that always works you might have a dead battery. I tried to make it glitch again in both modes but it did'nt happen. I have some cheap film inside now so I guess I'll see.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Hopefully everybody here realizes to take anything Ken Rockwell says with a grain of salt, but I noticed that he recently did a review of the ME Super: http://www.kenrockwell.com/pentax/me-super.htm I popped a roll of Portra into mine about two weeks ago, but didn't end up going out to shoot that day. With the days getting longer, I'm hoping I can do some dusk photography after work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
404notfound posted:Hopefully everybody here realizes to take anything Ken Rockwell says with a grain of salt, but I noticed that he recently did a review of the ME Super: http://www.kenrockwell.com/pentax/me-super.htm
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Decided to xpost this from the pentax thread:  Should be a lot of fun to play with!
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Since this place is so silent, I'll post my boring pics from testing out my 40mm pancake lens. Ektar 100 film.   
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
Nice melons, but they're very magenta.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
HolyDukeNukem posted:Decided to xpost this from the pentax thread: The 43mm is supposed to be one of the best overall lenses Pentax has come out with in the last few decades. I'd love to try one, but I can't really justify such an expensive lens when I already have a 35/3.5. Idle musing, I wonder if it's related to the P67 75/2.8 at all. Both are a semi-wide with 7 elements that came out at fairly similar times (1997 for the 43mm, 2001 for the 75/2.8). Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Jul 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Some of the leds that indicate the shutter speed on my ME are dead/never light up, is it worth trying to fix ? It's annoying but it doesn't seem to prevent the camera from using the right shutter speed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
I think the focusing mechanism in my ME Super is off somehow. Almost every picture I've scanned looks ever so slightly out of focus. Is such a thing possible or am I just bad?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Geektox posted:I think the focusing mechanism in my ME Super is off somehow. Almost every picture I've scanned looks ever so slightly out of focus. Is such a thing possible or am I just bad? Its the lens seated tight? I had an issue with my ME Super, where the lenses weren't seating all the way tight, and they were slightly out of focus as a result.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
Has anyone sent in their ME Supers to Eric Hendrickson? Is he worth the hype the rest of the internet gives him?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Rotten Cookies posted:Has anyone sent in their ME Supers to Eric Hendrickson? Is he worth the hype the rest of the internet gives him? I mean, it's camera repair, not rock and roll, it either comes back fixed or not. But he fixed up a prism and installed a focus screen for me on a P67 and it came back just fine. He's the foremost repairman for Pentax stuff, and his rates are very reasonable. I don't think you'll do better anywhere else. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Rotten Cookies posted:Has anyone sent in their ME Supers to Eric Hendrickson? Is he worth the hype the rest of the internet gives him? He did a great job on a CLA for my Spotmatic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Geektox posted:I think the focusing mechanism in my ME Super is off somehow. Almost every picture I've scanned looks ever so slightly out of focus. Is such a thing possible or am I just bad? How are you scanning your pictures? Scanners have a (razor-thin) plane of focus, generally flat-on-the-platen is not *quite* in focus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
I just got a 50 SMC 1.7 and unfortunately I am a bit dissapointed in the build quality. The lens seems to have a bit of play within the housing when I wiggle it side to side, and when I turn the focusing knob there seems to a scraping noise as it brushes against the housing. Furthermore the rubber collar is not secured and can freely spin. Do I have a lemon? Hopefully it still takes good pictures..
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
lollybo posted:I just got a 50 SMC 1.7 and unfortunately I am a bit dissapointed in the build quality. The lens seems to have a bit of play within the housing when I wiggle it side to side, and when I turn the focusing knob there seems to a scraping noise as it brushes against the housing. Furthermore the rubber collar is not secured and can freely spin. Do I have a lemon? Hopefully it still takes good pictures.. Yeah it sounds like yours is pretty beat up, the grease is dried up or there's some grit in the focusing helicoid, something is loose in the housing, and the grip ring is loose. If you don't take the optical groups apart you can probably do an OK job cleaning it yourself. Use a spanner wrench or a grip pad on the front ring where the name is printed and the front group should screw right out (lefty-loosey), it may even do it by hand if that's what's loose and wiggling. There may be one or two more screws but you should be pretty much back to the helicoid at that point, turn the lens like you're focusing and it should screw off and you can clean it up and put a drop of some kind of non-migrating aluminum-compatible grease on there (cheapass option, lithium grease will probably be OK). Probably not worth sending it out to be cleaned, they go for about $50 in good condition. It still probably does a decent job at focusing light, particularly if you can get that wobble tightened down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Or just upgrade to the 50/1.4 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
So I tried to return the bonked 1.7, the guy didn't even want it and issued me a full refund. Hmm, to shoot with a wobbly 1.7 or not, that is the question.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
lollybo posted:So I tried to return the bonked 1.7, the guy didn't even want it and issued me a full refund. Hmm, to shoot with a wobbly 1.7 or not, that is the question. At the risk of speaking too frankly, that's a free lens you dipshit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
Haha yeah test it out, if it still focuses accurately then awesome, free lens. I got the same lens recently and was really impressed with the build quality, the focus ring is really smooth and the construction feels very solid so you definitely got a bad version.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
My copy of the lens has been a bit wobbly since I dropped the camera on the street at New Year. Still fine otherwise and the focus is accurate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
I slapped the wobbly 1.7 on my K1000, and I bought a new one from KEH for my ME super. Hopefully the BGN condition one won't be wobbly. Does anyone know a good way to make the ME super more comfortable with a strap? I don't want to drop my camera but the strap gets in the way of my hands because it is already a small camera. It feels just right with no strap, my hands can wrap around it perfectly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
lollybo posted:Does anyone know a good way to make the ME super more comfortable with a strap? I don't want to drop my camera but the strap gets in the way of my hands because it is already a small camera. It feels just right with no strap, my hands can wrap around it perfectly. The small form factor of the camera should allow you to just put your hands around the camera and the ends of the strap without discomfort. You could also go under the straps. If you really want something that keeps the straps from touching your hands then I would look into one point slings. I go strapless with my Pentax ME and it has never felt cumbersome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Pros use the belt clip.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Pros use the belt clip. gently caress yeah belt clip.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 12:10 |
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Pros use the belt clip. Belt-clip guy just looks so smug about it. And really what's there not to be smug about?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 02:29
|
|