Revuenon 55mm f1.2 on Pentax K-x
Nice set.
Certainly goes to show that there is more to 'other lenses' than branded exotic stuff. :thumbsup:
and the photographer using the lens is important too.
Old/alternate lenses, adapters, and lens mount conversions.
- Thread starter Ben Ang
- Start date
Nice set.
Certainly goes to show that there is more to 'other lenses' than branded exotic stuff. :thumbsup:
and the photographer using the lens is important too.
oceanpriest
Senior Member
Thanks JK, indeed it's really fun lens to play with. I thought it's more paintery/artistic lens because the bokeh seems too distracting for general portraits use. But hey, the glow could also work for b&w portraits
Some samples from the Super Takumar 85/1.9
I tend to find that its look and drawing style being quite similar to the S.tak 135/2.5 ver1.
Maybe its the lens design choice of that time or the coating of that time (before SMC).
I tend to find that its look and drawing style being quite similar to the S.tak 135/2.5 ver1.
Maybe its the lens design choice of that time or the coating of that time (before SMC).
oceanpriest
Senior Member
Carl zeiss ultron 50mm f/1.8, the one with concave element.
this lens is quite phenomenal. its the only lens i ve ever used to give such amazing performance wide open and across the frame. its like shooting a normal 50 stopped down to f4, but then your actually shooting at 1.8.
saw one on apug, seems good price
[FS] Couple of M42 Ultrons
When I saw it on the shop display, I thought my eyes were playing tricks on me.
Did Pentax even have a 100mm f2? or was it 100mm f2.8 and my eyes were tired....
Its so rare that the very comprehensive sites like PF, bdimitrov, MFforums, etc did not have samples.
Not even with a google seach.
I just could not pass it up.
Managed to try out the lens today with the kids during the usual park walk.
I think I'm blown away........
Super Takumar 100/2
Did Pentax even have a 100mm f2? or was it 100mm f2.8 and my eyes were tired....
Its so rare that the very comprehensive sites like PF, bdimitrov, MFforums, etc did not have samples.
Not even with a google seach.
I just could not pass it up.
Managed to try out the lens today with the kids during the usual park walk.
I think I'm blown away........
Super Takumar 100/2
Another 2 from the day.
Anthony Lee
Senior Member
JK,
Is this Super Takumar 100f2 a PK or M42 mount? Nice lens.
Is this Super Takumar 100f2 a PK or M42 mount? Nice lens.
oceanpriest
Senior Member
Congrats JK, very rare lens and good copy somemore
Its on M42 mount.
Its very rare afaik, no info on PF and other MD lens sites says something, as those folks there are lens aficionados and scour everywhere to get all sorts of lenses (branded or unbranded).
Perhaps they were sold only in Japan which oddly, is a pretty common Pentax practice.
Congrats JK, very rare lens and good copy somemore
Iman, thanks.
Yeah, really lucky find, I usually don't browse the shop's takumar stuff, since I feel that many are overpriced.
If I did not look carefully, its easily missed too since there were rows of 135/3.5 that looked quite similar to it.
Incidentally, I was actually considering a EF100/2, but I guess the Takumar called out to me from another shop....
Here's a shot of the lens...
The Rarest Takumar!
Some sources say that only about 200pcs were ever made.
If its true, then it explains why its so ultra rare.
A thread on MF forums seems to point to 1 ebay listing which sold for a hefty sum.
Its just interesting that whoever has/had it never seem to have posted any photos of the lens or sample picts...
The Rarest Takumar!
Some sources say that only about 200pcs were ever made.
If its true, then it explains why its so ultra rare.
A thread on MF forums seems to point to 1 ebay listing which sold for a hefty sum.
Its just interesting that whoever has/had it never seem to have posted any photos of the lens or sample picts...
Super Takumar 55/1.8
Lets have some fun.
This is a blind test.
One is a cheap as chips common lens, the other is more uncommon and costs about 3x more.
I'm prepared to be surprised myself.
Here's the first of a series of shots.
They are non scientific, but generally, I did not move from my position when I shot with the two lenses.
They also got the same processing wrt getting jpgs out of the RAW.
So I'm interested to find out, in a real world usage situation where its just the photo that counts.
Which one would you prefer as a photo or they are very similar to make any conclusive choice?
Why?
#1
#2
This is a blind test.
One is a cheap as chips common lens, the other is more uncommon and costs about 3x more.
I'm prepared to be surprised myself.
Here's the first of a series of shots.
They are non scientific, but generally, I did not move from my position when I shot with the two lenses.
They also got the same processing wrt getting jpgs out of the RAW.
So I'm interested to find out, in a real world usage situation where its just the photo that counts.
Which one would you prefer as a photo or they are very similar to make any conclusive choice?
Why?
#1
#2
Thoth
Senior Member
Photo 2 for me.
oceanpriest
Senior Member
Lets have some fun.
This is a blind test.
One is a cheap as chips common lens, the other is more uncommon and costs about 3x more.
I'm prepared to be surprised myself.
Here's the first of a series of shots.
They are non scientific, but generally, I did not move from my position when I shot with the two lenses.
They also got the same processing wrt getting jpgs out of the RAW.
So I'm interested to find out, in a real world usage situation where its just the photo that counts.
Which one would you prefer as a photo or they are very similar to make any conclusive choice?
Why?
#1
#2
#1's color and rendering looks like a rollei... rollei 50 1.8? :think:
*just kidding, saw your description on flickr on takumar 55 1.8 vs rollei 50 1.8*
Thanks for participating.
Its good to see that preferences differ from ppl to ppl.
I'm undecided too (a reason for this blind test as well).
There are some things going for #1 like smoother bokeh and sharper falloff from focus to OOF parts.
However #2 has a bit deeper color/contrast on the focus part and no CA (at least in the shot)
I'll post comparison samples set #2 in a day or two.
Hopefully we get more opinions.
Its good to see that preferences differ from ppl to ppl.
I'm undecided too (a reason for this blind test as well).
There are some things going for #1 like smoother bokeh and sharper falloff from focus to OOF parts.
However #2 has a bit deeper color/contrast on the focus part and no CA (at least in the shot)
I'll post comparison samples set #2 in a day or two.
Hopefully we get more opinions.
Super Takumar 55/1.8
Thoth, Oceanpriest, thanks for you replies.
Hmm... I guess there aren't too many who know of this thread or have much interest in old/non-mainstream lenses.
I got a pretty good number of insights over at another forum and I think I learned quite a bit.
Ok... now sample set No.2
#3
#4
For Set1
I'm undecided (a reason for this blind test as well).
There are some things going for #1 like smoother bokeh and sharper falloff from focus to OOF parts.
However #2 has a bit deeper color/contrast on the focus part and no CA (at least in the shot)
For Set2, I think its the bit longer FL of the lens for #4 that makes the lone leaf only partly in focus compared to the sample #3.
Interesting to me then that shallower DOF does not always mean better shot if the DOF is not enough to envelope the subject. (almost a religion in a FF argument)
I do like the shallower DOF and rendering of #4 though.
Too bad I did not step back when shooting #4 to get back the same DOF. (something to note)
For me, same as Set1, I like a bit of both, 50/50 in fact. (just can't make up my mind, which is a reason why I posted this blind test)
Hmm... I guess there aren't too many who know of this thread or have much interest in old/non-mainstream lenses.
I got a pretty good number of insights over at another forum and I think I learned quite a bit.
Ok... now sample set No.2
#3
#4
For Set1
I'm undecided (a reason for this blind test as well).
There are some things going for #1 like smoother bokeh and sharper falloff from focus to OOF parts.
However #2 has a bit deeper color/contrast on the focus part and no CA (at least in the shot)
For Set2, I think its the bit longer FL of the lens for #4 that makes the lone leaf only partly in focus compared to the sample #3.
Interesting to me then that shallower DOF does not always mean better shot if the DOF is not enough to envelope the subject. (almost a religion in a FF argument)
I do like the shallower DOF and rendering of #4 though.
Too bad I did not step back when shooting #4 to get back the same DOF. (something to note)
For me, same as Set1, I like a bit of both, 50/50 in fact. (just can't make up my mind, which is a reason why I posted this blind test)
Similar threads
