Pentax super multi coated TAKUMAR

[ampguy]

Whatever

Whatever

Consider the depreciated value of a butchered rare SMC lens vs the price of a used ST705 body:

http://cgi.ebay.com/FUJICA-ST-705-3...ryZ15241QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Coz they can't be used with my Fujica ST705 with the two pins (as Kim mentioned, they'll get stuck on the camera). I've always wanted a fast lens, but from what I hear, the f/1.4 super takumars can't hold a candle the SMC ones. But I don't want to get SMC lens for the Fujica, remove the 2nd pin, and ruin it forever for other cameras like DSLRs, if that's going to happen.

 

[Crasis]

I have a Pentax SMC K-50mm f/1.4 which is easily the most amazing lens for the price around! It looks the same as a Takumar, including its size (which is much larger than an -M lens), but it's in K-mount. You can't go wrong with a lens like this.

$100 for a lens which should easily be 5x that price? Yeah..

Also, don't forget about the new Pentax lenses. Their limited 31/1.8, 43/1.9 and 77/1.8 are supposed to be close to the best lenses Pentax has ever crafted. I'm not even sure how they make money honestly.



I've always found the following site useful when I'm looking up lenses by Pentax: http://stans-photography.info/LongComments.html

Hope it serves someone as well as it has served me.

 

[zuikologist]

Sharp yes, but does not get the same tonal representation on film as do Leica or Zeiss.

I had every one from 21 to 300 mm and they are all gone and I do not miss them one bit. Leica glass is what got me what I wanted and Zeiss is a close second.

You can put Leica, Schneider, Rodenstock, Zeiss negs on a light table and separate out the Nikon, Canon, and Pentax without a problem. Actually my spouse can do it, and she knows zero about photography.

I have not made the comparison, but many photographers claim very similar characterisitcs for Pentax and Zeiss lenses, possibly due to their collaborations in the 1960's and 1970's.

 

[peterm1]

My own view is that the pentax screw mount lenses are amongst the best of their era. And litle wonder too. They were regarded in this light back then also. While in SLRs, Nikon got all the kudos due to its professional standing, amongst amateurs the pentaxes were king. They produced top quality images and were beautifully made.

Amongst my favourites:

- The 28mm f3.5. Very sharp and very contrasty
- The 50mm f 1.4. A classic shooter.
- The 85mm f1.8. Regarded as one of the best around
- The 105mm f 2.8. I regard as one of the best in the range - right up there wiht the world renowned nikon version that is popular even now.
- The 135 f2.5 Surprisingly sharp for a wider lens in this focal lenght
- The 200 mm f 4 This lens is a cracker. Utterly sharp at virtually all stops. Look a the MTF curves and you would swear its a Leica.

The list goes on. Others swear by some of the cheapies (and because they were cheap and common does not mean they were bad) Usually the opposite in fact: Lenses with moderate specs are usually not only very good if competently made but also cheap to manuafacture and popular for the same reasons. The 35mm f 3.5, the 50mm f 1.8, the 135mm f 3.5 were all excellent lenses and still are. Plus they are CHEAP.

If you want to try Penatx lenses give them a go. You will almost certainly never be disappointed by their results. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) because most of these lenses are relatively cheap and common , say, by comparison with the Nikon equivalents not much is written about them and they tend not to be in huge demand except amongst those lucky people who know the truth.

the only problem with these lenses I have found is that they occasionally develop a sticky diaphragm. But at least this is an inexpensive fix.

 

[peterm1]

I should have added the pentaxes were regarded in their time as being extremely sharp in the centre but not so sharp at the edge. While this may not be so technically sound it worked for most photographers. Many seemed to think that they also rendered their images well. I must drag mine out again and try them once more. My favourite cameraas are actually the pre spotmatics which work fine although they have no metering of course.

I am fortunate enough to own both the SMC version of the 95mm f 1.8 and the early auto takumar version for the pre spotmatic bodies. Both are excellent and I would hate to haev to part with them. But as someone else said, there are many "cheap" M42 lenses by other brands. I also own a well made 21mm f4 by (i think) ozunon or one of the other second string Japanese companies. It is superb. Well made and surprisingly sharp for a cheap ultra wide.

My only slight gripe with pentax is that while you cna get an adapter use th lesnses both on K mount pentaxes and on canons the adapter for the nikon either has to have glass which degrades quality or the lens will not focus at infinity. Nothing you can do about this becasue of body geometry.