The Takumar Lenses

I believe them to be mechanical and optical deficient. I dropped two or three onto my bed while changing lenses and the diaphragms immediately became sticky. That is about an 18" fall to soft surface!

I tried to match the photos in the paper sample books for years and could never get it right. We moved in 1976 and a wedding photography neighbor loaned me his Leica M3. Same bulk roll of Plus x and same batch of developer and the prints came alive.

Sold 12 lenses and 4 bodies all of which were purchased new at Altman Camera and started my Leica collection.


So you think these are great. Think again.
 
I am pretty sure you can always find at least one person who is dissatisfied with Leica lenses but the overall consensus is that Leica has fantastic lenses. There is also a general consensus that takumar lenses are some of the finest lenses produced - plenty online reviews.
These things are not an exact science - the characteristics of lenses might appeal to some whilst others might dislike it. I much prefer zuiko lenses over takumars although takumars seem to be sharper and with better bokeh. It has to do with each person's aesthetic criteria.
 
Ronald M said:
Image quality was not great. I had 12 all bought new. Diaphragm was weak. I dropped more than one screwing on lenses and they fell on my bed from 18 inches.
Diaphragm immediately became sticky from perfect before.

Have Nikons now to mate with Leicas, both digital and film in each, and Nikons are much better and Leicas are far better.

My 35 2.8 fell from my coat pocket to cement and all it got was a small finish imperfection.

Guess Pentax needed a premium line which they came out with for more money, but my kit was sold off by then.
Click to expand...

Ronald M said:
I believe them to be mechanical and optical deficient. I dropped two or three onto my bed while changing lenses and the diaphragms immediately became sticky. That is about an 18" fall to soft surface!

I tried to match the photos in the paper sample books for years and could never get it right. We moved in 1976 and a wedding photography neighbor loaned me his Leica M3. Same bulk roll of Plus x and same batch of developer and the prints came alive.

Sold 12 lenses and 4 bodies all of which were purchased new at Altman Camera and started my Leica collection.


So you think these are great. Think again.
Click to expand...

First, how many times are you going to tell the same story in one thread? You had some Takumars, didn't like them and sold them all off 40 years ago. Great. Perhaps ignore the Takumar thread then?

Second, why did you buy 12 lenses and 4 bodies in a system you found to be 'mechanical and optical deficient'?


Anyway, here's my optically deficient Super Takumar 28/f3.5 on an SV with Portra400 🙂

 
Pentax SV, Super Takumar 55 f1.8 (early pre-thorium version), yellow filter, Tri-x Rodinal/Blazinal
I love the simplicity of making quiet pictures with this camera and lens. For me, it is one of life's little pleasures.

U76197I1562002649.SEQ.0.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Disappointed_Horse
Nikon Close-Up Filters
Replies
16
Views
597
phofseth
P
p.giannakis
In praise of the Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50f/1.8 (radioactive version)
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
WoodallP
WoodallP
caila77
SLR M42 lenses - undiscovered gems (or not)
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
Mos6502
Mos6502
caila77
Mamiya SX lenses compatibility solutions?
Replies
3
Views
150
caila77
caila77
p.giannakis
The "50-58mm f/1.4" club
5 6 7
Replies
122
Views
6K
p.giannakis
p.giannakis
Back
Top Bottom