Pentax SMC Takumar 35mm f2 (images)

[Mark_McD]

I'm aware I've been debating this lens for quite a while now; and I finally got it in the mail today and had a chance to take a couple quick snapshots with it.

Given the reputation of being soft, I think some of the below shots might be quite interesting to some:

stopped down to f2.8:



wide open 100% crop:



so far I've yet to experience any of the noted 'softness' it's criticized for. I'm not 100% sold yet though, I want to test it more throughout the aperture range.
however, I think my reservations on it being soft have been taken care of.

--
-mark

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_mcd/

 

[ZoranC]

As a reference point, Nikon 35/2 Ai-S wide open:

 

[Mark_McD]

thanks, zoran.
this is among my (growing) number of 35mm's.

here's another shot from yesterday (with a cpl)... this is one of the things I really wanted to see with this lens, its 50mm / f1.4 brother loves the increased saturation from a CPL.



I'm very pleased with how it performs here.

--
-mark

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_mcd/

 

[Jonas B]

As a reference point, Nikon 35/2 Ai-S wide open:

Is that the image you intended to show Zoran? It doesn't look as if taken wide open to me.

Jonas

 

[Jonas B]

I'm aware I've been debating this lens for quite a while now; and I finally got it in the mail today and had a chance to take a couple quick snapshots with it.

Given the reputation of being soft, (...)
however, I think my reservations on it being soft have been taken care of.

Sometimes it is hard to know what people mean with "soft" I have seen a lot of images certainly being sharp enough for most uses gotten an "It's soft!" comment.

In my opinion so called "sharpness" often is over-rated while other lens' features often are under-rated. I think everything is fine if you like the rendering!

Cheers,

Jonas

 

[Mark_McD]

I'm aware I've been debating this lens for quite a while now; and I finally got it in the mail today and had a chance to take a couple quick snapshots with it.

Given the reputation of being soft, (...)
however, I think my reservations on it being soft have been taken care of.

Sometimes it is hard to know what people mean with "soft" I have seen a lot of images certainly being sharp enough for most uses gotten an "It's soft!" comment.

In my opinion so called "sharpness" often is over-rated while other lens' features often are under-rated. I think everything is fine if you like the rendering!

Cheers,

Jonas

I certainly agree with the sharpness comment. I also think often fast lenses get that labeling rather easily, or simply "it's soft wide open" which is usually due to missed focus.

The rendering I like quite a bit, the bokeh and color rendition is what I enjoy most. I still don't think 1 day is enough to be completely decisive, but the last shot I posted shows a lot of promise to me.

the second shot I posted had an odd color cast (which I didn't correct) but is a good example of how sharp it can be. It seems to have the same fairly contrasty, rich-colored look that I was hoping it would as well as a smooth bokeh. I think the best way I could describe the bokeh these lenses get is like a semi-busy look but with a very creamy glaze over it.

--
-mark

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_mcd/

 

[boardsy]

... not wide open.

Alan

 

[Documensony]

... not wide open.

Alan

Quite a bit of CA though...

--
-----------------------
Documensony
'Spontaneity is enabled by rigorous practice'

 

[John Bean (UK)]

Hexagonal? There are seven sides - I counted them ;-)

--
John Bean [GMT+1 aka BST]

 

[ZoranC]

thanks, zoran.
this is among my (growing) number of 35mm's.

You are welcome Yeah, one can never have too many 35s and 50s :O

 

[ZoranC]

As a reference point, Nikon 35/2 Ai-S wide open:

Is that the image you intended to show Zoran? It doesn't look as if taken wide open to me.

Yes, it's the one I intended to show.

 

[ZoranC]

... not wide open.

Alan

Hmmmm ...

I have looked at photo again and see what you mean. However, that photo is from a series where I have been doing nothing but shooting wide open intentionally to see how it performs at it's worst. So unless I have accidentally bumped aperture I have no logical explanation for those higlights.

If I get an opportunity I will retake shots which might not happen soon as I have put my NEX5 up for sale.

Until then please take this sample as having a potential question mark.

 

[zxaar]

I'm aware I've been debating this lens for quite a while now; and I finally got it in the mail today and had a chance to take a couple quick snapshots with it.

Given the reputation of being soft, (...)
however, I think my reservations on it being soft have been taken care of.

Sometimes it is hard to know what people mean with "soft" I have seen a lot of images certainly being sharp enough for most uses gotten an "It's soft!" comment.

In my opinion so called "sharpness" often is over-rated while other lens' features often are under-rated. I think everything is fine if you like the rendering!

Cheers,

Jonas

I certainly agree with the sharpness comment. I also think often fast lenses get that labeling rather easily, or simply "it's soft wide open" which is usually due to missed focus.

plus the fast lenses are usually optically better than their slower counter parts at same apertures. For example take 50mm F1.2 lens and compare it with 50mm f1.8 lens. The f1.2 lens would be better than 50mm f1.8 lens at say f=1.8, f=2.8, f=4.0 etc.

wide open is sometimes misleading idea.

The rendering I like quite a bit, the bokeh and color rendition is what I enjoy most. I still don't think 1 day is enough to be completely decisive, but the last shot I posted shows a lot of promise to me.

the second shot I posted had an odd color cast (which I didn't correct) but is a good example of how sharp it can be. It seems to have the same fairly contrasty, rich-colored look that I was hoping it would as well as a smooth bokeh. I think the best way I could describe the bokeh these lenses get is like a semi-busy look but with a very creamy glaze over it.

--
-mark

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_mcd/

--
::> I make spelling mistakes. May Dog forgive me for this.

 

[Mark_McD]

I'm aware I've been debating this lens for quite a while now; and I finally got it in the mail today and had a chance to take a couple quick snapshots with it.

Given the reputation of being soft, (...)
however, I think my reservations on it being soft have been taken care of.

Sometimes it is hard to know what people mean with "soft" I have seen a lot of images certainly being sharp enough for most uses gotten an "It's soft!" comment.

In my opinion so called "sharpness" often is over-rated while other lens' features often are under-rated. I think everything is fine if you like the rendering!

Cheers,

Jonas

I certainly agree with the sharpness comment. I also think often fast lenses get that labeling rather easily, or simply "it's soft wide open" which is usually due to missed focus.

plus the fast lenses are usually optically better than their slower counter parts at same apertures. For example take 50mm F1.2 lens and compare it with 50mm f1.8 lens. The f1.2 lens would be better than 50mm f1.8 lens at say f=1.8, f=2.8, f=4.0 etc.

wide open is sometimes misleading idea.

The rendering I like quite a bit, the bokeh and color rendition is what I enjoy most. I still don't think 1 day is enough to be completely decisive, but the last shot I posted shows a lot of promise to me.

the second shot I posted had an odd color cast (which I didn't correct) but is a good example of how sharp it can be. It seems to have the same fairly contrasty, rich-colored look that I was hoping it would as well as a smooth bokeh. I think the best way I could describe the bokeh these lenses get is like a semi-busy look but with a very creamy glaze over it.

--
-mark

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_mcd/

--
::> I make spelling mistakes. May Dog forgive me for this.

That's true. However, I think people often overstate speed. I personally will typically shoot at widest of f2 (rare even at that) and more commonly between f2.8-f4.5

For me an f2 lens is perfectly adequate, anything faster is always a plus but very uncommon that I'll use the extra speed.

--
-mark

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_mcd/

 

[ProfHankD]

I've collected a variety of 35mm lenses and my 35mm f/2 S-M-C Tak is probably the best all around. This lens is subject to radioactive yellowing that can degrade IQ, not just cause a color shift, so soft copies probably just need to be UV cleaned. This lens is tiny for an f/2, has a very "factual" photojournalistic rendering, a complex PSF that makes a very smooth transition to out-of-focus but some ring artifacts in the bokeh, outstanding flare resistance, and the high build quality one expects of old manual-focus lenses. My full review is at:

Actually, I have a lot of lens reviews posted at pentaxforums even though I'm usually using these lenses on Sony bodies.... Other 35mm fixed-focal-length prime lenses I've used on NEX and can strongly recommend:

Vivitar 35mm f/1.9: softer (low contrast & glowy) rendering wide open, better bokeh

Tak 35mm f/3.5: very rich colors and high contrast, great landscape lens

In general, I think most old wide-angle lenses (especially zooms) have a hard time justifying their use over modern lenses -- even cheap kit zooms. For example, there's nothing wrong with my Canon FDn 35mm f/2.8 on the NEX, but there's nothing special about it either.

 

[mynakedsoda]

Doesn't look soft just from what I can see in those samples. Images look pretty good actually. Maybe the reputation is based on far distance? Maybe you got lucky and got an escpecially good copy? I usually don't place much credence in the reputation of a lens vs. what I see either though.

 

[Mark_McD]

I've collected a variety of 35mm lenses and my 35mm f/2 S-M-C Tak is probably the best all around. This lens is subject to radioactive yellowing that can degrade IQ, not just cause a color shift, so soft copies probably just need to be UV cleaned. This lens is tiny for an f/2, has a very "factual" photojournalistic rendering, a complex PSF that makes a very smooth transition to out-of-focus but some ring artifacts in the bokeh, outstanding flare resistance, and the high build quality one expects of old manual-focus lenses. My full review is at:

Thanks. This is my 3rd lens which uses thorium elements, (second 35mm with a thoriated element) so I'm familiar with the yellowing. I have a reptile light for any yellowing. I think it definitely has more contrast than a lot of other lenses I've used. I think it's very natural though, with rich colors. The ring-artifacts you note I think are just highlight areas, which most lenses will produce (I find it pleasing).

Actually, I have a lot of lens reviews posted at pentaxforums even though I'm usually using these lenses on Sony bodies.... Other 35mm fixed-focal-length prime lenses I've used on NEX and can strongly recommend:

Thanks, I read your review. Your first picture was decisive in my purchase.

Vivitar 35mm f/1.9: softer (low contrast & glowy) rendering wide open, better bokeh

Tak 35mm f/3.5: very rich colors and high contrast, great landscape lens

In general, I think most old wide-angle lenses (especially zooms) have a hard time justifying their use over modern lenses -- even cheap kit zooms. For example, there's nothing wrong with my Canon FDn 35mm f/2.8 on the NEX, but there's nothing special about it either.

In some cases I agree, though I think old lenses have a lot more personality than some modern ones. This is currently my 3rd 35mm: Canon FD 35mm / f2 (chrome-nose/ thoriated), Sony 35mm / f1.8 ("easy choice") and this Pentax S-M-C Takumar 35mm / f2. Each has a distinctively different character, but the bokeh and color rendering of the takumar I feel, so far, is the most pleasing. I haven't really attempted any portraits with it so I can't comment on how it fares there.

--
-mark

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_mcd/

 

[Mark_McD]

Doesn't look soft just from what I can see in those samples. Images look pretty good actually. Maybe the reputation is based on far distance? Maybe you got lucky and got an escpecially good copy? I usually don't place much credence in the reputation of a lens vs. what I see either though.

I agree, I don't think it looks soft at all. I think the reputation is off, unless I lucked out. even infinity looks pretty good @ f2:

from 5am the other morning.



I'm pretty pleased with it. I'll take a picture of the lens itself next to my 50mm / f1.4. It's slightly longer, weighs about the same and is still pretty small / light on the nex. (nowhere near the weight of the canon)

--
-mark

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_mcd/

 

[Documensony]

... not wide open.

Alan

Hmmmm ...

I have looked at photo again and see what you mean. However, that photo is from a series where I have been doing nothing but shooting wide open intentionally to see how it performs at it's worst. So unless I have accidentally bumped aperture I have no logical explanation for those higlights.

If I get an opportunity I will retake shots which might not happen soon as I have put my NEX5 up for sale.

Until then please take this sample as having a potential question mark.

Will do. Doesn't really look like this lens wide open anyway...

--
-----------------------
Documensony
'Spontaneity is enabled by rigorous practice'

 

[Mark_McD]

another wide open, incandescent lighting:



--
-mark

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_mcd/