Holy Moly
Posted 21/04/2012 - 07:43
Link
No idea which lens is being used, Doc, but its effect is lovely.
Best wishes,
Andrew
"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050
http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05
Andrew
"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050
http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05
Posted 21/04/2012 - 14:16
Link
We await the great reveal. What's the lens :
Of course, the photographer's skills no doubt help. Maybe you'll end up finding out you want to keep all your lenses
Tim
ps. Particularly cute Spaniel!
Of course, the photographer's skills no doubt help. Maybe you'll end up finding out you want to keep all your lenses
Tim
ps. Particularly cute Spaniel!
Posted 21/04/2012 - 16:45
Link
It's the SMC Takumar 55mm 1.8 M42, circa 1972.
Not much point selling it as it's only worth £20. Built like a tank, very smooth to focus. Forty years old and it looks brand new. Seems to be on the cool side colours wise, but that's my preference anyway. Just got to work out how to best utilise its character now. It's been sitting unused for the last two years.
Not much point selling it as it's only worth £20. Built like a tank, very smooth to focus. Forty years old and it looks brand new. Seems to be on the cool side colours wise, but that's my preference anyway. Just got to work out how to best utilise its character now. It's been sitting unused for the last two years.
Posted 21/04/2012 - 19:02
Link
SMC Tak 55mm F1.8? Don't for heavens sake get rid of it, it is one of the greats! Mind you, get rid, it's horrible, I will take it off your hands......
Seriously though, I cannot understand why these lenses go for so cheap? Maybe people are put off the M42 screw mount, because optically they are really one of the great Takumars, period!
I have the first of the K-mount versions of this lens, same optics, but with the bayonet, and I am always surprised how seriously good it is when I put it on my DSLR's. Currently it is sat on my MZ-5n at the moment, which makes a cracking combination.
A vastly underated lens IMHO.
Seriously though, I cannot understand why these lenses go for so cheap? Maybe people are put off the M42 screw mount, because optically they are really one of the great Takumars, period!
I have the first of the K-mount versions of this lens, same optics, but with the bayonet, and I am always surprised how seriously good it is when I put it on my DSLR's. Currently it is sat on my MZ-5n at the moment, which makes a cracking combination.
A vastly underated lens IMHO.
Some Cameras
Posted 21/04/2012 - 23:41
Link
DrOrloff wrote:
It's the SMC Takumar 55mm 1.8 M42, circa 1972.
This is the lens I have paired up with my Spottie... Mine is in lovely nic too...
It's the SMC Takumar 55mm 1.8 M42, circa 1972.
........................................................................
Digital:
Pentax K5- Vivitar 19mm 3.8; FA35mm f2; D-Xenon 100mm macro f2.8; DA50-200mm WR...
Flash:
Yongnuo YN-560; Vivitar 285HV; Cactus V4 triggers...
Film:
Pentax-MX & M50mm f1.4; Spottie & 55mm f1.8; MG & M40mm 2.8...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/daveholmesphotos/
Digital:
Pentax K5- Vivitar 19mm 3.8; FA35mm f2; D-Xenon 100mm macro f2.8; DA50-200mm WR...
Flash:
Yongnuo YN-560; Vivitar 285HV; Cactus V4 triggers...
Film:
Pentax-MX & M50mm f1.4; Spottie & 55mm f1.8; MG & M40mm 2.8...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/daveholmesphotos/
Posted 22/04/2012 - 00:12
Link
I've recently acquired several Super/SMC taks, they're all in excellent condition. I can only conclude they were treated with great care in an era when throwing things away (or replacing them at the drop of a hat) wasn't an option. An era where owning a camera (with metering - possibly not open aperture metering!) and three prime lenses was probably the most many photographers could afford.
Posted 22/04/2012 - 01:08
Link
Good work. N0. 5 stands out from the bunch for me. Well photographed.
p.s. I like the Ken Rockwell thread title.
Best regards
p.s. I like the Ken Rockwell thread title.
Best regards
Too far from a shore.
Posted 22/04/2012 - 15:05
Link
Offertonhatter wrote:
SMC Tak 55mm F1.8? Don't for heavens sake get rid of it, it is one of the greats! Mind you, get rid, it's horrible, I will take it off your hands......
Seriously though, I cannot understand why these lenses go for so cheap? Maybe people are put off the M42 screw mount, because optically they are really one of the great Takumars, period!
I have the first of the K-mount versions of this lens, same optics, but with the bayonet, and I am always surprised how seriously good it is when I put it on my DSLR's. Currently it is sat on my MZ-5n at the moment, which makes a cracking combination.
A vastly underated lens IMHO.
Obviously very common but I can't find many photos. There aren't many on the flickr Pentax SMC lens tag required group and only 26 in the PPG (that number will increase soon). Maybe it's not paired with a digital camera much. A few more, the first three wide open the last at f8 or 11, can't remember which:SMC Tak 55mm F1.8? Don't for heavens sake get rid of it, it is one of the greats! Mind you, get rid, it's horrible, I will take it off your hands......
Seriously though, I cannot understand why these lenses go for so cheap? Maybe people are put off the M42 screw mount, because optically they are really one of the great Takumars, period!
I have the first of the K-mount versions of this lens, same optics, but with the bayonet, and I am always surprised how seriously good it is when I put it on my DSLR's. Currently it is sat on my MZ-5n at the moment, which makes a cracking combination.
A vastly underated lens IMHO.




Massive crop (I wasn't even focused on the tree it was just a rough bit of hyperfocal guesswork):

All handheld. The portrait of my daughter was very unpromising, dingy conditions and a very close background of brambles and scrub, but it has come out with some 'pop'. The fern was very dark too and not far off the ground. I'm not saying these are particularly good shots but initial results are hugely promising, definitely worth sticking on a tripod. I might see how this lens performs head to head with FA Ltds and the DA*50-135.
£20, unbelievable.
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.


2628 posts
16 years
Brighton,
England
I'll give it a proper workout in more favourable conditions. I wonder if anyone recognises the look of the lens or would hazard a guess as to its identity. Or indeed thinks it's not as good as I do. The dog is not as cute as he looks, in fact a right pita.