All Forum Comments
Comment by Clarky posted on M42 Super Takumar 135mm 1:2.5 vs 1:3.5 at 03/10/2008 - 13:11
Just a couple of more shots, this time with a Super Tak 200 5.6
Lovely bokeh on this lens, taken at f8
[IMG]http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x261/ClarkyinAus/IMGP4963.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x261/ClarkyinAus/IMGP4974.jpg[/IMG]
Lovely bokeh on this lens, taken at f8
[IMG]http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x261/ClarkyinAus/IMGP4963.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x261/ClarkyinAus/IMGP4974.jpg[/IMG]
Comment by Clarky posted on M42 Super Takumar 135mm 1:2.5 vs 1:3.5 at 03/10/2008 - 11:07
I have that Silkypix E-book George is refering to, and its an excellent guide, I recommend it.
Check out some of Matts info also.
Check out some of Matts info also.
Comment by Clarky posted on Beginner's Guide to RAW? at 03/10/2008 - 09:39
Malo1961 wrote:
Clarky and Mac,
How much do you have to compensate for exposure failure on your camera.
My Super Tak 55/1.8 needs +1 from aperture F1.8 till F 4.0. And from F 5.6 till F 16 it needs -1. Very regular on my K10D. And not a problem of course because you use them in AV mode. Does your camera's differ in any way?
Martin.
Martin, I was chopping and changing settings and rattled off about 40 shots, I had the aperture ranging from 1.8 down to 11 (even a couple of flash shots) and was compensating from +2 and -2. Everything in manual camera and lens. It was late afternoon and the light got pretty poor in the hour I was outside.Clarky and Mac,
How much do you have to compensate for exposure failure on your camera.
My Super Tak 55/1.8 needs +1 from aperture F1.8 till F 4.0. And from F 5.6 till F 16 it needs -1. Very regular on my K10D. And not a problem of course because you use them in AV mode. Does your camera's differ in any way?
Martin.
Quote:
George wrote:
Clarky, the 55 1.8 doesn't use the same radio-active glass as the 50 1.4, so any yellow you are seeing is probably a reflection of the amber nectar that is close to your elbow.
You know me too well George George wrote:
Clarky, the 55 1.8 doesn't use the same radio-active glass as the 50 1.4, so any yellow you are seeing is probably a reflection of the amber nectar that is close to your elbow.
Comment by Clarky posted on Takumar 50mm 1.4 at 01/10/2008 - 22:41
Mac wrote:
Thanks for drawing my attention to the Takumar Club.
I didn't know it existed.
Hey everyone, take a boo at the examples posted there if you had any doubts about Tak IQ!
Cheers!
I had a look and it convinced me to get them out for a run, some Excellent shots there Malo1961 wrote:
A mint example of the 2.5/135 Tak is going for $ 350 + at the moment.
I presume Mac, you are aware of the "Takumar Club", found on that other forum. It's a pitty to say, but I really believe that thread is single handedly pushing the prices of the Takumars up these days.
I think....my next purchase will be the K-m. It is the ideal lightweight candidate to transform to a permanent digital Spottie.
Martin.
Martin!A mint example of the 2.5/135 Tak is going for $ 350 + at the moment.
I presume Mac, you are aware of the "Takumar Club", found on that other forum. It's a pitty to say, but I really believe that thread is single handedly pushing the prices of the Takumars up these days.
I think....my next purchase will be the K-m. It is the ideal lightweight candidate to transform to a permanent digital Spottie.
Martin.
Thanks for drawing my attention to the Takumar Club.
I didn't know it existed.
Hey everyone, take a boo at the examples posted there if you had any doubts about Tak IQ!
Cheers!
Comment by Clarky posted on M42 Super Takumar 135mm 1:2.5 vs 1:3.5 at 01/10/2008 - 14:23
Mac, mine is the SMC version not the super. I do have a super tak 55mm 1.8 which has that yellow tint to it, haven't used it yet though.
I wouldn't have thought it possible to put it back in upside down, but if it works leave it be
I took apart the super tak 55mm 1.8 which had fungus. It came apart relatively easy but I left the iris and inner barrel in place, just removed the elements. Cleaned up ok.
I wouldn't have thought it possible to put it back in upside down, but if it works leave it be
I took apart the super tak 55mm 1.8 which had fungus. It came apart relatively easy but I left the iris and inner barrel in place, just removed the elements. Cleaned up ok.
Comment by Clarky posted on Takumar 50mm 1.4 at 01/10/2008 - 14:19
After the discussion about the Taks and Super Taks in a previous thread link I thought I would take out my 50mm 1.4 and give it a run.
I went into the garden and our 2 cats were out having a play.
Sorry I can't tell you the aperture settings as I was constantly changing it and didn't keep track.
Its certainly an impressive lens and I can't wait to try the others I have.
[IMG]http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x261/ClarkyinAus/rusty-2.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x261/ClarkyinAus/shadow-1.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x261/ClarkyinAus/shadrusty.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x261/ClarkyinAus/flower-1.jpg[/IMG]
I went into the garden and our 2 cats were out having a play.
Sorry I can't tell you the aperture settings as I was constantly changing it and didn't keep track.
Its certainly an impressive lens and I can't wait to try the others I have.
[IMG]http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x261/ClarkyinAus/rusty-2.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x261/ClarkyinAus/shadow-1.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x261/ClarkyinAus/shadrusty.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x261/ClarkyinAus/flower-1.jpg[/IMG]
Comment by Clarky posted on Takumar 50mm 1.4 at 01/10/2008 - 13:40
MattMatic wrote:
K20D - there is a custom option to rattle off all bracketed images on one shutter press.
Matt
Thanks for that Matt, i'm glad someone read the manual K20D - there is a custom option to rattle off all bracketed images on one shutter press.
Matt
Comment by Clarky posted on result from bracketing at 01/10/2008 - 12:01
Don't they call it a nut beatle :
Not sure what they call that flower but I have one in my garden.
The flower is quite tiny isn't it : about 1/2 inch across.
Not sure what they call that flower but I have one in my garden.
The flower is quite tiny isn't it : about 1/2 inch across.
Comment by Clarky posted on Flower and bug Identification needed. at 01/10/2008 - 02:29
Mac, no post processing. just a little cropping is all.
Martin, I wouldn't dream of doing that to my beloved 180mm macro but I am in the process of converting an M42 bellows to a K mount, just for the hell of it, and because I can. I think.