All Forum Comments
Comment by Mac posted on Takumar 50mm 1.4 at 01/10/2008 - 13:53
Forgive me, Lord.........
I've got him started......
Again........
And we're not sure where it will end...
Of course we are!........
In the fires of HELL!
P.S.
What lens are you gonna use to record all this?
I've got him started......
Again........
And we're not sure where it will end...
Of course we are!........
In the fires of HELL!
P.S.
What lens are you gonna use to record all this?
Comment by Mac posted on Evil Inventor at 30/09/2008 - 22:48
Don,
You've outdone yourself!
I'm so proud.
....sniff........
All that talent......so misdirected.........
NO IGOR! NO MATCHES!!!!
You've outdone yourself!
I'm so proud.
....sniff........
All that talent......so misdirected.........
NO IGOR! NO MATCHES!!!!
Comment by Mac posted on Evil Inventor at 30/09/2008 - 22:02
I don't actually know but the 2.5 I guess would have been much more expensive.[/quote]Peter,
I bought both used, and paid a ton more for the 2.5 - thought it was because there seemed to be fewer of them.
But now that you mention it, it must have cost more to make those big lens elements. So, there must have been a market for them, for sure.
Glad I still have it - in fact, glad I still have both!
I bought both used, and paid a ton more for the 2.5 - thought it was because there seemed to be fewer of them.
But now that you mention it, it must have cost more to make those big lens elements. So, there must have been a market for them, for sure.
Glad I still have it - in fact, glad I still have both!
Comment by Mac posted on M42 Super Takumar 135mm 1:2.5 vs 1:3.5 at 30/09/2008 - 13:11
There is more and more interest in wonderful old screw mount lens lately and I'm a huge fan of M42 (still use Spotmatics quite often).
With my move into DSLR, I've been having great fun with my collection of "Taks".
My favorite portrait lens in the good old days was my 2.5, 135 with its 58mm front end - a big piece of glass.
My favorite macro lens was its brother the 3.5 with standard 49mm front end where my blue filters and reversing rings etc. would fit.
These two lens, while the same vintage, are VERY different in construction. The back end of the 2.5 looks very much like the 50mm 1.4, while the 3.5's rear element is way up inside the barrel.
In tests on my K110D, they are both sharp from wide open down to f22,
but the little 3.5 is like a razor. No wonder it was/is the key part of my bellows/extension tube set ups, where major aperture is often key.
Though I have yet to experience any limited primes (soon), I can't see a limited lens being possibly sharper.
Both of these lenses were in production from mid 60's to 1971. Both are Super Takumars, both 135mm, both focus from 1.5 meters, both have 6 leaf irises.
Any idea why Pentax offered both side-by-side for 4 years or so?
Cheers,
With my move into DSLR, I've been having great fun with my collection of "Taks".
My favorite portrait lens in the good old days was my 2.5, 135 with its 58mm front end - a big piece of glass.
My favorite macro lens was its brother the 3.5 with standard 49mm front end where my blue filters and reversing rings etc. would fit.
These two lens, while the same vintage, are VERY different in construction. The back end of the 2.5 looks very much like the 50mm 1.4, while the 3.5's rear element is way up inside the barrel.
In tests on my K110D, they are both sharp from wide open down to f22,
but the little 3.5 is like a razor. No wonder it was/is the key part of my bellows/extension tube set ups, where major aperture is often key.
Though I have yet to experience any limited primes (soon), I can't see a limited lens being possibly sharper.
Both of these lenses were in production from mid 60's to 1971. Both are Super Takumars, both 135mm, both focus from 1.5 meters, both have 6 leaf irises.
Any idea why Pentax offered both side-by-side for 4 years or so?
Cheers,
Comment by Mac posted on M42 Super Takumar 135mm 1:2.5 vs 1:3.5 at 30/09/2008 - 12:56
Steve,
I like these.
Again, my comment from the duck shots applies here - what lens was used, at what length etc.
See the first comment regarding your Deer pictures?
I like these.
Again, my comment from the duck shots applies here - what lens was used, at what length etc.
See the first comment regarding your Deer pictures?
Comment by Mac posted on Swanning Around at 30/09/2008 - 11:18
Steve,
What adds interest for me regarding shots on this forum, is some data about the camera settings, lens settings etc.
Folk are often asking for examples of various lenses and these shots may fill the bill (NOT a duck joke!)
What adds interest for me regarding shots on this forum, is some data about the camera settings, lens settings etc.
Folk are often asking for examples of various lenses and these shots may fill the bill (NOT a duck joke!)
Comment by Mac posted on 22 ........ at 30/09/2008 - 11:13
Hefty,
I fully agree with what you've said about the 18-55 MK1.
Here's another observation regarding this lens:
I went to a large combined 80th birthday party and music fest Friday night. As I was playing a lot of the time, I handed my K110D with the 18-55 kit lens and my AF280T flash set on A, camera on AV 11, ISO 400, to one of the wives who seemed to know what she was doing.
She was shooting anywhere between 5 feet and say, 40 feet, using the full zoom range, and always on auto focus. She took over 150 shots.
They were great!
As far as I'm concerned, the lens performed very well and I was able to crop severely with no loss of sharpness.
I think for this type of medium range indoor snap shooting, it fills the bill admirably stopped-down to f8 or more.
Another plus is it's light weight - this young lady was very slight, and the flash was heavy enough!
I fully agree with what you've said about the 18-55 MK1.
Here's another observation regarding this lens:
I went to a large combined 80th birthday party and music fest Friday night. As I was playing a lot of the time, I handed my K110D with the 18-55 kit lens and my AF280T flash set on A, camera on AV 11, ISO 400, to one of the wives who seemed to know what she was doing.
She was shooting anywhere between 5 feet and say, 40 feet, using the full zoom range, and always on auto focus. She took over 150 shots.
They were great!
As far as I'm concerned, the lens performed very well and I was able to crop severely with no loss of sharpness.
I think for this type of medium range indoor snap shooting, it fills the bill admirably stopped-down to f8 or more.
Another plus is it's light weight - this young lady was very slight, and the flash was heavy enough!
Comment by Mac posted on Evaluating the 18-55 mm kit lens at 29/09/2008 - 22:10
[]
im waiting for new camera to be delivered, was in a few camera shops at the weekend asking for some advice on the subject of the old lenses, but as told by one shop the lenses would work on new camera and then told by another shop that i would have to buy new lenses[/quote]The operative root of salesperson is sales. What a crime to see these beautiful old lenses shelved because of misinformation.
I've learned to let this forum be my salespeople - or refer me to reputable shops.
Keep SRS in mind.
You'll certainly enjoy your new body and old glass - I sure do!
Cheers!
im waiting for new camera to be delivered, was in a few camera shops at the weekend asking for some advice on the subject of the old lenses, but as told by one shop the lenses would work on new camera and then told by another shop that i would have to buy new lenses[/quote]The operative root of salesperson is sales. What a crime to see these beautiful old lenses shelved because of misinformation.
I've learned to let this forum be my salespeople - or refer me to reputable shops.
Keep SRS in mind.
You'll certainly enjoy your new body and old glass - I sure do!
Cheers!
Comment by Mac posted on interchangable lenses at 29/09/2008 - 12:28
Gotta love this!
Was it the same Super Tak screw mount that I've been yaking about - the one that has to be sun cured to remove the yellow?
I just noticed something else unusual about my example - close the iris to f16 and look at the leaves from the front - mine are reversed from what you'd usually see! I wonder if someone had this apart and put the iris in backwards.