Softly In The Sunlight

[Derrel]

I have a 135 mm f / 3.5 Super Takumar in m42 Mount. I think it might be from the Johnson era .it is a really good lens. Do you think it might be one of the model 2 lenses that you speak of?

 

[Original katomi]

Very nice pics,

 

[Dean_Gretsch]

Very nice!! You need to work up something with Sadie-Mae and Lil' Bit!

" What's that, Sadie? Someone fell in the well? I'll get Pa!".

Uh oh...you just added to the bokeh craze! Really nice pics all the way around. I think you've found your lens to shoot your Christmas photos with.

 

[smoke665]

Very nice!! You need to work up something with Sadie-Mae and Lil' Bit!

Yes it would, however it's a "Catch 22" on focus, unless it's a very static subject getting sharp focus on a narrow DOF is difficult for me on a manual lens, but if I stop down then I lose so much of the great qualities in this lens.

@Bear Dale, @Tropicalmemories, and @Original katomi Thank you so much for the comments.

@Dean_Gretsch Sadie Mae unfortunately is not the Lassie type, to many birds, squirrels, and lizards to distract her along the way to find Pa. LOL I thought about the last part of your comment when I posted. My defense is as my comments in the other thread, Bokeh/background blur that comes from the capability of the lens can be beautiful. Fake blur added post is to often not.

 

[Dean_Gretsch]

I wondered who would show their age and admit knowing I was making a Lassie reference, lol. I was just busting your chops a bit about the bokeh. You didn't think you'd not take some joking, did you? I agree that anything obviously faked will ruin a photo. These that you just shared are argument for how a beautiful background will enhance a photo and not detract from the subject.

 

[smoke665]

I have a 135 mm f / 3.5 Super Takumar in m42 Mount. I think it might be from the Johnson era .it is a really good lens. Do you think it might be one of the model 2 lenses that you speak of?

Or maybe Nixon. While still a good model that will produce a quality image for someone willing to take the time to use it, its not as good as the legendary 2.5. The f 3.5 was manufactured from 1960-1971, and also came in two models, the first using 5 elements and the later models 4. The Super Takumar model is prone to excessive flare the later model SMC Takumar with the coating is better from that standpoint. The coating on the Super has a pinkish look while the SMC is more purple/green/blue.

You should be able to find an adaptor to mount this on another camera if you don't already have one. You should experiment with yours, it can still produce shots with the best of today's glass.

 

[PJM]

Great shots. I like the colors in them.

 

[otherprof94 35]

Had a few mins today to play with a lens that I don't use as much as I'd like because it's full manual, but every time I do I'm blown away by it. I picked up this vintage Pentax Asahi Taumar 135mm f2.5 K mount for $30 in a thrift store, figured it wasn't that much if it was a dud. It's built like a tank, with a silky smooth focus, I really wish my eyes were better, because it is such a joy to use. All shot at f2.5
View attachment 181303
View attachment 181304
View attachment 181305
View attachment 181306

Beautiful!

 

[otherprof94 35]

Slipping in another with Sadie Mae.
View attachment 181307

Beautiful, both Sadie Mae and the image!

 

[smoke665]

I wondered who would show their age and admit knowing I was making a Lassie reference, lol. I was just busting your chops a bit about the bokeh. You didn't think you'd not take some joking, did you? I agree that anything obviously faked will ruin a photo. These that you just shared are argument for how a beautiful background will enhance a photo and not detract from the subject.

I'm actually surprised that more didn't jump at the chance. LOL

@otherprof and @PJM Thanks guys.