Takumar Telephoto Primes

Patriot · Jan 28, 2013

I can't seem to find much info on some of the telephoto primes. I just received the 200mm 5.6 today in the mail, but haven't had time to play with it yet because it gets dark too fast after work. I found this while looking for the 200mm 3.5 which I heard great things about. It still evades me to this day. More seem to be popping up on ebay at higher prices. I try looking for pictures taken by these lens but can't really find much except for the same pictures over and over again. They all seem like sharp lens also which is always a plus.

The 200mm 5.6 was way smaller than what the picture of it made it out to be. I at first thought that it would be about the same thickness as the 135mm 2.5 lens, but lighter is also good too when carrying. The preset aperture is cool, it didn't take me long after playing with it at work to figure out out how it worked. Seem like a useful concept and made me think why lens today don't have the aperture in the front of the lens.

How does the 3.5 compare to the 5.6 model or the 4.0? \

-Hunt

BrianV · Jan 28, 2013

I had the 200 F4.0 lens briefly- it was good, beautifully made.

Found this online:

Takumar/Tele-Takumar 200mm F5.6 Reviews - M42 Screwmount Telephoto Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

And also a good resource:

PENTAX MANUALS

The F5.6 lens is a five-element design, I was surprised it had so many for an F5.6 lens. It is an older lens, somewhat slow at F5.6. The Nikkor of that period was an F4 lens. I suspect Pentax had to come out with the F4 to keep up, and the F3.5 to go one better.

Patriot · Jan 28, 2013

Wow Brian you are like the King of manual lens!! How did you like the F4 version? I missed my chance to get the 3.5 version for $85 on eBay just because I asked a question about it. As soon as I did that the seller changed it from buy now to bid and I lost. Now they are like $100 or more for the one's that are showing up now. One seller claims that he is selling a early rare version of the second model for $175, but I don't know if it is worth it. Next time I see something like that at a low price I will snatch it before the prices start to go up in the future. All of these mirrorless cameras are pushing them up like you stated.

Being 5.6 it looks like I will have to wait until a sunny day to use this lens. Way too slow to use indoor unless I use my flash. I'm going to give it a shot now to see what I can do with it and post back here.

-Hunt

pixmedic · Jan 28, 2013

Im giving away a super multi coated takumar 200 f/4 in M42 thread mount. Its a nice looking lens.

Patriot · Jan 28, 2013

pixmedic said:
Im giving away a super multi coated takumar 200 f/4 in M42 thread mount. Its a nice looking lens.

As much as I would love to take your offer I think that there might be someone else on the forum that could use a free lens. I could easily buy one for cheap(I think). If it's one think that I learned from being in the Air Force it's to put others that's in more need before yourself. However if no one takes it or shows interest in it I would gladly take it off of your hands.

Thank you so much for the offer.

--Thanks

Ron Evers · Jan 28, 2013

Its slow @ f5.6 but I really like my Canon FD 300/5.6 on my M4/3 cameras.

Examples:

These were hand held.

Patriot · Jan 28, 2013

Ron Evers said:
Its slow @ f5.6 but I really like my Canon FD 300/5.6 on my M4/3 cameras.

Examples:

View attachment 34230

View attachment 34231

These were hand held.

Those are pretty good hand held for a slow lens as such.

1

Shoot in Warm Bokeh by Jarrett_Hunt, on Flickr

This was shot wide open on the Tak 135 2.5 I really like this lens a lot!!

2.

Brownie2-Tak 200 5.6 test by Jarrett_Hunt, on Flickr

Tak 200 5.6 wide open.

3.

Brownie3-Tak 200 5.6 test by Jarrett_Hunt, on Flickr

Tak 200 5.6 at F8

4.

Brownie4-Tak 200 5.6 test by Jarrett_Hunt, on Flickr

Tak 200 5.6 not so sure but maybe between F5.6 and F8

I didn't have a super model to test the new takumar with so I had to use the dog in my room. I notice fringing but that could be because it's doesn't have the SMC markings. Nothing that can't be fixed in lightroom.