Amazing bargain: 35mm f/3.5 Super-Takumar lens

[Kodachromeguy]

Hi folks, sometimes, really inexpensive things prove to be fantastic. In a recent fit of GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome), I bought a 1970s-vintage Asahi Pentax Super-Takumar 35mm f/3.5 lens. It was only $45, so not much of a gamble. This one has serial no. 4,000,000, so it was late in the single-coated era. I took a roll of Tri-X here in town and am very happy with the results. It has some flare when bright lights are in the scene, but a thin emulsion film might help that a bit. My 35mm Summicron (pre-asph) might be a bit sharper and more contrasty, but it is a $1600 lens rather than $45. These Takumar tests were all tripod-mounted, with the Tri-X developed in HC110. The old Spotmatic (in the family since 1971) had a bad light meter, so I sent it off for overhaul, but the shutter seemed fine at all speeds. Those Spotmatics were amazing cameras. Thanks for reading, cheers..

 

[LAG]

... Asahi Pentax Super-Takumar 35mm f/3.5 lens...

It is a superb lens, indeed!
Congrats

 

[Fixcinater]

The 35/3.5 gives up nothing to the considerably more expensive 35/2 Tak excepting max aperture and from what non-rigorous testing/comparing I have done of the two, it has less geometric distortion and is quite a bit lighter and more compact.

 

[John Wiegerink]

The 28mm f3.5 was no dog either. I keep one old Spotmatic just to use with one of the best 55mm 1.8 lenses made. Yup, 55mm f1.8 Super-Takumar!

 

[Hatchetman]

I keep one old Spotmatic just to use with one of the best 55mm 1.8 lenses made. Yup, 55mm f1.8 Super-Takumar!

That's one of the best lenses ever made, period. At least in the sub $1000 category.

 

[Zathras]

That's one of the best lenses ever made, period. At least in the sub $1000 category.

This is the lens that caused me to switch from Nikon to Pentax years ago. I haven't yet met a screw mount Takumar that I didn't like.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I haven't yet met a screw mount Takumar that I didn't like.

I beg to differ. I think the 200mm Takumar (or at lest the one I had) suffered from a lot of chromatic issues. Sometime later I acquired a 200mm Nikkor lens with ED glass, and it was dramatically better. It was, however, 10 or 15 years newer technology.

 

[AgX]

Is 45$ for that lens a bargain? I would be very surprised if my dealer would ask more.

 

[John Wiegerink]

This is the lens that caused me to switch from Nikon to Pentax years ago. I haven't yet met a screw mount Takumar that I didn't like.

The funny thing is I never messed with any M42 Takumars until I bought a Pentax 6X7 outfit back in the 80's. After using that for a while I thought I'd check and see how the M42 Takumars were since I really liked the "BIG" Takumars. All those years with Canon, Minolta and finally Nikon. I just really like the looks/rendering of the Super-Takumar lenses. Very nice and the price is right too!

 

[flavio81]

Congrats, i have been wanting to get this lens (35/3.5) for long time. The examples of the high performance of this lens were everywere on the net.
Finally i purchased a Carl Zeiss Jena 35/2.4, another fantastic lens.

The 28mm f3.5 was no dog either. I keep one old Spotmatic just to use with one of the best 55mm 1.8 lenses made. Yup, 55mm f1.8 Super-Takumar!

Agree with you; i also have the S-M-C 28/3.5 and is really a very fine lens. Also the 55/1.8 S-T.
I don't use the M42 lenses too much, this thread makes me load them again with film!

Right now my M42 gear is comprised of:

Pentax S-M-C Takumar 28/3.5
Carl Zeiss Jena 35/2.4
Pentax Super Takumar 55/1.8
Pentax SMC 50/1.4
Mamiya-Sekor 50/2
Carl Zeiss Jena 135/3.5
Pentacon MC 135/2.8
Pentax S-M-C Takumar 200/4

I find the Pentax lenses exquisitely made. Mechanically they are smoother than my Nikon Pre-AI lenses and my Canon FD lenses!!

 

[LAG]

The 28mm f3.5 was no dog either. I keep one old Spotmatic just to use with one of the best 55mm 1.8 lenses made. Yup, 55mm f1.8 Super-Takumar!

Very true! In my case, having the three Takumars (28 | 35 | 55), and without being an optical expert or being able to give a detailed arguments for and against (although I am not fond of the idea of matching different lenses that have different structures) I must say that the 35 mm has something that makes it special, I am not saying that I feel more comfortable with its focal distance ..., I mean that with that 35 mm, the feeling I get when seeing the scene always leaves me with my eyes wide open.

I can not describe that special feeling with money, but the OP's "amazing bargain" is quite close to that feeling.

Regards

 

[narsuitus]

My 35mm Summicron (pre-asph) might be a bit sharper and more contrasty, but it is a $1600 lens rather than $45.

I use the following Takumar lenses permanently mounted on a Spotmatic body so I do not waste time changing lenses:

28mm f/3.5
50mm f/1.4 (8-element version)
135mm f/3.5

My 50mm has the reputation for being sharper and more contrasty than the equivalent Zeiss lens.


Pentax Spotmatics by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[Dali]

Regardless the optical quality, Takumar lenses are generally well built which is an huge advantage in the long term. Smooth focusing, snappy diaphragm, you can have a 40 years old lens behaving like if it were new.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have used Pentax since 1967, with the exception of the 120 I have all of focal lengths (but not all versions) from 24 to 600 in m42. I have used Konica, Nikon, Sigma SA and now Minolta A mount, but over the years have kept my Pentax gear. With adapters I use my Pentax lens on many cameras, right now I have one my Minolta 9000s set up with the the 105 2.8s. Although not a big fan of the 35mm focal length the Pentax 3.5 is a great lens, the other sleeper lens is the 150 4.0 not all that fast but really sharp, just the right length between the 135 and 200, a 180 is too close to a 200.

 

[flavio81]

I have used Pentax since 1967, with the exception of the 120 I have all of focal lengths (but not all versions) from 24 to 600 in m42.

Which one is your favorite 50-55mm lens?

 

[Paul Howell]

Which one is your favorite 50-55mm lens?

For low light the 50 1.4 other wise the 1.8 which I think is tad sharper at F8 or 11. My other favs are the 105 2.8 and 85 1.8. It is really amazing how well lens were designed in days of slide rules. Surprising another set of very good quality lens were made by Petri, I have the 200, 300 and 400, as good as my Pentaxs. Too bad their 35mm SLRs are crap.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I gave my 35mm f/3.5 Super Tak to a friend getting started in photography, as I replaced it with the 35mm f/2. I liked the f/3.5 results better.
Luckily, both are good lenses; much better than my ability to exploit it fully, so I'm still very happy.
Echoing the sentiments of others here, the 55mm f/1.8 is an amazing lens, as is the 28mm f/3.5.
I also use a 100mm f/2.8 that I am in love with, but it's not liked as well by others it seems.

 

[flavio81]

For low light the 50 1.4 other wise the 1.8 which I think is tad sharper at F8 or 11.

The 50/1.4 you have is which version? 7-element, 8-element? S-T? S-M-C? SMC?
Sorry for being such a nerd.

My other favs are the 105 2.8 and 85 1.8.

Thanks for this tip, i have been in the possibility to buy the 105/2.8 but since i found lukewarm reviews on the 'net, i passed. And on the other hand i have the CZJ 135/3.5 and the Pentacon 135/2.8 which has really nice bokeh.

It is really amazing how well lens were designed in days of slide rules.

But note that those lenses were designed with electronic computers, not slide rules. Japanese have used computers since the end of the 50s for lens design (Fuji made the first japanese electronic computer in 1956, made specifically for lens calculations; Nikon had a Zuse computer by the end of the 50s).

By the mid 60s you can count on all major japanese manufacturers using computers. For example the Canon lenses from about 1964 onwards were designed using computers. You can bet that Asahi Optical had one; in the mid 60s Asahi Optical was by far the manufacturer that sold more cameras; more than Nikon and Canon and Minolta combined, supposedly.

Of course the increased computing power in the 70s, 80s and beyond made possible even better optimizations, more complex designs, etc.

The lenses done with slide rules (or squads of women using mechanical calculator / abacus /etc) were earlier. Those women are the unsung heroins of lens design!

 

[G1DRP]

Reading this thread has made me dig my Spotmatic-F and lenses out!
My lenses are;
SMC 28mm f3.5
SMC 35mm f3.5
SMC 55mm f1.8
SMC 135mm f3.5
Also;
Super Takumar 28mm f3.5 early version.
Takumar 135mm f3.5 preset.

They are all great lenses!
I also have a couple of Tamron adapters, with the aperture coupling, so I can shoot with my SP lenses too.

 

[blockend]

An advantage of slow, wide angle SLR lenses is the all-in-focus effect that's closer to a rangefinder view. You can hyperfocus and shoot all day without constantly adjusting. When you do need to focus the dimmer view makes it more difficult, especially in low light, but a split image screen helps. I like f3.5 35mm and 28mm lenses for that reason, and they're generally more compact than wide aperture alternatives.

 

[Paul Howell]

For low light the 50 1.4 other wise the 1.8 which I think is tad sharper at F8 or 11.

The 50/1.4 you have is which version? 7-element, 8-element? S-T? S-M-C? SMC?
Sorry for being such a nerd.

I have the first version which is a 7 element, I need to dig it out to see which coating, again think is the SMC.

My 1.4 seems better, I have tested, at 1.4 1.8, 2/8, and 4, I believe this was the aperture range the 1.4 was designed for, at smaller apertures the 1.8 is sharper. When I had Konica I had the 55 1.2, wide open to F4 great lens, at 5.6 to 16 the Konica 1.7 was sharper. The 8 element Pentax 1.4 might be as good as the 1.8 up and down the pike, never owned it so have not tested it.

 

[Hatchetman]

I tested my 50/1.4 S-M-C 7-element against my 55/1.8 S-T and the 55mm came out on top at f2-f2.8. after that I couldnt tell the difference. the 55 also beat a new Canon 50mm f1.8 which was the only other lens that fit on my Canon 5Dii.

 

[Paul Howell]

It was years ago that I tested my lens, but different results, my example 50 1.4 tested sharper at 1/4 to about F 4, then the 1.8 was just a tad sharper, I have
the results somewhere, once I get time I will hunt it down, might in a storage locker. At time I tested all my 50s, I think I had 10 or 11, the sharpest was the Konica 57 1.7, followed by a Miranda 58 1.4, then the Pentax, 1.4 and 1.8, also looked at the Yashica Mamyia, and Petri, I did not have a Canon or Nikon 50mm and my Minolta body was on the blink, X700 so did not test my Minolta MD 50 2.0. I cannot say that I would not use any of them, all exceeded the resolution of Tmax 100, I used my last few rolls of microfilm for the test.