Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Has anyone tried the Pentax Super-Takumar 28mm F3.5 (49mm filter size)?


SteveCampbell

Recommended Posts

SteveCampbell
I've found favorable results with the Auto Takumar 35mm f3.5 thus far, and was curious about the Pentax Super-Takumar 28mm F3.5. Does anyone have experience with this lens in UV?
Link to comment

Doesn't seem to have drawn any replies, Steve.

 

But your question did bring to mind the older, less-often-seen Takumar 35/4.0 which has UV-capability. I think Klaus first told me about this Tak. Eventually I found one for sale in the UK.

Link to comment
The 28mm lens is not on the list of those with thoriated glass. This is at least not a bad sign. Apart from that, no one seems to have tested the lens yet, so we just don't know.
Link to comment
SteveCampbell
Found one (49MM filter, non-SMC) for a good price on eBay, so I'll post results when time permits! If it doesn't work in UV, it'll still make an amazing and dirt-cheap macro lens reversed on extension tubes/a helicoid.
Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

UPDATE: Seems to perform quite well. There's some heavy vignetting in the very far corners due to the 49>52mm adapter + 2x stacked 52mm filters encroaching into the frame. Compared with the Auto Takumar 35/3.5, the Super Takumar 28/3.5 lets in only slight little less light from a 365nm source, and has an easier time reaching infinity focus.

 

MORE INTERESTING UPDATE: I also got my hands on a very early (chrome+black) Auto Takumar 135/3.5 - *phenomenal* performance. MUCH better than the chrome EL-Nikkor 80/5.6 in all respects. Sharpness, contrast, color, overall transmission. I was very surprised. I can't speak to the qualities of the later versions, but I'm very surprised that there hasn't been more of a clamor to get peoples' hands on this optic. Note: again, this is the chrome+black auto version, not the all-black, super, or SMC.

 

UPDATE III: I also have a late non-thorium Auto Takumar 55/1.8 coming in the mail. Will report results once it arrives.

Link to comment

It's similar, but the one you linked to is one of the later, super-multi-coated versions. I would avoid any of the SMC versions if you're looking to use it for UV.

 

My rule of thumb has been to look for older versions first: original Takumars, followed by Auto Takumars, followed by Super Takumars, and avoiding SMC Takumars altogether.

 

EDIT: Since most people around here use 52mm filters, for the 28/3.5 I would suggest the 2nd model of the Super Takumar; earlier versions used a 58mm filter thread, while the later Super Takumar 28/3.5 used a 49mm thread. The breakdown of the different versions can be found in the link below.

 

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/S-M-C-Super-Takumar-28mm-F3.5.html

 

Is the lens you tested similar to this one?

 

http://www.ebay.com/...4wAAOSwm-pZtVkt

 

You have piqued my interest now--I am looking for something better than the Enna in this focal length.

Link to comment

I got a good deal on a rather beat-up preset 105/2.8 4g-4e. With a bit of work on it I should be able to report it's UV performance. Fingers crossed that it'll be within my means to get it into shape.

 

Here is another good page on the Early PENTAX TAKUMAR Lenses. This source says the Auto 135/3.5 uses the same optics as the earlier fully manual, preset, 135/3.5 (5 elements in 4 groups) which Andrea has tested. I always thought the 100/3.5 (3e-3g) and 100/2.8 (4e-4g) might perform better in UV but both are considerably less common and I do not own either.

Link to comment

I wanted to briefly recap my Asahi Takumar 135/3.5 experience. As Steve has noted, it is a sharp and nicely contrasty lens as is typical of many Pentax lenses. Its UV capability is good but not the best in the non-dedicated UV lens arena.

 

I have a huge fondness for Pentax lenses - don't know why, perhaps a certain "sentimental" value perhaps because the only good film camera I ever tried to shoot before digital days was a Pentax. Anyway, I find the older manual Taks to be quite nice indeed. In addition to which I'm really liking the Pentax K cameras as broadband conversions.

 

Steve have you tried the pinhole test for UV capability? Here are some links, the first of which includes the Tak 135/3.5:

http://www.ultraviol...test-protocols/

http://www.ultraviol...ikkor-80mm-f56/

http://www.ultraviol...of-some-lenses/

http://www.ultraviol...dpost__p__10955

I would welcome an informal pinhole test of your finds.

 

BTW, have you read our Lens Sticky? Look for simply built 3-element or 4-element in 3-group lenses without coatings to find UV capability. The old, simply constructed 35/3.5 lenses, for example, have provided many excellent finds for UV work. (If you already know this stuff, kindly ignore. :) I'm never sure who knows what and tend to write for the larger audience who may not yet know.)

Link to comment
According to the pinhole tests, the Asahi 135 is substantially inferior in bandpass to the Kyoei, Kuribayashi, or Lentar equivalents (assuming we are talking about the same Asahi lens here.) However, there is no comparative information on chromatic aberration or general sharpness in the UV range. It is true that lenses with narrower bandpass tend to show less CA, which gives the appearance of greater sharpness, but there will be reduced chromaticity. I have no information on the El-Nikkor with respect to these properties.
Link to comment

I have been thinking of scheduling a Crumpled Aluminum Foil Test with all my UV-dedicated and UV-capable lenses to illustrate the purple fringing problem seen in many non-dedicated but UV-capable lenses and also seen in any uncorrected UV-dedicated quartz/fluorite lens. I've experimented with such a test in the past, but it's so hard to find the time to set it up properly and work through enough lenses to show the results across a varied lens category.

 

I'm pretty sure everyone has seen this purple fringing in some of their UV lenses or at least knows about it, so I don't know whether there is much interest in seeing such test results? Input welcomed!!!

Link to comment

I should certainly give the pinhole test a try. Yes, I've been using the lens sticky extensively since getting my first non-dedicated UV lens (80/5.6 metal), and trying to use the lens data to estimate which other lenses would work well (older, fewer elements, same brands of other successful tests, etc). I tried my hand at my own method of estimating transmittance - I'll post it as a separate topic in a moment.

 

 

I wanted to briefly recap my Asahi Takumar 135/3.5 experience. As Steve has noted, it is a sharp and nicely contrasty lens as is typical of many Pentax lenses. Its UV capability is good but not the best in the non-dedicated UV lens arena.

 

I have a huge fondness for Pentax lenses - don't know why, perhaps a certain "sentimental" value perhaps because the only good film camera I ever tried to shoot before digital days was a Pentax. Anyway, I find the older manual Taks to be quite nice indeed. In addition to which I'm really liking the Pentax K cameras as broadband conversions.

 

Steve have you tried the pinhole test for UV capability? Here are some links, the first of which includes the Tak 135/3.5:

http://www.ultraviol...test-protocols/

http://www.ultraviol...ikkor-80mm-f56/

http://www.ultraviol...of-some-lenses/

http://www.ultraviol...dpost__p__10955

I would welcome an informal pinhole test of your finds.

 

BTW, have you read our Lens Sticky? Look for simply built 3-element or 4-element in 3-group lenses without coatings to find UV capability. The old, simply constructed 35/3.5 lenses, for example, have provided many excellent finds for UV work. (If you already know this stuff, kindly ignore. :) I'm never sure who knows what and tend to write for the larger audience who may not yet know.)

 

I've had my eye on the Petri for a couple months after reading that test, although I haven't quite figured out how I could mount it on a Canon dSLR... any idea?

 

According to the pinhole tests, the Asahi 135 is substantially inferior in bandpass to the Kyoei, Kuribayashi, or Lentar equivalents (assuming we are talking about the same Asahi lens here.) However, there is no comparative information on chromatic aberration or general sharpness in the UV range. It is true that lenses with narrower bandpass tend to show less CA, which gives the appearance of greater sharpness, but there will be reduced chromaticity. I have no information on the El-Nikkor with respect to these properties.

 

I would certainly be interested in seeing those results. I'm sure you've amassed quite a lens collection by now!

 

I have been thinking of scheduling a Crumpled Aluminum Foil Test with all my UV-dedicated and UV-capable lenses to illustrate the purple fringing problem seen in many non-dedicated but UV-capable lenses and also seen in any uncorrected UV-dedicated quartz/fluorite lens. I've experimented with such a test in the past, but it's so hard to find the time to set it up properly and work through enough lenses to show the results across a varied lens category.

 

I'm pretty sure everyone has seen this purple fringing in some of their UV lenses or at least knows about it, so I don't know whether there is much interest in seeing such test results? Input welcomed!!!

Link to comment

There are a lot of M42 to Eos adapters on eBay that work well.

They will give focus at infinity if the lend did with proper M42 thread mount.

 

Search for "m42 to eos mount adapter"

Even the most cheap would work well and if you get an adjustable adapter you can lock the lens rotation in a position where the aperture and focus scales are correct and visible.

 

Some adapters even have an electronic chip-structure mounted that emulates the communication as from an original Eos lens, but they might not work as expected.

Some are supposed to be programable. I have tried a few that did not work.

Link to comment

My mistake, I thought they were all "Petri mount", and didn't realize they came in M42 mount

 

There are a lot of M42 to Eos adapters on eBay that work well.

They will give focus at infinity if the lend did with proper M42 thread mount.

 

Search for "m42 to eos mount adapter"

Even the most cheap would work well and if you get an adjustable adapter you can lock the lens rotation in a position where the aperture and focus scales are correct and visible.

 

Some adapters even have an electronic chip-structure mounted that emulates the communication as from an original Eos lens, but they might not work as expected.

Some are supposed to be programable. I have tried a few that did not work.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...