Kuribayashi 35mm f/3.5

[photoni]

@Cadmium

Five days ago I bought from my repair shop for € 50, an Asahi Super Takumar 35mm f3.5 screw mount M42 N.S. 3761768
I remembered that it was a lens recommended by you, but then I saw that in your reviews it only sees up to 360 nm

 

.. is worth it ... is okay or is it a fake the eBay clone of Kyoei Acall Kuribayashi 35 f3,5 ... with BG39 + ZWB1 ?
costs $ 157 + 72 shipping + customs taxes = $ 350/400 . it seems to me really too much.

Do I keep the Asahi or do you have a few pieces to sell?
(today I am 66 years old)
Thank you
Antonio

[nfoto]

The Takumar 35/3.5 is nice and sharp, but not  having the deepest extension into UV as you already noticed. However, it will suffice for many purposes so considering the low price do keep it. A plus point is the Takumar handles well and is much better built than the other 35mm alternatives.

 

By the way, congratulations with reaching 60+6 years!!

[ulf]

Only if you are going to get into UV-photography with exotic light sources and special filters, a deeper UV reach, like the Kuribayashi is important.

 

Otherwise when working with sunlight and filters like Baader U or filter stacks with UG11 or U-360 the UV reach below say 360nm is not important at all.

 When I consider the usability of lenses with such filters I look at the lens's transmission at 365nm.

That is what matters. and gives a very good correlation to the needed exposure time for false yellow flowers in UV.

Then the image quality is the important thing to look for.

 

The Asahi 35mm f/3.5 Super-Takumar is a very nice and sharp lens that is well designed and have a good reputation.

 

I do not have a real 35mm Kuribayashi to compare with for the image quality, but I have several of the "clones" including a Soligor KA 35mm, produced by Kyoei Acall.

Imagewise the Super-Takumar is superior.

 

If the lens you got is in good condition there is a good possibility that you got a really nice bargain. Then I would congratulate tou both to your birthday and your find. 

[photoni]

Thanks @nfoto

Thanks @ulf

Your answer makes me very happy, I am not looking for extreme photos.

Maybe you remember that for me it all started on this site to understand how to imitate and have a reference point for the wet plate that sees 325> 510 nm.
.
Still from the same repairman I also got a Helios 44-2 ...

now I have to understand if this works better or the Meritar 50mm f 2,9 or the Nikkor-H 50mm f2
I'll try them with garden flowers :)

Antonio

[OlDoinyo]

I have shot with both the Asahi and Kuribayashi lenses. I find both to be quite sharp. The Asahi may be a tad sharper, but that may be due to its lesser bandpass rather than anything intrinsic to the optical quality. I think it does better than 360, or at least it seems to have better bandpass than other lenses said to cut off at 360. It  definitely gives better chromaticity than the Tamron 17, which is said to cut off at 350. The Kuribayashi is a bandpass champion, definitely better than the Asahi in that department, but how much this will matter to you in real life will depend on your subject matter and your camera.

[photoni]

@OlDoinyo today i used it for a job with the Z7 ... which is very exigent ...
the Asahi is not bad, it doesn't cut a hair in two like the 60 f2.8 G micro or the new Z 105 MC,

but I needed a wide angle perspective and with the M42-M42 helicoid it was easy to make a series of shots and glue them.

Thanks

Antonio

[ulf]

6 hours ago, OlDoinyo said:

I have shot with both the Asahi and Kuribayashi lenses. I find both to be quite sharp. The Asahi may be a tad sharper, but that may be due to its lesser bandpass rather than anything intrinsic to the optical quality. I think it does better than 360, or at least it seems to have better bandpass than other lenses said to cut off at 360. It  definitely gives better chromaticity than the Tamron 17, which is said to cut off at 350. The Kuribayashi is a bandpass champion, definitely better than the Asahi in that department, but how much this will matter to you in real life will depend on your subject matter and your camera.

I do not think it is good to use hearsay to compare UV-transmission for lenses.

I have not seen any proper measurement like of the Tamron 17.

Until there are such information available, including graphs or how the transmission is defined, relating to the transmission loss it is not a good idea to spread rumours about transmission numbers.

 

I have spent quite a lot of work cleaning up the mess we had in the lens stickie with all the combinations of ideas and statements of UV-transmission.

Please do not start propelling "facts" like that again!
 

 

I know for certain that my Asahi 35mm f/3.5 Super-Takumar has lost very close to one stop in light at 360nm because I have measured and documented that fact properly.

You are comparing that fact with something someone has said, some time, about the "Tamron 17" as if it was the truth.  I find that disturbing.

 

In my world I would say that the UV-transmission of the Tamron 17 in a proper way is unknown. 

 

There are also several 17mm lenses made by Tamron that definitely have different UV-transmission. 

The lack of chromaticity you see is a strong indicator that the "350" is not true for the Tamron 17.

 

[OlDoinyo]