6 Pentax 35mm Lenses Tested; The Ultimate Pentax 35mm Lens Comparison Review
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- 6 Pentax 35mm Lenses Tested;
Takumar 1:4 f=35mm
Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35mm
Super Multi Coated TAKUMAR 1:3.5/35
SMC PENTAX 1:2/35
SMC PENTAX-M 1:2.8 35mm
SMC PENTAX-FA 1:2 35mm AL
The Ultimate Pentax 35mm Lens Comparison Review
I give an introduction to each vintage lens, then show examples of each lens in several different situations. Tests include; bokeh test, maximum bokeh test, distortion tests, light falloff and 3d pop tests, sunstars test, flare resistance tests, sharpness resolution and nighttime image quality tests. This video very thoroughly reviews the best 35mm focal length lenses from Asahi Optical Company's Takumar, Auto-Takumar, and SMC Pentax lenses. All lenses compared are full frame format SLR camera lenses tested on Sony A7ii and A7s mirrorless full frame camera bodies. Video finishes with a review in which I discuss each lens' characteristics.
Lens hood recommendations 6:53
Lens test image comparisons:
Bokeh: 9:21
Maximum bokeh: 10:26
Distortion: 11:22
Light falloff, microcontrast, 3d pop: 13:12
f11 pixel peep 14:56
flare resistance and sunstars comparison 15:48
f4 Nighttime light transmission comparison 17:35
Nighttime sunstars comparison 20:10
Conclusion 21:01 - Фільми й анімація
![[UA] NAVI проти G2 Esports | Blast Premier Fall Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QWlIm4FGESQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I did not expect such a well paced, interesting and comprehensive video. This must have taken a lot of time to make. Great video.
This is an incredibly beautiful video for camera gear. It’s got a bit of soul to it and it’s so refreshing to see a video without people shouting at me about smashing like buttons with scratchy loud music in the background. You, sir, should get a medal for that alone.
Your video is nice, but I am just not sure what to make of the tests. I guess I am not sure how to judge the differences. They all look good mostly.
These look best to me, at these points in the tests.
THE SMC Takumar
ua-cam.com/video/IrjwRUi3jfQ/v-deo.html
THE SMC Takumar
ua-cam.com/video/IrjwRUi3jfQ/v-deo.html
The other tests would be dependent on what you are trying to do. They could all work for something.
What did you think about these tests? You should leave a road map of the tests with what you liked.
I should say, this is not how I would use the lenses.
Great video.
Jim
The first Japanese wide angle lens ever made, the Takumar released in 1957? What have you been smoking? :) The Canon Serenar 35mm f2.8 and 28mm f3.5 were released in 1951 and followed the 35mm f3.5 of 1950, , and I do believe that they replaced the versions previously made for Canon by Nikon. The first Japanese lenses for cameras were made by Nikon for Canon, which produced the first Japanese camera prototyping of which started in 1933. In 1948 Nikon told Canon they were going to produce their own camera and didn’t wish to continue supplying Canon forcing Canon to become the second Japanese manufacturer of camera lenses.
Asahi/Pentax produced the first Japanese SLR under the Asahi brand in 1952 (Canon was making interchangeable lens rangefinders.) What that Takumar is is the first wide angle lens for a camera branded as a Pentax, and possibly the first Japanese SLR wide angle lens. That was 2 years before the Nikon F was introduced, and these early Pentax SLR’s are an important part of camera history, but it was Canon in partnership with Nikon who produced the first Japanese camera lenses, including wide angle ones. Asahi was the third Japanese company to do it.
my super takumar 35mm f3.5 is sharper than sigma 19mm dn art , sony fe 28-70mm, nikon 20mm, nikon 24mm, nikon 50mm, konica 50mm. only nikon macro lens is as sharp. truly a gem
Thanks for this intense review and journey into pentax' lens history.
Very interesting.
I love Takumar lenses. Lenses with radioactive thorium have excellent optical quality.
Those are not much in the way of hoods. A good hood will be at least 8" long. I make mine out of filter step up adapters.
Also, if you want a radioactive lens check out the FUJINON 50mm f1.4 Radioactive 3706 CPM, uSv/h 22.77
That is uSv/h 22.77 !!!
I argue that these are all "good" hoods. The hoods you're describing could be considered "excellent," and fulfill more needs, but at the cost of size mostly.
Sweet and nicely done. Very cool to see so many of these rounded up like that. A favorite length of mine by far.
I've had the FA/2.0 and the K/2.0 in the past, as well as (one you didn't cover) an M/2.0 and currently an A/2.0 (same formula) which I adore (I've had those around for many years). But my favorite of the bunch (newer to me) is my SuperTak/3.5 (non SMC version but like yours as you know). There's just something special about it to me in it's overall rendering. Love it to death after not too terribly long with it. Never did try AutoTak/2.3 - Always figured I had one like that in size already that loved - the good old FA31 and never bothered.
At any rate... Cheers and thanks for shooting this.
The Pentax-M wins again. That's my favorite series of Pentax lenses
Fantastic review. Been looking for really good review on some of these lenses and you covered all of them in one go! Just got myself the SMC Pentax-M 50mm 1.7 and I think my next buy will be the 35mm version. Thanks again!
It's kind a pain in my b... pain in my hands!
This is a wonderfully comprehensive test, and so useful to see every lens shot with an identical scene. The flares on the Auto Takumar are incredible! And the rendering of the Pentax 35mm f2 is great. Well, more lenses for the wish list.
Hi there kind sir, i 'stumbled' across you channel i was blown away by the quality content and the information plentitude , however since I'm new in Pentax world and recently sold my d3400 to buy a Pentax K-x and left with some money , i was curious what lens would you recommend for this camera, i want to add that i only have 18-55 and 55-210 kit lenses for my old Pentax k-X, any recommendations please that would not make me sell an arm and a leg? regards and thank you in advance.
Love love LOVE how you did the side by sides all at once on the same screen so my little pea brain can see the differences, they are a LOT easier to pick out that way. Also, one question-radioactive lenses??? What's that all about?? Is it from a coating material or something??? I didn't know that was a thing....
Thorium was used in some glasses to minimize refraction. Not a coating, it's in the glass itself.
lol if he did that quick snap stopping down aperture blades thing on my minolta 50mm 1.4 it would break and never work again, i'm so afraid to move them to fast
i have tested my k35/2 and doesn't seems to be radioactive, am i lucky? broken geiger counter?
Thank you for this great great movie for pentax DSLR users!!
This fine video regrettably misses my favorite, the f2.0 Super Takumar. That was my standard lens for street work from the mid-1960s thru the 1970s, mounted first on an H3V then a Spotmatic. It is very different from the later SMC f2.0, much larger overall, 8 elements, 5 diaphragm blades, and accepts a 68mm diameter filter. Bokeh is not as swirly as the earlier f2.3 Auto-Tak, but then the price is not as "swirly" either...!
Provided you stop down to at least f4, sharpness corner-to-corner on the Super Tak f2.0 is very good. Wide open, the images are fairly soft overall and depth of field is very shallow, both of which are handy for shooting available light candid head and shoulders images. The color rendition at all apertures on the f2.0 Super Tak is among the finest, smoothest, most saturated I've seen from any Asahi glass. I use this lens today on a K3 crop sensor body with the M42/PK adapter. PS: Check pentaxforums dot com for thousands of hands-on, detailed reviews of Asahi and other brands of legacy lenses, all posted by fellow diehard Pentaxians. Thank you - liked & subscribed!
The removable piece in the lens hood on the FA 35mm f2 is so you can still spin a circular polarizer while the lens hood is attached.
Interesting how they made it line up perfectly with the focus range window too, though, huh? Careful design.
that was really interesting! thank you
Something not shown here is just how insane the 35 f2.3's bokeh is with stuff like foliage. Bubbly and paintery caused by some severe spherical aberrations, unmatched by the others in terms of cool factor and the reason it's so valuable. If I had to choose to keep one 35mm it'd be the 2.3 any day and is on my never sell list.
I won't be selling mine either. Ever. You might know already, it's basically an Angenieux design? I don't use it for everything, but you're right; it's in a league separate from the others in this regard.
Even more impressive than the (excellent) review, is your photographic ability.
The reason that the shade for the 35mm AL lens has a removable hatch in its side is not to allow inspection of the lens (?); it is intended to give access to the lens where a polarizer is installed, allowing you to manually adjust the polarizer without removing the shade. Also, I think you will find that all of your lenses labelled Takumar are coated, and all lenses labelled Super-Takumar or Pentax are multicoated. Pentax was an industry leader in developing the technology to multi-coat camera lenses. Zeiss developed the concept before WWII, but Pentax was the manufacturer who invented the technology allowing them to put multicoating into general use.
This series has been super-helpful to me. Thank you for this detailed and no doubt time- consuming comparo.
I have the f2.3 and the Auto Tak f3.5 which you didn't review. Both are excellent. The f2.3 is quite soft unless you set it to f8 or f11 then it is sharp, in fact slightly sharper than my Auto Tak. It is one of favourite lenses. Very unique. I would love that earliest one but hard to find.
Thank you for this inspiring review. Your photos are wow : ) and with the music the most spiritual review I have seen. Cool!!
Really liked reading your comment, thanks.
The removable piece from the hood is to allow operation of a polarizing filter with the hood normally attached.
Fantastic work. Extremely useful. I like my Takumar 35/3.5 same hood as yours and just started with a 35/2.3. The original 2.3 hood attached to the outside with a set screw, not by the filter threads.
Good one Nathan.. man, you know how to do a good lens comparison video! Thanks
Hey Nate! Love your Pentax lens review videos. Just a pleasure to hear you speak and share your knowledge, seriously these are probably my favorite photography videos I've seen on UA-cam. Just purchased a Takumar SMC 50 f4 macro for the A7r which is truly amazing. I wanted to learn more about classic Pentax lenses and Google brought your videos up first. Fucking awesome work!
Oh man, when you sat that bag down in the begining it sounded like some glass breaking and my heart stopped for a moment. I should probably start eating healthier...
thank you for this informative video!
The 35 3.5 I had was a first class lens. 35 2.0 not worth the extra money
Nice vid thanks. Would a smc pentax-a 28mm 2.8 posess similar benefits to your GOTO m series 35 2.8? Or is the 2.0 35mm a closer match?
I ask because im dusting off my super A, thanks in advance
Actually I tend to use one of the 28mm f3.5's over the M 28mm f2.8. Either M series or Super-Takumar with 58mm filter ring. These are my favorite 28's. For close focusing, the K series 28mm f2, but it does not look as good as the M series f3.5 in my opinion. It's a good match with the M series 35mm f2.8 and has similar rendering characteristics.
Nice review, thanks! One little note; the removable slot in the FA hood is to allow turning a circular polarizer filter without removing the hood.
Now....to see if I can find one of those Tak f4's?
Thanks for this detailed comparison. Minor detail; none of lenses you refer to as uncoated, is uncoated. They're just not "multicoated" which of course was a big selling point for Ashai at one time.
"It's quite radioactive......moving on."
Thank you so much! I bought the 35mm 2.8 (M) lens, largely based on this review. I am extremely happy with the lens! Here is a tip: the very compact lens hood that is designed for the DA-40mm is an excellent match. Extremely compact and protecting, and remarkably enough, there is no vinjetting!
A very valuable history documentation for Pentax lenses, great job, thank you.
Best Pentax Vintage lenses video I've seen so far. Fantastic job 👏
Theearly Takumar 35mm f4 is not the first wide angle lens ever made in Japan. You are probably victim of a recurrent information shortcoming going around on the net (it should be added "by Asahi Optical Company (AOCo)". The first Japanese wide-angle retrofocus lens was made by Fujita Opt. Co. a Fujita 35mm f2.5, which came out already in 1957, seven years after Angenieux invented it. At that time Fujita had been making medium format cameras for a while, sold worldwide, with a catalog of 9 prime lenses. With the change in trends from rangefinder to reflex, they started producing lenses for those formats too. As a matter of fact the same Fujita was available in a wide variety of mounts included the Asahiflex, which predate the Takumar 35mm f4, and were sold abroad under various names. The lens has FIVE elements in four groups... which are probably the four pieces of glass you took out. The rear element is a cemented (as illustrated by images by AOCo pertaining the last batch of them made). The retrofocus is basicallya Tessar design with a extra front element, to avoid problems of extension of the lens too close to the mirror. I will stop here. There are other historical inaccuracies (such as the Takumar 35mm f2.3 as the first Auto-Takumar...). I love the test, though. By the way... you are missing the Auto-Takumar 35mm f3.5, the earlier version of all the subsequent Super- and SMC Takumar 35. ;-)
Thanks for pointing out the error that the Takumar 35mm f4 is not the first Japanese wide angle. The reason I did not include the Auto-Takumar 35mm f 3.5 is because it uses the same optical formula as the other 35mm f3.5 in the video and I saw no need for redundancy in testing.
You are incorrect about the Takumar 35mm f4 being a 5 element lens. I am aware of the error in Asahi's repair manual showing the later f3.5 design as being what is inside the Takumar 35mm f4, but it is just that; an error. There are no cemented elements in them. By using a cemented group, Takumar was able to make it half a stop faster, f3.5.
I also never claimed that the 35mm f2.3 was the first of the Auto-Takumars. If you can name any historical inaccuracy or "inaccuracies" in the video, I would be curious to know.
Good stuff, thanks for making the video!
The S-M-C Takumar 1:3.5/35 out performs all of the others in all cases for me.
yeah - it seems to whoop the rest in sharpness/contrast.
Got one near mint for 10 bucks!
NICE score!
vyoufinder Thankss!
You are not a bookeh person then lol
Thank you so much for an interesting and in depth review of these Pentax 35's... I've got 2 copies the Tak 3.5, and am constantly on the lookout for the 2.3. Now that I've seen your video, my LBA lust had now expanded to the M 2.8 and FA 2, and even the SMC 2... and most especially.. the Tak 4... !!!
Starting a cine set and I have the Super-Multi-Coated 50mm 1.4. Should I mix the SMC PENTAX-M 1:2.8 35mm or just stick to the Super-Multi-Coated version?
Personally, I wold try not to mix. The coatings may give a slight difference between SMC and Super-Multi-Coated. I mix them, but I try not to if consistency matters. There IS a difference between the SMC and Super Multi-Coated, and it can/may be noticeable. Not usually, but sometimes. So for that reason, I try not to, but still will sometimes if the situation is ok for it. There's also the matter of the mount and changing it/need for another adapter.
Very well done! Very nice location, informative technical details, and no silly mistakes or questionable remarks (unlike many other UA-cam reviews!).
I'm just adding something that's quite evident looking at the pictures, and I'm sure you noticed, but for some reason you didn't mention. The exposure varies from one lens to another. The FA is always somewhat overexposed, for example.
I am aware that the understandable choice of avoiding post processing doesn't allow to balance the exposure across the various objectives. So I'm not criticizing.
Though some pics shot with the FA look a bit washed out, affecting the perceived contrast of the image. Did you take it into account in your final consideration? just curious...
By the way, Pentax cameras behave the same way. There are slight exposure variations, from one lens to another, especially using vintage MF glasses with no electric contacts.
Given the level of competence you show, I'd say that you are perfectly aware of the problem, just warning the viewers to take it into account when reviewing the pictures in your video...
All in all, great video, one of the best of this kind on UA-cam. My compliments!
I appreciate very much that you concentrated on a single focal, and that you pitted very old objectives (Takumar, Auto Takumar) against newer multicoated models (and even an AF one still sold new).
I realize I've always preferred bayonet mount lenses for practical reasons (I always change objectives in the field), and I also snobbed single-coated Asahi Takumars. Not anymore, I have an f/1.8 85mm Auto Takumar that has a wonderful build and a very good rendition, ideal for portraits. In these days I'm testing a new-to-me 8-elements Super Takumar 1.4/50mm (also single-coated) that is showing plenty of "punch".
Your video shows how beautiful and well built those early Takumar were. Let's say that your interesting video is very much mouth watering... a pity this kind of lenses are uncommon and not very affordable.
Sideline lens collector's question:
is it true that the Takumar f/4 was the first (retrofocus) Japanese wide-angle?
That would shine a different light on Asahi's early activity as lens makers, and show a level of competence in lens design far better than the average level of Japanese optical industry of the time. If we look at the first examples made by respected present day optical designers, like Sigma and Tokina, we see how poor those objectives were. Solid but rough construction, and optical copycats of western designs (mainly german). From what you say, I get that Asahi was quite innovative since a very early stage of their post-war activity.
Fortunately your choice of camera puts you in the enviable position of having almost no incompatible lenses.
Recently I've used many lenses from the sixties and even fifties, but most Japanese ones are left out because of the incompatible mount/register. With my Pentax K-1 I'm stuck with M42 objectives, or adaptations that permanently alter the nature of the lens. You can shoot side by side the old Takumar f/4 and a Canon in Leica mount! :)
Looking forward to watch more of your videos
Ciao
Paolo
Thanks Paulo for your kind and interest provoking comment. Your comment brings up some choices I was forced to make while editing the test images and video that I am glad to address. You are correct in pointing out that the lenses do in fact differ in their exposures for a given f-stop. Mostly when using the lenses wide open. If you're curious, the Takumar 35mm f4 was slightly darker than the rest at f4 and the SMC Tak 35mm f3.5 was not far behind as far as being darker than the rest. The FA is also ever so slightly brighter than the M 2.8 or K f2 making it the brightest of the bunch. The way I kept exposure so close to the same was via adjusting shutter speed where possible, and slight exposure adjustment from .raw to match exposure only. Though very minimal, it was pretty much necessary to do this or via altering the f-stop which was not an option of course. I felt it was critical to match exposure for the sake of comparison. However, when it came to matching color balance. I actually did a separate set of tests that I considered including where I did match the color between images. I did it mostly for my own curiosity, and almost edited them into the video. I decided not to use them, however, because I felt it was more important to show the color characteristics of each lens and it felt redundant watching the corrected test images for a second time. If I had chosen to color correct, then the next thing you know, I was going to be editing each image to look its best and would bring my editing into the equation, so I opted not to and instead to let photographers find the characteristics that they know are best for editing to their final image preferences. This unseen information was however used in coming to my conclusions in the video, along with what I know from generally using the lenses over time in different situations. For example in the nighttime test shots on the river, I do not particularly like the greens shown that the Takumar f4 rendered in camera, but when matched to the other images, it shines. In general, I think the K f2 and Tak f4 render somewhat unpleasing colors for night photography out of camera, but when balanced the Tak f4 looks best in my opinion, so long as it's not flaring.
Yes, it's true that the Takumar f4 was the first retrofocus wide angle. Online sources include:
www.klassik-cameras.de/Pentax_Takumar_e.html
www.pentax-slr.com/71760569
I've done my own checking and as far as I can tell this statement holds true. It is interesting that it is not even mentioned at www.pentax.com/en/pentaxhistory/course/ as it would seem to be a worthwhile achievement. However, maybe humble Pentax is not boasting of it only because it was likely not something they achieved so much on their own. The Wikipedia page for Angenieux retrofocus is minimal and uncited, but leaves the discovery credit going to Pierre Angenieux (French.): "Made in focal lengths of 24 mm, 28 mm, and 35 mm, the Angénieux retrofocus lens inspired other lens makers to produce wide-angle lenses of this type for almost every 35mm SLR, and helped to make it the definitive camera type of the late 20th century.[citation needed]"
at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ang%C3%A9nieux_retrofocus
A bit OT, sorry, but for those of you who love the flare and bokeh qualities produced with the f2.3 Auto Tak, you might purchase a Helios 44M-2. This is a 50mm, not a 35mm, granted, but out of the box and wide open it produces remarkable bokeh; with a light source very near axis it also generates creative flare. Reverse the front element (literally flip it around 180 degrees), and the bokeh and flare are an order of magnitude greater (along with corner distortion and falloff, of course). If you like shooting abstract interpretations of flowers, leaves, close-up bits of nature, this is a fine choice IMHO.
I bought the Helios 44M-2 but after I bought the Takumar 55 1.4 I never use the Helio anymore because Takumar is sharper and less yellow :-)
Wow, best lens review I ever saw! Well done, Sir!
Thank you so much for this very informative and educational video. I have been wanting a 35mm lens and your video helped me make my decision and order the M 2.8 lens. I am curious which adapter you use to mount these lenses on your Sony cameras.
I use some of hte cheapest adapters available; the Fotga adapters are my favorite. I also have some very expensive ones.
Fantastic comparison video, with awesome music.
Thank you for taking so much time and care with it.
Helped me a lot. 🙏👍
Thank you for a very informativ and well componed video. I learnt a lot from your experiences.
Really well done, thanks for this.
Thanks .
I dig the drums, man.
Back in the day I really wanted the f2. It woke up the viewfinders in my Spotmatics.
I sunk my money into the 17mm fish eye.
In the early '90s I found the 35mm f3.5. It got some use before film faded away.
In the bright view finders of the little MX and the KX beast, it was like an overdue honey moon.
In your interesting comparison, the photos that kept catching my eyes where from the f2.8!
I spent a couple of days in Moab, that was only a tease.
Nice to have low humidity for your tests.
Loved your photos. Chris
I have gone micro four thirds.
A now old school (ha) 20mm f1.7 is pretty much always on a body. No zoom yet.
Late '60s and early '70s Takumar works very well!
Thank you for taking the time to make this video.
Fantastic test! Do any of the 35mm SMC Pentax K lenses not have thorium. I know they were phasing it out.
I am unsure of this. My guess it that they are all radioactive.
I've got the SMC 2/35, it's an excellent lens, but definitely quite on the heavy side. The only of my 17 lenses suffering from sticky aperture blades is the Pentax-M f4/20mm. Not as sticky as your 35mm but too slow for normal use. You can stop down the lens by pushing the DOF-button before shooting, that works quite well...
EDIT: are you sure about the radioactivity in the 2/35? I know, that was a slight issue in some of the old Takumars, but those were recognizably yellow in their coatings and a slight tint due to Thorium and/or Lanthanium. But mine (K-mount) has been bought by my dad in 1976 or 77 and it has never had the slightest tint to this day...
I tested it with a geiger device... Yep, radioactive.
@@vyoufinder OK, interesting...
Great video! What did you mean by the lens being radioactive? Also, the removable piece on the hood I believe is used for adjusting filters while the hood is on, its just a coincidence or extra good design that it shows the focusing scale. Never thought about it that way before!
I meant that it gives off Gamma and Beta rays due
to a thoriated rear element. This is common in faster vintage lenses.
Thanks for a really useful video.
Such a comprehensive, interesting and useful review...it helped me A LOT in making my decision, thank you so much for the hard work you put into this. Greetings from France.
Great video with pleasing presentation, great setting and the audio aswell.
Hi! I recently purchased 4 vintage Pentax Here are : ASAHI SMC PENTAX - M 1:1.4 50MM SERIAL NUMBER 6618665
SMC PENTAX- A MACRO 1: 2.8 50MM SERIAL NUMBER 5927833.
SMC PENTAX- A ZOMM 1: 3.5 35 ~ 105MM SERIAL NUMBER 5282874.
SMC PENTAX - A* 1: 4 300MM SERIAL NUMBER 5914105.. do you know is this lenses are radioactive?
Im pretty sure that none of those are radioactive. By the M series, it had been pretty well phased out.
vyoufinder thank you
You're right! I checked my lenses with a Geiger counter... And these are none radioactive. Thanks again
Great 👍
I really appreciate the subject matter of the photos all in all a great video
Very impressive video, have you tried the Super Takumar 35mm f2? how does it compare with the other ones in your opinion
I have not tried it either of the S-M-C Takumar 35mm f2's. There are a total of 4 variants, two basic designs for the S-M-C Takumars; 67mm filter thread and 49mm filter thread. I suspect the 67mm filter ring lens has character.
Awesome and super informative. I like the Takumar f3.5 and the M-f2.8 they are equally good but it will come down to price and condition. Thanks again for the great video! Perhaps a video on a set of 28mm next?
I'm doing the 28's very soon.. Stay tuned, I mean, Subscribe.
well explained video, thank you
Nice and very informative video..How about DA 35mm f2.4?
Which of there Would work on a K1000? Looking for best options.
Any of the K mount lenses; M, A, SMC, FA, etc. series. In this video, the SMC
35mm f2, Pentax-M 35mm f2.8, or the FA 35mm f2. You could also use a
Pentax K to M42 adapter with any M42 screw mount lens, including the
Takumar 35mm f4, Auto Takumar 35mm f2.3, or S-M-C Takumar 35mm f3.5
shown in this video, though capabilities will be limited.
The only thing that will always bother me about this is that if we are comparing the m 35mm 2.8, we should have used the K 35mm 3.5. Yes its the same optical formula but the minimum focus distance drops from 45 cm to 30 cm which is significant. I prefer the K to the M but I am a bit biased.
Exquisite work/video/photographer/places/music !!
Such a great moment, thank you !
My pick before the end S-M-C
I have the Pentax-M 35mm F2.8. I recently purchased it to use with my 40-year old Pentax A3000 film camera. I also use it with my Fujifilm X-T4. It only cost about $175 in near mint condition. It is amazingly sharp, and it works really well shooting B&W on the film camera. I really like that lens. It is small and light too.
I like your vibe. And there’s really good info shared here. You’re good at this!
I appreciate that!
Thanks for another thorough great review.
Thanks for the lovely comparison video. Gorgeous shots, lovely music and most of all informative. Will see if I can catch any of those Takumar lenses online nearby :)
I got that SMC Takumar 35mm f2 lens from a dealer who went to Hong Kong and brought it back for me-- it was a DOG of a lens -- my Press photos were poor -- no 'resolution' until it was stopped down to f11-16 ! I SOLD it cheaply to an un-suspecting friend!
I have or had everyone except the two old ones. I agree generally except that the 35/3.5 super Tac has a nasty bokeh and the the 35/2 FA has a nice one. The FA should have the nicest but in my opinion doesn't. For me the Super Tak 35/3.5 is a phenomenal lens and has a big brother the 65/4.5 for the 6X7 camera. Thanks and congrats for the test
As far as bokeh goes, I really like the bokeh on the FA, but the SMC K might be better. The Auto-Takumar has its own character and look and I like it quite a bit also. Especially if not focused very close. Which is your favorite for bokeh?
Nathan , thank you for your review , fantastic!
I got the SMC 3.5 recently and for street photography I'm really pleased , also I learn from you that this lens has a really good punchy colours something I love and 3D pop either!
Thanks a lot man!
By the way your pictures are gorgeous!
Ah! I forgot,
Could you make a review for Takumar portrait lenses? 105 135?
Thanks for making this
What a thorough, fascinating, well explained overview! A truly amazing variety and such a helpful comparison. Thank you!
Awesome video. Why did you skip the f2 Tak?
It's very similar to the K series, but I think the K series is much more sought after. I wanted an even 6.
Very good video. Informative and well presented.
Hi I've just discovered your channel it has to be in my opinion the best reviews I have found on the Pentax lenses. Can you please or can you consider doing more comparison videos on vintage Carl Zeiss lenses Minolta etc? Thanks
As a fellow content creator, I recognize how much time and effort went into this. OUTSTANDING work.
Hi, thanks for the video. Nicely done. One small point thought, the removable section of the lens hood is to facilitate adjust filters such as a CPL, many Pentax lens hoods have this well thought out design feature.
Super thorough and super helpful. Thank you!
Nathan, I really enjoyed your video comparing these six lenses. Interesting and inspiring. All of it came together as a really fine video, plus answered questions that I had about the lenses. I have the f2.8 and the f3.5, but I'm more interested now in the early Takumar f4 and the Auto Takumar f2.3. I see quite a bit of difference between the two, including distortion and color, both of which might be valuable in certain situations.
I'm afraid you may have ignited more lens fever over here. ;-)
Thanks for your efforts. I'm surprised at how good the original Takumar f/4 lens is. They didn't cut any corners back then.
This is a fantastic lens review but I'm more interested in what the hell this Muslimgauze vs David Torn soundtrack is!
seriously, this is best sounding lens review on U-Toob.
Glad you enjoyed! See the credits at the end for music titles.
Great job! Thank you!!
Thank you for the comparison! Bought M 50/2.0 after your 50 mm video and I'm very happy with it!
Do you have any experience with Pentax macro lenses? Would appreciate any info on M 50/4 and M 100/4.
Yes, I have both those lenses. Of the two, I prefer the M series 50mm f4. It's uber sharp, very useful minimum focusing distance. On the m series 100mm f4, it's very sharp too. Maybe not quite as sharp as the 50, but in my opinion, I like the look I get from the 50 better. It might be more focal length than rendering properties as I never found the 100 macro as appealing or useful for my needs.
Thanks a lot!
Hello, did you measure the 35mm f2 K lens with a geiger counter? How do you know it's radioactive? Thank you
I used a different device that plugs into a phone.
@@vyoufinder ok, thank you for the info!
Very nice review...tx!
Dudes voice is so cool. Could be Steven Wright’s better looking younger brother lol
This video is so good it should go in the UA-cam Hall of Fame.
We’re still waiting for the Pentax 28mm lens comparison! Thanks!
That smc takumar is hawt
Thanks a lot for this video! I was gonna buy the 35 mm F2, but after your video I liked more the F2.8 version. You've helped me to save like 60 bucks and get a better lens (for me).
Really enjoyed this video. Great information and presentation. Thank you!