I don't see color balance problems using the Cokins, lots of people are critical of them for being resin etc, but I have had good luck using them. I regularly use the 4x and 8x and polarizing filter stacked together, I have three filter holders each with a different filter thread so I can use the filters on my Nikkor lenses (52mm) and my Canon 50mm 58mm and Canon HV30 43mm.

I also notice on the 7D and my Nikon D300 that the sensor has a slight magenta color cast, which maybe a factor in color balance.

Same.

Pentax's heyday was late 60's to early 70's. After about 1975 the market share dwindled, but they innovated much of the SLR technology. Nearly all the classic Takumar glass is pre-1975.


Nah, ignore those prices. 'Buy now' and 'best offer' ads are worth ignoring in favour of auctions. There seems to be a fashion for listing Takumars at stupid prices these days, but dig deeper you will see their true price. The following links are to 'completed items' in order to show what they really go for.

Super Takumar 1.9/85mm - eBay (item 270615983950 end time Aug-08-10 01:46:26 PDT)

Pentax Super Takumar 85mm f1.9 M42 lens on eBay (end time 04-Aug-10 21:47:29 BST)

Asahi/Pentax Super-Takumar 1:2.8 105mm Lens - eBay (item 220647125713 end time Aug-08-10 16:27:10 PDT)

PENTAX SUPER TAKUMAR 105MM f/2.8 LENS - eBay (item 130417712048 end time Aug-11-10 15:44:50 PDT)

Asahi Opt. Co. Japan s m c TAKUMAR 135mm f/2.5 Lens scr - eBay (item 350384196344 end time Aug-16-10 19:25:20 PDT)

ASAHI PENTAX SMC TAKUMAR 135mm ?/2.5 + M42toEOS adapter - eBay (item 220652021094 end time Aug-15-10 11:34:12 PDT)


By the way, in no way am I comparing these to the Nikons you list, which are without doubt more desirable than the examples I offer, but in my opinion, the difference in desirability is not reflected in the difference in price. Takumars are still a bargain and are great for video.

Agreed. If I had the money, it would be L series zooms all the way, especially on a professional shoot. But I would still keep my Takumars for creative purposes. They are just different. Modern lenses are optically superior in a technical sense, but sometimes that L lens might be too clinical and contrasty for what you want, or perhaps you are looking for a particular character of flare. Of course, you can do most things in post, but it's not quite the same, and it's not as much fun.

Thank you for this post! At thos prices, I'm willing to take a risk on one of these pieces of glass. I'll try to see what pops up in the next couple weeks, and buy something. A 50 if nothing else, because those are very inexpensive.

I am used to looking at the buy it now prices because the Nikons usually bid right up to that. If I can start snagging some of these faster primes at around $100 a piece, and they look good, I am on board.

For the stuff I shoot, I prefer the lenses that have a bit more character to them. Keeps me from having to attach diffusion in front of the lens, or soften things after the fact. I love the character of the Nikon glass pre- 1975. My 300mm Nikon from 1972 is one of the prettier pieces of glass I've used, but has very limited use for me because it's somewhat slow.

And "L" glass doesn't hold much for me. Never has. But I've never been an autofocus fan. And I abandoned Canon after my first EOS cameras... long before digital hit the scene.

Thanks again for this. I'll update in a few weeks with what I bought and how it's working. I've got some model photography to do next month and one of these 85s is going to be perfect.