Anyone used the Takumar 135mm f2.5 as a taking lens?

[Andrew Clunie]

Hi all.. wondering if anyone has experience with this takumar paired with an Anamorphic lens? I’d be using it with a pre-36... wondering about the general experience.. sharpness.. colour, flaring etc.

[heart0less]

The only comment I've found:

[Andrew Clunie]

Mmm that’s weird.. maybe user fault, or a bad set-up/faulty lens?

 

Appreciate the response !

[heart0less]

7 hours ago, Andrew Clunie said:

Mmm that’s weird.. maybe user fault, or a bad set-up/faulty lens?

Yeah, seems like it, to be honest. 

I have a Pentacon 135/2.8 and even wide open it is okay. 

[Bioskop.Inc]

13 hours ago, Andrew Clunie said:

Hi all.. wondering if anyone has experience with this takumar paired with an Anamorphic lens? I’d be using it with a pre-36... wondering about the general experience.. sharpness.. colour, flaring etc.

This is the one Takumar that I haven't used with an Iscorama, all the others are some of my favourite lenses to use with an anamorphic attachment. I do use the Tair 11a 135mm f2.8 & it works amazingly well, in fact these longer focal lengths give you better image quality than wider lenses do.

The one thing to watch out for when using vintage lenses is to test out where infinity really is - by this I mean that a lot of adaptors play safe & the reading of infinity on the lens isn't always spot on, so you might have to dial it back a fraction. I have quite a few M42 lenses that behave this way, which might be why some people think they can't get a sharp/clear image when using an anamorphic adaptor. So always check the real Infinity mark of your taking lens (add some tape to secure it or make a mark on the taking lens, so if it moves you can adjust quickly) & then add your adaptor - you should have no troubles.

NB. I find the Takumar's are some of the sharpest vintage taking lenses to use with an Iscorama & they are normally more reliable (in terms of quality control) than a lot of other brands, especially the Russain lenses.

[Andrew Clunie]

Thanks for the info! Yes I probably will just go with the Tair 11a (easily modded with an oval aperture too which i’d probably want to do). I just went to the Kubrick exhibition in London, and saw he had the takumar 135 2.5 which he adapted to a 35mm film camera.. so instantly wanted it for my collection ha. This was next to the zeiss planar 50mm 0.7 lens from nasa, used in Barry Lyndon.

I have the takumar 50mm 1.4, and love the image (a little soft wide open), but the build quality and physical look of the lens is so pretty. Much more so than the Russian lenses. 

I will be investing in some longer focal lengths soon. Interesting you say you prefer the image with longer focal lengths... something I haven’t really explored as I’m usually shooting 50/58/85 on a full frame.

Even wondering about zooms, if anyone has experience with any in particular? I guess it’d have to be a self contained zoom (one that doesn’t extend) and maybe parfocal.. although unsure if that matters if lens is set to infinity. Guess it shouldn’t. Sharpness and overall quality would take a hit, but I might be doing a run and gun promo where a zoom could be useful.

 

edit: straying slightly from my original topic, but a quick search showed me that the Tokina 50-135 2.8 seems like a decent option for Anamorphic shooting (not on a full frame.. i’d be using it on the mini 4.6k.. although having the option to use on full frame is always nice). Maybe even the sigma art 50-100 wouldn’t be a bad shout.. probs bigger, heavier, and pricier.. but no doubt sharper.

[Ian Edward Weir]

I have the Takumar V2 135mm f2.5 and found the Jupiter 11A to blow it away in sharpness. Plus you have a nice round aperture at every f-stop. Jupiter is f4 but looks so good