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.
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!
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.
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 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 $175 in near mint condition. It is amazingly sharp, and it works really well shooting B&W on the film camera. I really like that lens. It is small and light too.
Since the last time I talked to you about testing out the pentax k 28 3.5, I ended up selling my first copy because I was foolish and felt that I wouldn't miss is after picking up the k 30mm 2.8. However after a year without the 28 I realized I missed the lens far too much and was able to recently find a clean copy with the original case for 40$. Very happy to have it in my collection again. This is the first lens I've sold and repurchased because I missed it.
@@vyoufinder Did you ever find a cheap copy of the K 28mm 3.5? I have 4 now and I'm in Bounitful. Just saying. I've gotten all mine cheap, and I'd sell you one cheap if you're still looking.
I am trying to remember what I paid for it and if I paid the going rate or managed to find a deal on one and I can't. I do know that my copy works flawlessly and cosmetically very good. Images are extremely "clean." I am so glad I got one and use it often as my first choice as a "slow" 28mm.
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.
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!
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.
This is how its done! Outstanding review! I was sorting through my options for a 35mm Pentax lens to serve double duty on a Fuji mirrorless and my longtime Pentax ME Super. This review fit the bill concisely by presenting real world comparisons that helped me assess my options. After carefully studying the images and listening to the informative commentary, I was able to easily conclude which version best my expectations. Over the years I've looked at a lot photo equipment reviews and this is easily one of the best I've seen in a long time. Thank you taking the time and care to make it!
For an all around, "go to" 35mm lens, I arrived at the same conclusion as you. I chose the SMC PENTAX-M 1:2.8 35mm. As I watched your review and paused to study the images, I found myself repeatedly drawn to the overall look of this lens. By the end of your video, I had pretty much made up my mind. Your conclusions reinforced my impressions from earlier in your review. I've had a similar 50mm 1:1.7 for a long time and enjoyed the overall design/feel of that lens, so I expect that the the Pentax-M 1:2.8 35mm will meet my needs -- in terms of both image rendering and ergonomics. Of course - many will disagree, and certainly it depends on what one is looking for -- but this looks like the best option for me. I've since found a copy online, ordered it and it is on its way. Thanks again!
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.
Thank you for this highly descriptive and detailed review of these fine lenses. I've been using Takumar lenses for some time including the 35/3.5. When I acquired my first M lens, a 50/1.7, I wanted more. So I recently picked up your top lens. Yes, the SMC Pentax-M 35/2.8. I got a wonderful copy of one. They make a great 35mm and 50mm combo. Both are clean with smooth focus rings and solid aperture rings.
Thanks and glad you enjoyed it. I also love Takumar and Pentax (as you might've guessed) but one thing: I am not sure I'd call the Pentax-M 35mm f2.8 my top lens. It's probably what I consider the best "all around," and partially takes into consideration size and budget. My favorite of them all is the original Takumar 35mm f4. There's something about the 4 element rendering that is rich and using the lens is an absolute pleasure. I probably use it the most, followed by the Pentax-A 35mm f2 (similar to FA in this video). The S-M-C Takumar 35mm f3.5 offers the most out of them all, especially if you consider the price of them, but lacks bokeh, so why I don't call it the best all around. Since I have choices, the Pentax-M 35mm f2.8 probably gets used the least. If I am going small, I'll usually choose the Pentax-M 40mm f2.8 instead. Ironically, the 35mm Pentax/Takumar lens I consider the best all around, if I only had one, is also probably the one I use the least. The 35mm f2.8 satisfies both bokeh (because of the close focusing) and landscapes and separates itself from the others in this regard. Like most (all?) Pentax lenses, it is truly a masterpiece of engineering and art.
@@vyoufinder I meant what you said in the video: " If you're gonna have one [35 mm], this is the best all arounder the M-35/2.8." I like it's close focusing and bokeh, especially for a f/2.8 lens. I haven't used it much since I got it but maybe I'll attach it to my K-5 II more often in the new year 2020!
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!
Excellent video, Well produced, Great music, Stunning pics and a thoroughly well thought out piece of educational artwork all round. A credit to you! ( And -Yes I've subscribed!)... : )
Good question. Maybe you could talk about the general differences between older and newer lenses: manufacturing tech, build quality, etc. If you're ever in Los Angeles and you'd like to shoot a video together, I have a fully stocked darkroom where I teach. Also, I think a discussion on the pros and cons of shooting with manual focus lenses on digital cameras could be interesting.
I second that. And there's something about the way you talk - it's oddly satisfying to listen to :-) I come back here from time to time to see if there's anything new so hopefully you'll give us something soon! I'm a K version fan, currently own 28/3.5 (finally!), 35/3.5, 55/1.8 and sold 135/2.5 earlier on (too heavy). I'm interested in faster 35mm for low light, but I'm bit worried about the floating element of FA version as it can cause issues when adapted using too short adapter. And as far as I know they're all too short.. Have you experienced any problems with sharpness especially on MFD? Thanks for all your hard work, cheers from Poland!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Cool video. I just picked up the 35 f2 FA AL for 2.50. Like 2 dollars and 50 cents at a thrift shop (total was 5 dollars and included a 50 f1.7 M. Absolute wrecking ball of a steal) I'm pretty excited to play with it. This makes me all the more excited.
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... !!!
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).
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.
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 TH-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!
I have to stop watching at 9:00 and comment that already this is one of the best lens reviews have ever seen, and I love Takumar lenses too. OK, switching back to video. So excited to see how my Tak 35mm f3.5 performs against its siblings :)
@@vyoufinder I may have exaggerated with my choice of words ;) But I really liked the colour, contrast, sharpness, nearly absence of flares and I guess the overall look of the images.
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...
Thank you for this video...I use a Canon C100 (EF mount) to shoot video but I'm looking for a 35mm vintage lens...Pentax will likely be it as M42 can convert to EF easier than most other vintage lenses... so this video is extremely helpful
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.
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.
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
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?
Loved the video! I have the Takumar 3.5. I like it for street and find that I rarely shoot it wide open. My favorite vintage lens has to be the SMC Takumar 50/1.4. I have a lot of old Minoltas but the Tak 50 is my "go to" lens for low light if the subjects are mainly stationary.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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. ;-)
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....
The one thing I think about every time i watch this is that I wish you used the K version of the 35mm 3.5 and that's only because it has a shorter minimum focus distance than the Takumar version. I mean, 45 cm vs 30 cm is a world of difference comparing bokeh. I feel the K 35 3.5 is one of my favorite walkaround lenses but I had someone offer to mail me a free M 35mm 2.8 version so I'll have to see for myself.
The reason I didn't is because I am avoiding radioactive lenses, and don't own that one anymore. Good point though. It's similar to the M series 2.8 in that it focuses unusually close. The image quality of the K series is also phenomenal, but does distort a fair amount.
I see on the pentax forum you said you prefer the 35mm f4 often for landscapes. I know a whole lot of pentax gear has passed through your hands. How do you feel about the early K series 28mm 3.5? I've heard a whole lot of positive reviews about that lens for landscape.
Actually.. I don't have that one and haven't tried it. I do have the S-M-C Takumar 28mm f3.5, and it's a good lens, but not one of Pentax's best in my opinion. I think the reason is that the front element is a bit small. I often choose the Super-Takumar 28mm f3.5 with 58mm filter ring instead for this reason, but there is a loss of contrast with that one and it is prone to flare. I also have the M series, and is not all that much better, but my best 28mm landscape lens at the moment. The K series has a larger front element, as well as an additional element in it, and I would bet that there is a lot of improvement as a result. I suspect the reviews you are referring to are correct, but I cannot say for certain. I would like to have that lens myself.
@@vyoufinder I just found one in california for 70 and that was low enough for me. It is rather hard to find. Almost bought a spare out of Canada but it was already sold before I had a chance. Always good to have a spare.
@@jbobdawghomeysizzle Ha, just before reading your comment I placed an offer for $71.50 for one.. Thanks to you. Grrr ;). I had forgotten I wanted one. I've been getting by with what I consider "good" with my S-M-C and M series, but often end up lugging the Zeiss designed Pentax K 28mm f2 (a.k.a. "the Hollywood"), which is big and heavy. Bigger and heavier than I typically want to carry. The SMC K 28mm f2 really only has one benefit worth lugging around, and that is the ability to focus very close at f2, but I rarely use that feature and now I just want a K 28mm f3.5 really badly.
@@vyoufinder I also have a copy of the hollywood 28. I had people ask me "do you think you're even going to use the 3.5 when you have the F2" If anything I will use it more often. Obviously there is so much more to a lens than the widest aperture. The K 28mm 3.5 is an often overlooked little legend for landscape. As much fun as the 28 f2 is for artistic shots, when i need sharpness across the frame, low distortion and powerful flare resistance, this is going to end up being my go to lens.
@@jbobdawghomeysizzle Same experience here. I rarely ever use my fast lenses. It's just too bad they're the expensive ones. I think you'd agree that most of the time the fast and expensive lens is not the best choice for the job. I'm looking forward to getting my hands on the SMC K 28mm 1:3.5. Thanks for reminding me that I need it :).
Well done! From the side by sides I was able to come to same conclusion that smc m35 would be likely choice if limited to one. Loved seeing how much character differences each lens has.
I agree that the M lens is supreme. I liked the warmer look this lens provides and I'll be adding this to my stable. Thanks for the time you put into this. The music was fitting to the shoot location.
Superbly done. An excellent round up of lenses for review. (I have the Super-Multi-Coated 35mm f2, would have loved it in) You have been able to distill the real essence/character of each across real world applications, not in a lab. I think that this was possibly THE most entertaining and enlightening lens review videos I have seen. Fantastic subject matter, location, cast (lenses), script, video quality, mood music matched to topic and thoughtful and knowledgeable narrative. As I have a heap of Takumars (and still use them) I was intrigued, but didn’t think I’d last the full time.......I couldn’t switch off. Great work......please keep it up. You have a real talent for story telling and a depth of knowledge worth decanting. Regards Tony Robinson Melbourne, Australia
The pentax-m is the only 35mm i have and i use it with one sunagor semi fish eye 0.42x and it couples beautifuly making it a really nice fisheye lens and good for "macro" since it focus almost with the sunagor touching the subject
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.
I did not expect such a well paced, interesting and comprehensive video. This must have taken a lot of time to make. Great video.
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!
Exquisite work/video/photographer/places/music !!
Such a great moment, thank you !
Thank you for taking the time to make this video.
The removable piece from the hood is to allow operation of a polarizing filter with the hood normally attached.
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.
This video is so good it should go in the TH-cam Hall of Fame.
I love Takumar lenses. Lenses with radioactive thorium have excellent optical quality.
What a thorough, fascinating, well explained overview! A truly amazing variety and such a helpful comparison. Thank you!
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 :)
Wow, best lens review I ever saw! Well done, Sir!
that was really interesting! thank you
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 $175 in near mint condition. It is amazingly sharp, and it works really well shooting B&W on the film camera. I really like that lens. It is small and light too.
Thank you for this great great movie for pentax DSLR users!!
I like your vibe. And there’s really good info shared here. You’re good at this!
I appreciate that!
Since the last time I talked to you about testing out the pentax k 28 3.5, I ended up selling my first copy because I was foolish and felt that I wouldn't miss is after picking up the k 30mm 2.8. However after a year without the 28 I realized I missed the lens far too much and was able to recently find a clean copy with the original case for 40$. Very happy to have it in my collection again. This is the first lens I've sold and repurchased because I missed it.
That lens is a total gem.
@@vyoufinder Did you ever find a cheap copy of the K 28mm 3.5? I have 4 now and I'm in Bounitful. Just saying. I've gotten all mine cheap, and I'd sell you one cheap if you're still looking.
I am trying to remember what I paid for it and if I paid the going rate or managed to find a deal on one and I can't. I do know that my copy works flawlessly and cosmetically very good. Images are extremely "clean." I am so glad I got one and use it often as my first choice as a "slow" 28mm.
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.
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.
Thanks for this intense review and journey into pentax' lens history.
Very interesting.
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!
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.
The best and detailed vintage lens review I've ever seen. Great video.
This is how its done! Outstanding review! I was sorting through my options for a 35mm Pentax lens to serve double duty on a Fuji mirrorless and my longtime Pentax ME Super. This review fit the bill concisely by presenting real world comparisons that helped me assess my options. After carefully studying the images and listening to the informative commentary, I was able to easily conclude which version best my expectations. Over the years I've looked at a lot photo equipment reviews and this is easily one of the best I've seen in a long time. Thank you taking the time and care to make it!
Thank you for the compliment, I am glad it helped. I'm curious.. Which did you choose?
For an all around, "go to" 35mm lens, I arrived at the same conclusion as you. I chose the SMC PENTAX-M 1:2.8 35mm. As I watched your review and paused to study the images, I found myself repeatedly drawn to the overall look of this lens. By the end of your video, I had pretty much made up my mind. Your conclusions reinforced my impressions from earlier in your review. I've had a similar 50mm 1:1.7 for a long time and enjoyed the overall design/feel of that lens, so I expect that the the Pentax-M 1:2.8 35mm will meet my needs -- in terms of both image rendering and ergonomics. Of course - many will disagree, and certainly it depends on what one is looking for -- but this looks like the best option for me. I've since found a copy online, ordered it and it is on its way. Thanks again!
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.
We’re still waiting for the Pentax 28mm lens comparison! Thanks!
Great video!
Glad I liked the 2.8 on the side by sides
Thank you for this highly descriptive and detailed review of these fine lenses. I've been using Takumar lenses for some time including the 35/3.5. When I acquired my first M lens, a 50/1.7, I wanted more. So I recently picked up your top lens. Yes, the SMC Pentax-M 35/2.8. I got a wonderful copy of one. They make a great 35mm and 50mm combo. Both are clean with smooth focus rings and solid aperture rings.
Thanks and glad you enjoyed it. I also love Takumar and Pentax (as you might've guessed) but one thing: I am not sure I'd call the Pentax-M 35mm f2.8 my top lens. It's probably what I consider the best "all around," and partially takes into consideration size and budget. My favorite of them all is the original Takumar 35mm f4. There's something about the 4 element rendering that is rich and using the lens is an absolute pleasure. I probably use it the most, followed by the Pentax-A 35mm f2 (similar to FA in this video). The S-M-C Takumar 35mm f3.5 offers the most out of them all, especially if you consider the price of them, but lacks bokeh, so why I don't call it the best all around. Since I have choices, the Pentax-M 35mm f2.8 probably gets used the least. If I am going small, I'll usually choose the Pentax-M 40mm f2.8 instead. Ironically, the 35mm Pentax/Takumar lens I consider the best all around, if I only had one, is also probably the one I use the least. The 35mm f2.8 satisfies both bokeh (because of the close focusing) and landscapes and separates itself from the others in this regard. Like most (all?) Pentax lenses, it is truly a masterpiece of engineering and art.
@@vyoufinder I meant what you said in the video: " If you're gonna have one [35 mm], this is the best all arounder the M-35/2.8." I like it's close focusing and bokeh, especially for a f/2.8 lens. I haven't used it much since I got it but maybe I'll attach it to my K-5 II more often in the new year 2020!
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!
Excellent video, Well produced, Great music, Stunning pics and a thoroughly well thought out piece of educational artwork all round. A credit to you! ( And -Yes I've subscribed!)... : )
Many thanks!
The most helpful video I could find on this particular topic. You did a fantastic job here. Thank you very much!
Really enjoyed this video. Great information and presentation. Thank you!
Fantastic comparison video, with awesome music.
Thank you for taking so much time and care with it.
Helped me a lot. 🙏👍
The Pentax-M wins again. That's my favorite series of Pentax lenses
I really hope you keep these in depth videos up! I know they are a lot of work, but they are appreciated.
More in the works. What would you like to see in particular regarding Pentax/Takumar lenses/Cameras?
Good question. Maybe you could talk about the general differences between older and newer lenses: manufacturing tech, build quality, etc. If you're ever in Los Angeles and you'd like to shoot a video together, I have a fully stocked darkroom where I teach. Also, I think a discussion on the pros and cons of shooting with manual focus lenses on digital cameras could be interesting.
I second that. And there's something about the way you talk - it's oddly satisfying to listen to :-) I come back here from time to time to see if there's anything new so hopefully you'll give us something soon! I'm a K version fan, currently own 28/3.5 (finally!), 35/3.5, 55/1.8 and sold 135/2.5 earlier on (too heavy). I'm interested in faster 35mm for low light, but I'm bit worried about the floating element of FA version as it can cause issues when adapted using too short adapter. And as far as I know they're all too short.. Have you experienced any problems with sharpness especially on MFD? Thanks for all your hard work, cheers from Poland!
Best Pentax Vintage lenses video I've seen so far. Fantastic job 👏
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.
Great video with pleasing presentation, great setting and the audio aswell.
Even more impressive than the (excellent) review, is your photographic ability.
Good one Nathan.. man, you know how to do a good lens comparison video! Thanks
Great video! I've watched it probably six times the past few years.
Wow, thanks!
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.
A very valuable history documentation for Pentax lenses, great job, thank you.
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.
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.
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.
Excellent reviews in a stunning location!
Really well done, thanks for this.
Best vid I've seen on lenses. Thank you.
Wow, thanks!
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.
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?
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.
Good stuff, thanks for making the video!
What an awesomely detailed and fantastic review.
Cool video. I just picked up the 35 f2 FA AL for 2.50.
Like 2 dollars and 50 cents at a thrift shop (total was 5 dollars and included a 50 f1.7 M. Absolute wrecking ball of a steal)
I'm pretty excited to play with it. This makes me all the more excited.
Thanks so much for a well presented and pretty well-detailed review of these vintage lenses.
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... !!!
This series has been super-helpful to me. Thank you for this detailed and no doubt time- consuming comparo.
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).
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.
Very insightful comparison and thanks for the good work. It looks like that old glass still has a lot to offer.
Thanks for watching!
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 TH-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!
Very good video. Informative and well presented.
I have to stop watching at 9:00 and comment that already this is one of the best lens reviews have ever seen, and I love Takumar lenses too. OK, switching back to video. So excited to see how my Tak 35mm f3.5 performs against its siblings :)
Wow, thanks!
I agree, the Pentax-M rules them all. Actually, almost the whole line. They are my absolute favourites. The FA line is a close competitor.
I am not sure I'd necessarily agree that it rules them all.. but is certainly a great choice.
@@vyoufinder I may have exaggerated with my choice of words ;) But I really liked the colour, contrast, sharpness, nearly absence of flares and I guess the overall look of the images.
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...
Thank you for this video...I use a Canon C100 (EF mount) to shoot video but I'm looking for a 35mm vintage lens...Pentax will likely be it as M42 can convert to EF easier than most other vintage lenses... so this video is extremely helpful
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.
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 :-)
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
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?
Super thorough and super helpful. Thank you!
Here from Pentax forums.. glad I found you!
Very well done. Thanks for your hard work here.
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.
Loved the video! I have the Takumar 3.5. I like it for street and find that I rarely shoot it wide open. My favorite vintage lens has to be the SMC Takumar 50/1.4. I have a lot of old Minoltas but the Tak 50 is my "go to" lens for low light if the subjects are mainly stationary.
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.
Thank you for a very informativ and well componed video. I learnt a lot from your experiences.
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.
Thanks for another thorough great review.
Excellent review. Thanks for work put in it.
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.
Thanks for a really useful video.
i have tested my k35/2 and doesn't seems to be radioactive, am i lucky? broken geiger counter?
Awesome review. Straight to the point and with real knowledge. Let the images do most of the talking and use good music too. Thank you very much!
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.
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. ;-)
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.
The one thing I think about every time i watch this is that I wish you used the K version of the 35mm 3.5 and that's only because it has a shorter minimum focus distance than the Takumar version. I mean, 45 cm vs 30 cm is a world of difference comparing bokeh. I feel the K 35 3.5 is one of my favorite walkaround lenses but I had someone offer to mail me a free M 35mm 2.8 version so I'll have to see for myself.
The reason I didn't is because I am avoiding radioactive lenses, and don't own that one anymore. Good point though. It's similar to the M series 2.8 in that it focuses unusually close. The image quality of the K series is also phenomenal, but does distort a fair amount.
I see on the pentax forum you said you prefer the 35mm f4 often for landscapes. I know a whole lot of pentax gear has passed through your hands. How do you feel about the early K series 28mm 3.5? I've heard a whole lot of positive reviews about that lens for landscape.
Actually.. I don't have that one and haven't tried it. I do have the S-M-C Takumar 28mm f3.5, and it's a good lens, but not one of Pentax's best in my opinion. I think the reason is that the front element is a bit small. I often choose the Super-Takumar 28mm f3.5 with 58mm filter ring instead for this reason, but there is a loss of contrast with that one and it is prone to flare. I also have the M series, and is not all that much better, but my best 28mm landscape lens at the moment.
The K series has a larger front element, as well as an additional element in it, and I would bet that there is a lot of improvement as a result. I suspect the reviews you are referring to are correct, but I cannot say for certain. I would like to have that lens myself.
@@vyoufinder I just found one in california for 70 and that was low enough for me. It is rather hard to find. Almost bought a spare out of Canada but it was already sold before I had a chance. Always good to have a spare.
@@jbobdawghomeysizzle Ha, just before reading your comment I placed an offer for $71.50 for one.. Thanks to you. Grrr ;). I had forgotten I wanted one. I've been getting by with what I consider "good" with my S-M-C and M series, but often end up lugging the Zeiss designed Pentax K 28mm f2 (a.k.a. "the Hollywood"), which is big and heavy. Bigger and heavier than I typically want to carry. The SMC K 28mm f2 really only has one benefit worth lugging around, and that is the ability to focus very close at f2, but I rarely use that feature and now I just want a K 28mm f3.5 really badly.
@@vyoufinder I also have a copy of the hollywood 28. I had people ask me "do you think you're even going to use the 3.5 when you have the F2" If anything I will use it more often. Obviously there is so much more to a lens than the widest aperture. The K 28mm 3.5 is an often overlooked little legend for landscape. As much fun as the 28 f2 is for artistic shots, when i need sharpness across the frame, low distortion and powerful flare resistance, this is going to end up being my go to lens.
@@jbobdawghomeysizzle Same experience here. I rarely ever use my fast lenses. It's just too bad they're the expensive ones. I think you'd agree that most of the time the fast and expensive lens is not the best choice for the job. I'm looking forward to getting my hands on the SMC K 28mm 1:3.5. Thanks for reminding me that I need it :).
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
Great docu, I really enjoyed! Next level review, quality, great music.. Ultimate it is! Thank you sir!
Well done! From the side by sides I was able to come to same conclusion that smc m35 would be likely choice if limited to one. Loved seeing how much character differences each lens has.
I really appreciate the subject matter of the photos all in all a great video
I agree that the M lens is supreme. I liked the warmer look this lens provides and I'll be adding this to my stable. Thanks for the time you put into this. The music was fitting to the shoot location.
Superbly done.
An excellent round up of lenses for review. (I have the Super-Multi-Coated 35mm f2, would have loved it in)
You have been able to distill the real essence/character of each across real world applications, not in a lab.
I think that this was possibly THE most entertaining and enlightening lens review videos I have seen.
Fantastic subject matter, location, cast (lenses), script, video quality, mood music matched to topic and thoughtful and knowledgeable narrative.
As I have a heap of Takumars (and still use them) I was intrigued, but didn’t think I’d last the full time.......I couldn’t switch off.
Great work......please keep it up. You have a real talent for story telling and a depth of knowledge worth decanting.
Regards
Tony Robinson
Melbourne, Australia
Thank you for this video. It was very useful to watch. Also, I enjoyed it.
The pentax-m is the only 35mm i have and i use it with one sunagor semi fish eye 0.42x and it couples beautifuly making it a really nice fisheye lens and good for "macro" since it focus almost with the sunagor touching the subject
Nice and very informative video..How about DA 35mm f2.4?