I have owned this lens for over a year now and it is my most used 35mm lens. My copy offers great center sharpness so I use it a lot on my Sony A7 III in both color and B&W. As soon as the sun is out, finding light behind leaves in the background guarantees an artistic photo.
Wow, what a lovely and versatile lens. I typically don't like the busy bokeh look but there's something beautiful and pleasingly artistic to my eyes about this one.
Everyone talks about the bokeh but this lens is a fantastic performer when you stop it down to 8 or 11. It is very sharp with no aberrations. This makes it a glorious lens for shooting bare trees. Black and white landscapes come out very good. The worst flaw is probably odd colour changes as you change aperture but this lens is a totally unique keeper in my opinion.
I watched al of your videos after I got lots of old lenses from my dad. He collect pentax gear for so long as I remember. Now I got a K1 mark II to use them. Thank you for all the nice videos about old lenses.
I am looking for one. Love the video as I learn how this lens can perform. I love shooting black and white so can’t wait to get my hands one of these lenses. Love your videos. Thank you
This was the first M42 lens I ever bought! Definitely worth the price of admission. This is one of the few vintage lenses that makes it into the permanent kit. It does render soft wide open, but in a unique way that's impossible to replicate elsewise. I find that it does interesting things with in-focus specular highlights.
Thank you for your review. I bought one of these lenses decades ago but hesitated to use it because my example has a stiff focusing ring. Still I hung on to it because of it's unusual look. Based on what I learned from your video, I'm going to have to take it for a spin. I knew about the "macro" trick, but reversing the front element for that unusual effect sounds fascinating. Thanks again.
on front element reversal, a lens that does this well is the czj ddr 35mm ƒ2.8 flektogon, it remains sharp in the center and exaggerates the swirl very well
I have owned the lens for a couple of years and have throughly enjoyed it…the two surprises are new to me and I will have to check it out on my lens…thanks again for the wonderful informative review…excellent work as usual!
I do love mine! It's pretty soft wide open especially up close but the bokeh is so strange and it has this really pleasing character wide open in bright sunlight. I often like sharper lenses more, but this one can somehow transform the most boring scenes into interesting pictures. I've tried reversing the front element on a crop sensor, but haven't tried it on my newer full-frame camera yet. Seems I'll have to do that asap, and try the macro "feature" as well!
You keep reviewing some of my favorite lenses and have reviewed so many of my favoites in the past that I'm beginning to think you're a socially engineered AD bot convincing me to keep buying lenses lol
Beautifully sharp. But wow, that bokeh is a preference. Intense. Love the reversed front element. I could definitely see a lot of use with that as an effects lens. But at those prices, not in my lifetime.
Oh No!!!!!....... If I thought this (much sought after lens) was ridiculously expensive before Monsieur Simon covered it, it now is most definitely going to be out of reach..... darn it! PS thanks for the vid notwithstanding; Nice that such quality pieces of glass are appreciated nonetheless.
Have you compared this to the performance of the Super Multi Coated 35 f/2? I own that lens and I love it, but I wonder how they compare if you've used both extensively.
I have a Super Takumar 35mm f2; the "fat" version. I have compared the results - and I've half finished a video on this. But I'm rather behind on other work and I'm not sure when or if I'll ever post it. Overall, I prefer the 35mm f2.3, as the wide open bokeh is just a little crazier. One obvious reason for this is that the f2 produces bigger bokeh bubbles - so the out of focus rendering appears smoother. (With the f2.3 producing more, little spots of light). If you prefer slightly smoother, less busy bokeh the f2 is better. Here's one comparison I posted on Flickr. www.flickr.com/photos/95859572@N06/53520449515/in/album-72177720314548132 Stopped down, I guess the S-M-C version produces better rendered contrasts and colours.
Wow, that is a unique lens. I have the later 35mm f/2 (the thoriated one), and while it produces splendid bokeh (and is one of my favorite 35s), this earlier one looks very special.
Simon mentioned this one in an earlier video but it's rare as hell. I am lucky to have picked up three of his other favourite takumars - the 200 mm 3.5, 50 mm 1.4 (only the 7 bladed version) and the 50 mm f4 macro. I also have a 135 2.5 - but I would probably need to sell them all to afford just this one!
See, this is why I need to focus a little more on my vintage lens collection. I watched the first part of this video, researched this lens on an online auction site, put it on my watchlist, and then started a comment where I was going to see if my 24mm Tak has similar properties. So, I grabbed that lens and was going to throw it in my bag for a photography adventure tomorrow, when I realized it's not a 24mm, its a 35mm. It's this 35mm. And I've already traced the serial number to 1958, so this is one of the earliest versions of this lens. I'm a big fan of reversing the elements, and now I know what I will be doing tonight. On a side note, the 135mm Super Tak is one of my favorite vintage lenses for regular photos, and I absolutely hated the bokeh on the 105mm version (Honeywell). I also have the 200 and 300, though I am more likely to take out the 200mm Jupiter 21-M because the bokeh is so much better.
This is one of my favourite vintage lenses!! I bought it I think after you mentioned it in a previous video. I like to use it with a Macro M42->E-mount adapter so I can focus closer for maximum effect. I haven't had much chance to use it but I have enjoyed what it has made thus far (I even had to get some fungus from it removed by a repair person but it cleaned up real nice). I want to try using it for video sometime because I think it would produce a unique look. I haven't tried the reversing element yet...if it were a bit cheaper I'd almost want to buy a second one so I could use both kinds of effects without the hassle..
I bought the 35/2.3 on your recommendation a couple years ago when it wasn’t so expensive (same for a incorrectly described 8 element 50/1.4 which I got for a song as a result of your describing the lens markings) so thanks for both those lenses. I’m not sure which hood you use. I have the clamp on Tokina AT-X for the Tokina 28-85 lens. I never notice any vignetting like you show with your hood. I adapt my copy of the lens with a close focus adapter so it rivals the Flektogon. I use the lens a lot but I can’t get my front ring to budge. I guess I should go at it with some alcohol and a Qtip. I might use the lens even more if I could take the front element off. I love all you videos. Happy New Year and a prosperous lens hunting year to you.
Thanks for the review. For as long as I can remember this lens has been out of reach. I own the 28/3.5, 35/3.5, SMC 50/1.4, assorted 50/1.8's and 2's, 100/4, 135/2.5. 150/4, 200/4 and the 300/4. It's fair to say that I enjoy using Takumars. My favourite? The 28mm f3.5. It's small but mighty and a pleasure to use. I enjoy experimenting with different lenses and have quite a few Zeiss and M.O.G. copies too. Unfortunately, the weather in Glasgow tends to the wet and gloomy. Roll on Spring. 😊
Simon is there a reason you don't capture video? I'd love to see the lenses you show off capturing video, especially this one with the front element reversed. it would show how objects bend into and out of frame with that crazy buldge
Hi, yes this is a very good point. One of my New Year's resolutions is to use my new Sony a7iv to show video clips using my lenses. I've shown transitions from wide open to stopped down before, but I need to get more serious about videoing. Perhaps I'll post some "shorts" to start with. Still trying to work out the best approach!!
@@Simonsutak Well thats good to hear! I have a fujifilm x-e4 and the video looks just like the photos minus the resolution. I imagine the same goes for your Sony so maybe setting up a tripod and capturing similar shots that you do as stills like the fence posts etc All the best Sinon!
I have owned one for more than five years. It can deliver amazing bokeh when used wide open but you have to put in some work to get it. There is nothing like it when you get it right and that is why I keep it. Stoppef down it is pretty good but I almost never use it for that. It is just a bit too valuable to take on the road.
Very good question! I originally included the 35/2 with photos of the Super-Takumar version - and talked about the different versions. At the last moment I decided to cut all the discussion out, to keep the video shorter and concentrate on the 35/2.3. There’s only one bit left, where I mention the lighter weight of the f2.3 versus the ‘fat’ version of the f2. Something for another video!
@@Simonsutak I ask because I hesitate to buy a 35mm f2. I'm afraid the results won't be as good as version 2.3 regarding bokeh and flare. the price is 115€. Thanks for your help.😂
@@Pedagogmonster I don't own the 35/2 so I can't give you can't really give you feedback on the lens's performance. 115€ seems a low price for the lens these days. Especially if it's the early "fat" Super-Takumar version with 67mm filter size! But even for the S-M-C version it's a good price. The issue I have with the lens is that owner reviews are all over the place on sharpness/bokeh etc. - some good, some not so good. Before I got the 35/2.3, I participated in an on-line photo group with someone who used the lens (S-M-C). I wasn't impressed. It just didn't seem to be extra special in any way. So I went for the f2.3 (at the time priced similar to the f2), and a very cute f3.5. But.....for the price you've quoted, I'd be tempted to try the lens and sell it on (for a higher price) if you wanted.
I love lenses that can be modified like this. Reversing elements is always a good gamble when looking for that subtle (sometimes not so subtle) abstraction to really look different from bokeh-max hive mindset. Wish they were not so expensive….
So am I, and I just purchased (today, so your comment made me smile) an early ‘fat’ version of the Takumar 35/2. Looking forward to seeing how it’s different.
This is one of the Takumars I've been trying to score for years, but the price just keeps going up! Wish I had copped one when they were under $200. Have to say, not sure if it's your videos or just a renewed interest in photography in general but Takumars of any type seem to be going up and up. I keep seeing the pretty bland 135 f3.5 and other decent but not great Takumars starting to fetch higher amounts.
Fortunately, there are still bargains to be had (I write...as I picked up one at an antiques fair this morning!). And I agree about lenses like the Takumar 135mm f3.5....my copy is indeed rather bland. It only cost me £10 including pp 15 years ago, and I won't pay any more for it today!
I just got this lens. A couple of issues, the focus ring feels a lot stiffer than my other Takumars, was yours the same? I try to unscrew the front glass element and it refuse to budge. It does'nt look damaged so not sure how to unscrew, clockwise or anti clockwise?
Yes, the focus ring isn't as well damped as the Super-Takumars and later lenses. The front element (casing) rotates open in an anti-clockwise direction. You only want to try and unscrew the very front part - it's around three quarters of a centimetre wide. Good luck!
@@SimonsutakAre you sure that isn't due to grease- degradation? The grease is close to 70 years old by now, and who knows what it's made from? (AGFA, I mean you...)
To me the bokeh wide open has one drawback : that yellowish line around the edge that happens sometime, pretty unappealing. I have a projector lens that give the same kind of outline (with a cooke triplet style formula)
Great lens, but for video, know that a lot of them get some issues where the barrel gets a bit of leeway / movement. There's a good tutorial on the Pentax fora of how to fix this. I took the effort to open the lens up, which is a very precise operation, to tighten a miniscule screw on the inside, only to have it wobble again after barely any use. I don't think it matters much for photography, but you can see the movement when you use it for video. I feel no enthusiasm opening the lens up and doing the whole operation again.
To my knowledge - none of the Auto-Takumars are radioactive. The radioactive lenses started with later version Super-Takumars and then Super-Multi-Coated Takumars. This is the best source of information on radioactive Takmars: camerapedia.fandom.com/wiki/Radioactive_lenses
![เป็นไปได้ไหม - WanMai [Performance Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Eh5hItD4Mr0/mqdefault.jpg)
I have owned this lens for over a year now and it is my most used 35mm lens. My copy offers great center sharpness so I use it a lot on my Sony A7 III in both color and B&W. As soon as the sun is out, finding light behind leaves in the background guarantees an artistic photo.
Wow, what a lovely and versatile lens. I typically don't like the busy bokeh look but there's something beautiful and pleasingly artistic to my eyes about this one.
Everyone talks about the bokeh but this lens is a fantastic performer when you stop it down to 8 or 11. It is very sharp with no aberrations. This makes it a glorious lens for shooting bare trees. Black and white landscapes come out very good. The worst flaw is probably odd colour changes as you change aperture but this lens is a totally unique keeper in my opinion.
I own the Asahi Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135mm f/3.5 and boy do I enjoy using it. A true bargain.
The image quality is fantastic.
Really nice review and lovely photos! I didn't know about reversing the front element and am now fairly addicted to the look!
I watched al of your videos after I got lots of old lenses from my dad. He collect pentax gear for so long as I remember. Now I got a K1 mark II to use them. Thank you for all the nice videos about old lenses.
The Takumar boke looks like it wraps the subject on the sides. I like it!
I found this lens in some second hand store in Switzerland for about 10 euro. I love it!
I am looking for one. Love the video as I learn how this lens can perform. I love shooting black and white so can’t wait to get my hands one of these lenses. Love your videos. Thank you
i just bought a MINT copy of this lens! Waiting for it to get here from Japan. I've heard amazing things about it. Great that you did a vid on it.
This was the first M42 lens I ever bought! Definitely worth the price of admission. This is one of the few vintage lenses that makes it into the permanent kit. It does render soft wide open, but in a unique way that's impossible to replicate elsewise. I find that it does interesting things with in-focus specular highlights.
Thank you for your review. I bought one of these lenses decades ago but hesitated to use it because my example has a stiff focusing ring. Still I hung on to it because of it's unusual look. Based on what I learned from your video, I'm going to have to take it for a spin. I knew about the "macro" trick, but reversing the front element for that unusual effect sounds fascinating. Thanks again.
Brilliant, thanks for passing on knowledge..just purchased one tonight.
on front element reversal, a lens that does this well is the czj ddr 35mm ƒ2.8 flektogon, it remains sharp in the center and exaggerates the swirl very well
I have owned the lens for a couple of years and have throughly enjoyed it…the two surprises are new to me and I will have to check it out on my lens…thanks again for the wonderful informative review…excellent work as usual!
I'm in the same situation. Own one, and enjoy it. Didn't know about the front lens hack on this one.
I've been waiting for your review of this lens! I've been looking for the best use cases for it so your take is helpful.
I do love mine! It's pretty soft wide open especially up close but the bokeh is so strange and it has this really pleasing character wide open in bright sunlight. I often like sharper lenses more, but this one can somehow transform the most boring scenes into interesting pictures.
I've tried reversing the front element on a crop sensor, but haven't tried it on my newer full-frame camera yet. Seems I'll have to do that asap, and try the macro "feature" as well!
Try stopping this lens down and it becomes super sharp.
You keep reviewing some of my favorite lenses and have reviewed so many of my favoites in the past that I'm beginning to think you're a socially engineered AD bot convincing me to keep buying lenses lol
I just ordered one of these, I'm very excited to try it out!
Really great evalution of this lovely gems. Planning to get one now... Thanks "Simon's utak" a lot
“Lets in light like a waterfall” ha verosimiglianza!
Beautifully sharp. But wow, that bokeh is a preference. Intense. Love the reversed front element. I could definitely see a lot of use with that as an effects lens. But at those prices, not in my lifetime.
Oh No!!!!!....... If I thought this (much sought after lens) was ridiculously expensive before Monsieur Simon covered it, it now is most definitely going to be out of reach..... darn it! PS thanks for the vid notwithstanding; Nice that such quality pieces of glass are appreciated nonetheless.
Have you compared this to the performance of the Super Multi Coated 35 f/2? I own that lens and I love it, but I wonder how they compare if you've used both extensively.
I have a Super Takumar 35mm f2; the "fat" version. I have compared the results - and I've half finished a video on this. But I'm rather behind on other work and I'm not sure when or if I'll ever post it. Overall, I prefer the 35mm f2.3, as the wide open bokeh is just a little crazier. One obvious reason for this is that the f2 produces bigger bokeh bubbles - so the out of focus rendering appears smoother. (With the f2.3 producing more, little spots of light). If you prefer slightly smoother, less busy bokeh the f2 is better. Here's one comparison I posted on Flickr.
www.flickr.com/photos/95859572@N06/53520449515/in/album-72177720314548132
Stopped down, I guess the S-M-C version produces better rendered contrasts and colours.
Wow, that is a unique lens. I have the later 35mm f/2 (the thoriated one), and while it produces splendid bokeh (and is one of my favorite 35s), this earlier one looks very special.
Simon mentioned this one in an earlier video but it's rare as hell. I am lucky to have picked up three of his other favourite takumars - the 200 mm 3.5, 50 mm 1.4 (only the 7 bladed version) and the 50 mm f4 macro. I also have a 135 2.5 - but I would probably need to sell them all to afford just this one!
Excellent review thx mate ,after this review they will certainly command more MONEY
See, this is why I need to focus a little more on my vintage lens collection. I watched the first part of this video, researched this lens on an online auction site, put it on my watchlist, and then started a comment where I was going to see if my 24mm Tak has similar properties. So, I grabbed that lens and was going to throw it in my bag for a photography adventure tomorrow, when I realized it's not a 24mm, its a 35mm. It's this 35mm. And I've already traced the serial number to 1958, so this is one of the earliest versions of this lens. I'm a big fan of reversing the elements, and now I know what I will be doing tonight.
On a side note, the 135mm Super Tak is one of my favorite vintage lenses for regular photos, and I absolutely hated the bokeh on the 105mm version (Honeywell). I also have the 200 and 300, though I am more likely to take out the 200mm Jupiter 21-M because the bokeh is so much better.
This is one of my favourite vintage lenses!! I bought it I think after you mentioned it in a previous video. I like to use it with a Macro M42->E-mount adapter so I can focus closer for maximum effect. I haven't had much chance to use it but I have enjoyed what it has made thus far (I even had to get some fungus from it removed by a repair person but it cleaned up real nice). I want to try using it for video sometime because I think it would produce a unique look.
I haven't tried the reversing element yet...if it were a bit cheaper I'd almost want to buy a second one so I could use both kinds of effects without the hassle..
I bought the 35/2.3 on your recommendation a couple years ago when it wasn’t so expensive (same for a incorrectly described 8 element 50/1.4 which I got for a song as a result of your describing the lens markings) so thanks for both those lenses. I’m not sure which hood you use. I have the clamp on Tokina AT-X for the Tokina 28-85 lens. I never notice any vignetting like you show with your hood. I adapt my copy of the lens with a close focus adapter so it rivals the Flektogon. I use the lens a lot but I can’t get my front ring to budge. I guess I should go at it with some alcohol and a Qtip. I might use the lens even more if I could take the front element off. I love all you videos. Happy New Year and a prosperous lens hunting year to you.
Thanks for the review. For as long as I can remember this lens has been out of reach. I own the 28/3.5, 35/3.5, SMC 50/1.4, assorted 50/1.8's and 2's, 100/4, 135/2.5. 150/4, 200/4 and the 300/4. It's fair to say that I enjoy using Takumars. My favourite? The 28mm f3.5. It's small but mighty and a pleasure to use. I enjoy experimenting with different lenses and have quite a few Zeiss and M.O.G. copies too. Unfortunately, the weather in Glasgow tends to the wet and gloomy. Roll on Spring. 😊
I have it. Very interesting "mustache" distortion at certain distances. Pretty sure the lens design is a copy of the Angenieux 35mm 2.5.
Simon is there a reason you don't capture video? I'd love to see the lenses you show off capturing video, especially this one with the front element reversed. it would show how objects bend into and out of frame with that crazy buldge
Hi, yes this is a very good point. One of my New Year's resolutions is to use my new Sony a7iv to show video clips using my lenses. I've shown transitions from wide open to stopped down before, but I need to get more serious about videoing.
Perhaps I'll post some "shorts" to start with. Still trying to work out the best approach!!
@@Simonsutak Well thats good to hear! I have a fujifilm x-e4 and the video looks just like the photos minus the resolution. I imagine the same goes for your Sony so maybe setting up a tripod and capturing similar shots that you do as stills like the fence posts etc
All the best Sinon!
I think this is a better match for the helios swirl style on the wide end than the Russian Mir 1
I have owned one for more than five years. It can deliver amazing bokeh when used wide open but you have to put in some work to get it. There is nothing like it when you get it right and that is why I keep it.
Stoppef down it is pretty good but I almost never use it for that. It is just a bit too valuable to take on the road.
Thank you for this video. why didn't you mention Pentax 35mm f2 Asahi opt. Super Takumar ?
Very good question! I originally included the 35/2 with photos of the Super-Takumar version - and talked about the different versions. At the last moment I decided to cut all the discussion out, to keep the video shorter and concentrate on the 35/2.3. There’s only one bit left, where I mention the lighter weight of the f2.3 versus the ‘fat’ version of the f2. Something for another video!
@@Simonsutak I ask because I hesitate to buy a 35mm f2. I'm afraid the results won't be as good as version 2.3 regarding bokeh and flare. the price is 115€. Thanks for your help.😂
@@Pedagogmonster I don't own the 35/2 so I can't give you can't really give you feedback on the lens's performance. 115€ seems a low price for the lens these days. Especially if it's the early "fat" Super-Takumar version with 67mm filter size! But even for the S-M-C version it's a good price.
The issue I have with the lens is that owner reviews are all over the place on sharpness/bokeh etc. - some good, some not so good. Before I got the 35/2.3, I participated in an on-line photo group with someone who used the lens (S-M-C). I wasn't impressed. It just didn't seem to be extra special in any way. So I went for the f2.3 (at the time priced similar to the f2), and a very cute f3.5. But.....for the price you've quoted, I'd be tempted to try the lens and sell it on (for a higher price) if you wanted.
@@Simonsutak it is because of your videos that the prices go up! but it is also thanks to you that old objectives are saved and find a second youth!
I will definitely be buying this lenses.
I love lenses that can be modified like this. Reversing elements is always a good gamble when looking for that subtle (sometimes not so subtle) abstraction to really look different from bokeh-max hive mindset. Wish they were not so expensive….
I have the Takumar 35mm3.5 and the modern Pentax 35mm2.4 A focal length I find myself using more on my APS-C cameras.
Whats teh different between the early version and the later version of this lens?
The Takumar bokeh early in these shots come across as three dimensional. Ripe fruit.
how does it compare to the auto-takumar f3.5 version?
im very curious about how this lens compares to both versions of the super-takumar 35/2. there are also optical designs differences in these versions
So am I, and I just purchased (today, so your comment made me smile) an early ‘fat’ version of the Takumar 35/2. Looking forward to seeing how it’s different.
This is one of the Takumars I've been trying to score for years, but the price just keeps going up!
Wish I had copped one when they were under $200.
Have to say, not sure if it's your videos or just a renewed interest in photography in general but Takumars of any type seem to be going up and up.
I keep seeing the pretty bland 135 f3.5 and other decent but not great Takumars starting to fetch higher amounts.
Fortunately, there are still bargains to be had (I write...as I picked up one at an antiques fair this morning!). And I agree about lenses like the Takumar 135mm f3.5....my copy is indeed rather bland. It only cost me £10 including pp 15 years ago, and I won't pay any more for it today!
I just got this lens. A couple of issues, the focus ring feels a lot stiffer than my other Takumars, was yours the same? I try to unscrew the front glass element and it refuse to budge. It does'nt look damaged so not sure how to unscrew, clockwise or anti clockwise?
Yes, the focus ring isn't as well damped as the Super-Takumars and later lenses. The front element (casing) rotates open in an anti-clockwise direction. You only want to try and unscrew the very front part - it's around three quarters of a centimetre wide. Good luck!
@@SimonsutakAre you sure that isn't due to grease- degradation?
The grease is close to 70 years old by now, and who knows what it's made from?
(AGFA, I mean you...)
To me the bokeh wide open has one drawback : that yellowish line around the edge that happens sometime, pretty unappealing. I have a projector lens that give the same kind of outline (with a cooke triplet style formula)
Great lens, but for video, know that a lot of them get some issues where the barrel gets a bit of leeway / movement. There's a good tutorial on the Pentax fora of how to fix this. I took the effort to open the lens up, which is a very precise operation, to tighten a miniscule screw on the inside, only to have it wobble again after barely any use. I don't think it matters much for photography, but you can see the movement when you use it for video. I feel no enthusiasm opening the lens up and doing the whole operation again.
Thanks for posting this - good to know.
Well, get ready for another 2-300eu price hike on this one.
Very nice!
Can You get the same bokeh effect with the Asahi pentax takumar of 55mm?
No! The Takumar 55mm produces more "conventional" bokeh effects with reasonably smooth blur and some bubbles.
@@Simonsutak thanks!!!
Are all Auto Takumar Radioactive?
I see no information in the web
To my knowledge - none of the Auto-Takumars are radioactive. The radioactive lenses started with later version Super-Takumars and then Super-Multi-Coated Takumars. This is the best source of information on radioactive Takmars: camerapedia.fandom.com/wiki/Radioactive_lenses
TT Artisans where's our knockoff 35mm f2 with a removable/reversible front element and macro capabilities? 😘
are these fullframe or apsc?
This is a M42 mount lens for a 35mm film camera - so full frame.
Is this lens thoriated ?
No
Hi Simon i have a M42 35mm f2 vivitar made by komine if you want to check it out
Its probably wayyyy over priced on the used market. Thats the downside to this lens.
Thanks for the review. Enjoy taking photos.
I guess I won't be finding a cheap copy of this any time soon