Here are links to the different parts of the review: 00:00 Introduction 02:33 PART I Specs and user experience 07:54 PART II Optical performance 08:00 Blades 11:00 Sharpness through the stops 12:09 CA/Colour fringing 12:34 Sharpness f2 and f8 15:58 Contrasts and flares 17:31 Colours 18:29 Radioactive tint 19:10 Walkaround and landscape shots 19:56 Black and white images 20:28 Bokeh 23:56 Swirls 26:02 Portraits 27:45 PART III Discussion and conclusions on reputation 28:12 Was it too expensive? 23:56 Did it have optical issues? 31:39 Fit with Takumar lens line-up? 34:24 Where would it rate today?
Hi Simon! Thank you so much for the excellent review! You are definitely the right person for a review like this, with your vast experience and collection of different vintage lenses. I have thoroughly enjoyed your review, very detailed and comprehensive, and provides objective insights. As I shot more with the lens I also definitely noticed the strong flaring that the lens produces, but at the same time the smooth "big" bokeh has been very enjoyable and pleasing. I am very grateful and cannot thank you enough for doing this review, filling up a gap in the history for Takumar fans. I also love the photos that you have made, your compositions and chosen subjects are really top-notch! It is a great pleasure meeting and talking to you! Looking forward to meeting you again near future! -Solomon
This is the best lens review I've seen online. The lens itself is fascinating and we not get another review of one, so I enjoyed the video's comprehensiveness. Seeing what could be done with the lens with and without processing was helpful. While the lens itself is interesting, the locations you used to demonstrate the lens really kept this presentation engaging. Incredible job, Simon!
Thank you very much - I really appreciate this. The video was long and it did take a lot of effort. But it was such a wonderful opportunity to try the lens and share what I found. And I'm going back to those locations for more photo shoots; that was fun too.
The concept of bokeh is a pretty new idea. The shape of out of focus highlights was probably not a consideration at all when the lens was designed. It had to be pretty early to not have an automatic aperture. I have some Pentax bodies that are pre-spotmatic and they do have the mechanism for an auto aperture. You might want to try the Nikon 85mm F1.8 or the famous 105mm f2.5. Pentax was really never a professional camera. The Nikon F and Leica rangefinders were really the cameras of choice if a professional used a 35mm. The Zeiss Contarex and the Leicaflex got some use as well. I am still baffled by the fixation on Bokeh. I think you can read through the writings Ansel Adams, Minor White, HCB, and not find any mention of it. I do very much like your videos and they are thought provoking and very well done.
This is by far the most comprehensive review of any lens i’ve seen on YT. Thank you for taking the time to put this together and publishing it for free. I’d love to see more of these videos on these really obscure/rare takumars (or other m42 lenses), but I appreciate they are not easily made. I’d also like to hear your thoughts on the four m42 mount ‘takumar-zooms’ pentax produced (Their existence somehow eluded me until I recently got lucky with a great 70-150mm f4.5 on ebay)
Regarding the reasons for not mass-producing the lens--I have two lenses with the same sawtooth pattern--the 1:1 Macro-Takumar 50/4 and the Industar-61 MC L/Z. Both Tessar lenses. I shoot more on film than on digital, but I do both. I've never seen the saw-toothed bokeh on film from those lenses; film bokeh looks completely different--much more diffused. I'd be surprised if the star-shaped bokeh ever appears on film. It would have to be a very low ISO film, a sharp developer, and just the right distance between subject and background highlights. One can hunt for that distance on a digital camera, but that isn't possible on film. I agree that on digital, it isn't often that the star-shaped bokeh works, but these lenses were designed before the digital camera was a twinkle in anybody's eye.
A fair point - and I seldom see saw-tooth effects from my Macro Takumar 50mm or the larger aperture Helios 40 stopped down, except in more extreme light. However, if the Takumar 100mm f2 was designed, in part, to be an indoor concert lens, as some people have claimed, then perhaps the concert spotlights might appear more obviously and intrusively, even on film.
Wow, thank you for your excellent review of this remarkable lens. I have a good collection of vintage Pentax lenses and of course a couple of Takumar lens as well. However, until your review, I wasn't aware this lens existed and even more surprised that so few copies were ever produced. No wonder you were so excited when your prayers were answered and you had the opportunity to try out this lens. Special thanks to Soloman. You are clearly are the right person to review a Takumar lens. I enjoyed every minute and marvel at how much effort you put into producing this CZcams video. Obviously considerable thought went into what characteristics you wanted to explore. Nothing was missed. The benchmark comparisons were very helpful. Especially against the Helios 40. The 100mm f2 is impressively sharp, no doubt about that. Your wonderful images show how this lens renders in a wide range of situations. However, I'm afraid the sawtooth blades would be a showstopper for me. It is true that Bokeh seems to be a recent obsession. Though I have grown to appreciate how this can bring enjoyment and change how you see the world.
I took my first photo back in 1954 with a Kodak Brownie No.2 that my Dad had just given me. I've been capturing images ever since. For me, the Bokeh is way too busy, not pleasing at all. Some might be willing to overlook the swirl or stars but I have to endure the cat-eyes from my Nikon lenses and that's enough. My Kiron 105 is actually the best lens I've ever owned. Great review!
Wow this one is so rare indeed! I was happy to get my hands on a Takumar 105/2.8 yesterday and now the CZcams algorithm recommends me an even more 100/2 :)
What a pleasure to watch and listen to your review Simon. I was trying to compare it with my S-M-C 105mm f2.8, but clearly it is a step above. By the sound of it though, I will be sticking with the 105mm, as my pockets are not that deep!
I own one 100 lens the Pentax 100mm2.8 M lenses one of my favorite lenses I like the pictures it takes. Simon thank you for a review on a rare lens most people will never see
I always love watching your content. I enjoy having about 10 SMC Takumars and a couple of spotmatics. I started in photography almost 50 years ago with the Spotomatic at age 13. They were sold off as I grew in photography, but ultimately I added them back and enjoy shooting B&W film with them.
i find vintage fast lenses with simpler/single/less coatings seem to be more difficult to fix in PP if theyre under/over exposed and retain the contrast between dark and light parts
Nice review again Simon, well the Nikkor 105 mm f2 AF Defocus control shows more fringe, but the Tokina 90 mm f2.5 , the Tamron SP 90 mm f2.5, Nikkor AIS 105 mm f1.8 (5 lenses) , Nikkor 105 AIS mm f2,5 (legendary) Nikon E 100 mm f2.8 Ernostar 70€ lately (4 lens design) fringe much less.
I can sense your love to this lens in your presentation! This is a very interesting one. Meanwhile I'm still waiting for a good deal on a S-M-C takumar 50/1.4...
Hello Simon! I wanted to thank you for another in your MANY extremely valuable presentations!! You've really piqued my interest in vintage lenses, and when I"m researching or looking at one, I check you first to see if you've covered a lens....I've bought a few based on your videos. Anyway, you are always entertaining as well as educational and I really appreciate the thought and time you put into your videos. I like you're accent and speaking voice, it really goes well with the video. Anyway, just wanted to say thanks and let you know we appreciate your efforts out here! CC
I believe a key reason for the unusual aperture shape is that it is designed to be very round at some particular aperture level. Lenses were (and are) often designed to perform optimally at a specific aperture, from which they could be opened up to let in more light with compromised performance, or stopped down for more depth of field with little change in performance. I think the saw-tooth design was probably selected for this purpose.
I have the 135mm and the 200mm, both are very sharp and fast. I don't know how radioactive they are but they give me wonderful colours, especially when i shoot in backlight to have a 60s/70s taste.
Wow Simon, that one's rarer than hens teeth. I'd have expected that to flare like a beast because of the huge front element and because it's a takumar. I've found that some of the takumars are real flare monsters. I had the 100 f4 macro which was a good lens but despite having a small well recessed front element and having the factory hood on would flare if you pointed it anywhere remotely near a light source. That's pretty much the only thing I could fault on that lens.
Loved the review, Simon. That said, there is nothing about this lens that sets it apart as a classic legacy lens lens ... i believe it is expensive due to its rarity alone. Even for portraits, the busy bokeh and distracting blade profile makes its use a hit-or-miss proposition.
Also, after watching the history of AOC and Takumars as summarised in the video, the reason the lens didn't go into production might be a combination of all of the above. The design of the lens (the aperture mechanism etc) is very much based on earlier generations of takumar lens. And when this lens was being "introduced", the company might have decided that takumar lens design should be heading in the direction as the super-takumar lenses (i.e. clicky aperture ring with less blades, simplified & universal focusing helicoid mechanism etc) such as the super-tak 50mms and the 85mm f1.9, for streamlining production and reduces costs. Combining with the fact that maybe 100mm is not that popular of focal length compared to longer/ shorter prime lenses, resulting in the lens not going into mass production. (This is just an educated guess with information provided in the video!)
Another very interesting video on a unusual lens. The wide open portrait and closeup images are my preference. I wouldn't be happy with the sawtooth bokeh balls in the other settings. Thanks!
Awesome review, as usual!! This is probably one of the first videos of yours that I watched without instantly heading to an auction site to check lens prices. I still prefer my '72 135mm Tak, and my '63 105mm is my least favorite (though I admit it is plenty sharp). I went out last week with a reversed-element 35mm Tak and managed a few fun pictures, too!
I wouldn't mind the saw tooth blades since stopping down I usually only do for long distance or infinity shots if at all ;) Great review Simon. I've used the super-takumar 105/2.8 for concert and think it works great.
Just saw one in a local camera shop here in Tokyo, listed for 500k yen. There were only 100 of them so the price went sky rocketed. Still a cult lens among die hard Pentax fans.
I wonder if an issue with the lens is that there is a lens element close to the aperture mechanism causing visible dust in the out of focus areas. This might have been difficult to find in testing, but obvious when real numbers of lenses were in the hands of the general public. I find that to be the most distracting element of the images - more so than the sawtooth bokeh. Great video, thanks for sharing your views on this lens.
Auto setting on camera is not trying to get lightest and darkest parts looking as such, it is trying to hit middle grey for the average of the pixels in the metering area. It has no clue if bright parts are supposed to be bright or that dark parts are supposed to be dark...
I am a big Pentax fan and own a lot of Pentax cameras and lenses. Your review is excellent made, very honest and detailed. Thumbs up. What do you think about the 100mmf2,8. I am very satisfied with the performance of this lens and use it also on my digital K1 and K5 with great results. Cheers from Germany, Greg
great review, thank you, I'll probably never touch one, but I did take my MOG Oreston 100 to Venice for Carnival and got what i think are some great shots, thanks again for your scientific approach and your abundant amount of sample shots,
Super fascinating lens. Some very compelling photo results! Really wondering how it might compare against the famous Nikkor 105mm f/2.5, one of my favorite lenses. I'm actually quite a fan of the sawtooth aperture and have several lenses with that style. Not always what I want, but I like the option to do something interesting/different with the bokeh.
I wonder if the metering being somewhat off is due to this older Takumar being a film lens like many others fromin the 50's ,60's and 1970's film days? Even today ,film is often metered for shadows since film is more forgiving on highlights; digital is somewhat the opposite. This one is interesting , it would be nice to hear your thoughts after comparing it to the Nikkor P 105mm 2.5. It is also a five element lens , the earlier versions being a Sonnar type. The 105 is plentiful and easy to find; early Sonnar is a bit better than the later model Gauss .
Have you ever tried the Takumar 100mm f3.5 black pre-set M42. And, if so what were your impressions. Not planning on it, or looking for one, but it just came up and I bought one ‘cheap’ and it’s on the way. The little information I found is that is a rare lens made for less than a year about 1957. Not many example photos that I’ve found, but a smallish light-weight triotar design should be interesting.
Thank you for another very well made, interesting and entertaining video! Hearing you mention the early Takumar "fat" 35mm f2 lens and knowing your fondness for the f2.3 Takumar 35mm, I would be interested to hear your thoughts comparing the early Takumar 35mm's, if you're so inclined. Cheers!
Hi, sorry for the delayed reply. I've spent a fair amount of time looking at images taken with the fat and thin Takumar 35mm f2s. And I participated on forums where people have used the lenses. The lenses were never very "cheap", and I've never been wow'd by the results. So I decided to stick with my f2.3, with it's eccentric bokeh.....maybe the f2s can do interesting things too, but I've never seen it! If I'm looking for more artistic style images, I purchased a new Sigma 30mm f1.4 lens, and I'm more than happy with that lens - it always goes with me on family holidays. And I also own the Meyer-Optik Gorlitz 30mm and 29mm lenses for eccentricity. Plus I've borrowed the CJZ Flektogon 35mm f2.4, and would prioritise one of those over the Takumar 35mm f2. I do occasionally think about buying the early fat version, but only as a collector. Really, I'd prefer to own the first M42 Takumar 35mm f4! I read that the f4 is good but needs stopping down for sharpness. I do have a Super-Takumar 35mm f3.5, which I'm less impressed with, although other people rate it higher than I do. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about these or other 35mms too! Regards, Simon
@@Simonsutak Thanks for your reaction to the other Takumar 35mm lenses. It sounds like the f2.3 version is the most compelling. I've only recently started exploring Takumar lenses, and have primarily been relying on a Contax Zeiss 35mm f1.4 lens, with the C/Y mount, and a Canon 35mm f2 rangefinder lens, with an LTM mount. I like them both as providing excellent sharpness and a pleasant bokeh, but not, as far as I've noticed, any particularly unique results. The Contax lens is heavy, sort of a junior size Hasselblad, but focuses to 0.3 meters and also covers the medium format sensor of a Fuji GFX medium format sensor quite effectively, which gives me the option, in a sense, of a 28mm equivalent focal length. The Canon is remarkably small and compact, like many rangefinder lenses, but has a 1 meter minimum focus distance and pretty much provides coverage for only the equivalent of a standard full-frame sensor. I enjoy both lenses for their excellent build quality and smooth mechanical operation. Anyway, I look forward to more of your excellent videos!
I feel like there's something weird about those old preset-lenses when it comes to the aperture markings. I had an old Koki Tele Tokina (105mm 2.8) which seemed to change its bokeh "quicker" than other lenses when stopping down. F8 looked much more stopped down - but at the same time F22 didn't look as stopped down. Not quire sure why I thought it was due to the aperture blades being towards to front of the lens and not the rear. I also assumed that was why it was more prone to flare (with the light being reflected by the aperture blades close to the entry of the optical path) - but it looks like the Takumar 100 2.0 behaves slightly similar but the aperture blades are in the rear? Or is that just an optical illusion? In any case, I figured that was also why the auto-exposure seemed to be very inconsistent, it got confused by the more "in focus" background/bokeh.
Genuinely curious - Roberts Camera (Used Photo Pro) had this on display for a while in their store but it sold not too long ago. They were selling it for over $3,000. Was it Solomon that got it?
Well....I'm a big fan of Takumar lenses, but the Takumar 135mm f3.5 preset lens I showed in the video isn't very good (or at least my copy isn't). It's not bad...just not very good, I've found. They made amends with the excellent 135mm f2.5, second version!
Good questions! I think Pentax put their resources into a Takumar 100mm Macro lens, that proved to be very successful - and was produced in various iterations for half a century. And they also had a cheaper (than the 100mm f2) 105mm lens which sold OK.
@@Simonsutak I agree the 100mm f4 was successful! But could we really call it a contemporary to the 100mm f2? As both occupied different niches! While the 100mm f4 macro, takes beautiful portraits, it cannot compensate for the extra low light performance of the 100mm f2. How would the 100mm f2 takumar compare to the Nikon 105mm f1.8 ais ? If my theory is correct the Nikon might be better. And Pentax didn't want to invest in the R & D of making this lens on par with Nikon 105mm. Instead they redirected the efforts into other lenses. As 100mm is neither as popular as 135mm nor as popular as 85mm. I would believe it's a matter of priorities! Still a comparison would be nice!
@@shirsoghosh4238 The Nikon 105mm f1.8 is clearly great lens. I don't own one! And I only got to borrow the very rare/expensive Takumar 100mm f2. It would be interesting comparison. I agree on the popular priorities you mention.
I use a hand strap now - it goes round my wrist. It’s strong enough to hang a DSLR from my wrist. Yes, its always on my wrist unless I’m using a tripod of course.
A rather exaggerated wonderment that sells exclusivity and rare high price value. I'm surprised you didn't see the image quality similarities to the 135mm at much less cost.
You're right, and I could have compared the lens's performance with any number of other, mass produced, lenses. However, my purpose and objective in posting this video was to feature the Takumar 100mm f2 on it's own, because there are no other detailed reviews of this very rare lens. Indeed, a few year years ago, some people doubted this lens was produced in any meaningful numbers at all, other than a few test samples. Cost or value for money certainly wasn't my consideration. It's worth what collectors will pay for it of course.
I’ve heard very good things about that lens. But to be fair this review wasn’t meant to be a comparison of a very rare lens (the Takumar) versus quite common lenses.
Very detailed. Actually too detailed. And too long for what the lens actually delivers and for its status. I had a copy, which I eventually sold, because it was quite anonymous in term of character for my photographic tastes. It is a rarity because manufactured in relatively limited numbers, not quite for its performance, which is good, but nothing remarkable. The tag price is quite unfair, IMO. I find Komura 135mm f2 far more interesting. Or the 'King of Ernostar' Komura 100mm f1.8. Even the Takumar 135mm f2.5 looks more appealing (and certainly cheap). Certainly for the time it was an achievement (Asahi Opt. Co. put a lot of efforts in exploring many horizons). Anyway, I'd rather see a written review, where I can pic the info I like, without having to wait that it is fed to me. Video reviews are cool when short or when they at aimed at videomaking, IMO. Very good images, though! Helpful for evaluating performance. Not many reviewer can do that... ;-)
I don't disagree (to use a double negative!). Interesting that you owned a copy. Did you ever post photos taken with your lens? For me personally, 100mm is an "in-between" length; too long or too short for many compositions, except for macro. On the length of the video, when I started posting lens reviews I wanted to keep them to under 10 mins. Then I began to posting reviews of collections of lenses and the videos grew in length. While I was waiting for this particular video to compile on my pc for posting - an agonising two and a half hours - I thought: I could have said everything that needs to be said in well under 10 minutes. But because it's such a rare lens, I decided to include a lot of different photos from the lens, and also the discussion in Part III. And I hope the links to specific sections help so people don't need to watch the whole thing. It would have been even longer if I'd gone into what I think about the 100mm focal length!
I wish I could monetize the amount of times I've been told I mispronounce bokeh, and the number of different ways people tell me it should be pronounced. Now I wish I'd stuck to the way I pronounced it (wrongly) for years - bok-kay and told everyone that was my way full stop, I'm just a simple Simon.
Here are links to the different parts of the review:
00:00 Introduction
02:33 PART I Specs and user experience
07:54 PART II Optical performance
08:00 Blades
11:00 Sharpness through the stops
12:09 CA/Colour fringing
12:34 Sharpness f2 and f8
15:58 Contrasts and flares
17:31 Colours
18:29 Radioactive tint
19:10 Walkaround and landscape shots
19:56 Black and white images
20:28 Bokeh
23:56 Swirls
26:02 Portraits
27:45 PART III Discussion and conclusions on reputation
28:12 Was it too expensive?
23:56 Did it have optical issues?
31:39 Fit with Takumar lens line-up?
34:24 Where would it rate today?
Hi Simon!
Thank you so much for the excellent review! You are definitely the right person for a review like this, with your vast experience and collection of different vintage lenses.
I have thoroughly enjoyed your review, very detailed and comprehensive, and provides objective insights. As I shot more with the lens I also definitely noticed the strong flaring that the lens produces, but at the same time the smooth "big" bokeh has been very enjoyable and pleasing.
I am very grateful and cannot thank you enough for doing this review, filling up a gap in the history for Takumar fans. I also love the photos that you have made, your compositions and chosen subjects are really top-notch!
It is a great pleasure meeting and talking to you! Looking forward to meeting you again near future!
-Solomon
Just a quick note-- the 'i' in Asahi is pronounced 'ee'
Thanks, glad I only said it once!
This is the best lens review I've seen online. The lens itself is fascinating and we not get another review of one, so I enjoyed the video's comprehensiveness. Seeing what could be done with the lens with and without processing was helpful. While the lens itself is interesting, the locations you used to demonstrate the lens really kept this presentation engaging. Incredible job, Simon!
Thank you very much - I really appreciate this. The video was long and it did take a lot of effort. But it was such a wonderful opportunity to try the lens and share what I found. And I'm going back to those locations for more photo shoots; that was fun too.
@@Simonsutak Looking forward to what's next!
The concept of bokeh is a pretty new idea. The shape of out of focus highlights was probably not a consideration at all when the lens was designed. It had to be pretty early to not have an automatic aperture. I have some Pentax bodies that are pre-spotmatic and they do have the mechanism for an auto aperture. You might want to try the Nikon 85mm F1.8 or the famous 105mm f2.5. Pentax was really never a professional camera. The Nikon F and Leica rangefinders were really the cameras of choice if a professional used a 35mm. The Zeiss Contarex and the Leicaflex got some use as well. I am still baffled by the fixation on Bokeh. I think you can read through the writings Ansel Adams, Minor White, HCB, and not find any mention of it. I do very much like your videos and they are thought provoking and very well done.
@dwightbrown2808 The P 105mm 2.5 was my first thought 👌
This is by far the most comprehensive review of any lens i’ve seen on YT. Thank you for taking the time to put this together and publishing it for free. I’d love to see more of these videos on these really obscure/rare takumars (or other m42 lenses), but I appreciate they are not easily made. I’d also like to hear your thoughts on the four m42 mount ‘takumar-zooms’ pentax produced (Their existence somehow eluded me until I recently got lucky with a great 70-150mm f4.5 on ebay)
Regarding the reasons for not mass-producing the lens--I have two lenses with the same sawtooth pattern--the 1:1 Macro-Takumar 50/4 and the Industar-61 MC L/Z. Both Tessar lenses. I shoot more on film than on digital, but I do both. I've never seen the saw-toothed bokeh on film from those lenses; film bokeh looks completely different--much more diffused. I'd be surprised if the star-shaped bokeh ever appears on film. It would have to be a very low ISO film, a sharp developer, and just the right distance between subject and background highlights. One can hunt for that distance on a digital camera, but that isn't possible on film. I agree that on digital, it isn't often that the star-shaped bokeh works, but these lenses were designed before the digital camera was a twinkle in anybody's eye.
A fair point - and I seldom see saw-tooth effects from my Macro Takumar 50mm or the larger aperture Helios 40 stopped down, except in more extreme light.
However, if the Takumar 100mm f2 was designed, in part, to be an indoor concert lens, as some people have claimed, then perhaps the concert spotlights might appear more obviously and intrusively, even on film.
Wow, thank you for your excellent review of this remarkable lens. I have a good collection of vintage Pentax lenses and of course a couple of Takumar lens as well. However, until your review, I wasn't aware this lens existed and even more surprised that so few copies were ever produced. No wonder you were so excited when your prayers were answered and you had the opportunity to try out this lens. Special thanks to Soloman.
You are clearly are the right person to review a Takumar lens. I enjoyed every minute and marvel at how much effort you put into producing this CZcams video. Obviously considerable thought went into what characteristics you wanted to explore. Nothing was missed. The benchmark comparisons were very helpful. Especially against the Helios 40. The 100mm f2 is impressively sharp, no doubt about that. Your wonderful images show how this lens renders in a wide range of situations. However, I'm afraid the sawtooth blades would be a showstopper for me. It is true that Bokeh seems to be a recent obsession. Though I have grown to appreciate how this can bring enjoyment and change how you see the world.
I took my first photo back in 1954 with a Kodak Brownie No.2 that my Dad had just given me. I've been capturing images ever since. For me, the Bokeh is way too busy, not pleasing at all. Some might be willing to overlook the swirl or stars but I have to endure the cat-eyes from my Nikon lenses and that's enough. My Kiron 105 is actually the best lens I've ever owned. Great review!
Boy, you make amazing reviews. Loved it both the lens and how you showed it.
Wow this one is so rare indeed! I was happy to get my hands on a Takumar 105/2.8 yesterday and now the CZcams algorithm recommends me an even more 100/2 :)
What a pleasure to watch and listen to your review Simon. I was trying to compare it with my S-M-C 105mm f2.8, but clearly it is a step above. By the sound of it though, I will be sticking with the 105mm, as my pockets are not that deep!
A splendid review, typically full of detail and well informed opinion. Greatly appreciate the lack of music in your videos - peace!
I own one 100 lens the Pentax 100mm2.8 M lenses one of my favorite lenses I like the pictures it takes.
Simon thank you for a review on a rare lens most people will never see
Amazing shot of the GT-R at 23:13 and great overall review, thanks!
Yes, that was one of my favourites with the lens too!
I always love watching your content. I enjoy having about 10 SMC Takumars and a couple of spotmatics. I started in photography almost 50 years ago with the Spotomatic at age 13. They were sold off as I grew in photography, but ultimately I added them back and enjoy shooting B&W film with them.
i find vintage fast lenses with simpler/single/less coatings seem to be more difficult to fix in PP if theyre under/over exposed and retain the contrast between dark and light parts
Nice review again Simon, well the Nikkor 105 mm f2 AF Defocus control shows more fringe, but the Tokina 90 mm f2.5 , the Tamron SP 90 mm f2.5, Nikkor AIS 105 mm f1.8 (5 lenses) , Nikkor 105 AIS mm f2,5 (legendary) Nikon E 100 mm f2.8 Ernostar 70€ lately (4 lens design) fringe much less.
I can sense your love to this lens in your presentation! This is a very interesting one. Meanwhile I'm still waiting for a good deal on a S-M-C takumar 50/1.4...
nice lens to play with, thanks for showing
Hello Simon!
I wanted to thank you for another in your MANY extremely valuable presentations!! You've really piqued my interest in vintage lenses, and when I"m researching or looking at one, I check you first to see if you've covered a lens....I've bought a few based on your videos.
Anyway, you are always entertaining as well as educational and I really appreciate the thought and time you put into your videos. I like you're accent and speaking voice, it really goes well with the video.
Anyway, just wanted to say thanks and let you know we appreciate your efforts out here!
CC
You're very welcome. Your feedback and kind words are very much appreciated this end too.
I believe a key reason for the unusual aperture shape is that it is designed to be very round at some particular aperture level. Lenses were (and are) often designed to perform optimally at a specific aperture, from which they could be opened up to let in more light with compromised performance, or stopped down for more depth of field with little change in performance.
I think the saw-tooth design was probably selected for this purpose.
100 and 105mm is my favorite focal length , thank you for the history
I have the 135mm and the 200mm, both are very sharp and fast. I don't know how radioactive they are but they give me wonderful colours, especially when i shoot in backlight to have a 60s/70s taste.
In other words, the 100mm is pointless unless the buyer wants to go on about ownership and rarity.
You are killing us SImon! Reviewing a lens we can't buy. Dang you man 🤣 (And yet all us Lens nerds will watch)
Ha!
Wow Simon, that one's rarer than hens teeth. I'd have expected that to flare like a beast because of the huge front element and because it's a takumar. I've found that some of the takumars are real flare monsters. I had the 100 f4 macro which was a good lens but despite having a small well recessed front element and having the factory hood on would flare if you pointed it anywhere remotely near a light source. That's pretty much the only thing I could fault on that lens.
Loved the review, Simon. That said, there is nothing about this lens that sets it apart as a classic legacy lens lens ... i believe it is expensive due to its rarity alone. Even for portraits, the busy bokeh and distracting blade profile makes its use a hit-or-miss proposition.
Also, after watching the history of AOC and Takumars as summarised in the video, the reason the lens didn't go into production might be a combination of all of the above.
The design of the lens (the aperture mechanism etc) is very much based on earlier generations of takumar lens. And when this lens was being "introduced", the company might have decided that takumar lens design should be heading in the direction as the super-takumar lenses (i.e. clicky aperture ring with less blades, simplified & universal focusing helicoid mechanism etc) such as the super-tak 50mms and the 85mm f1.9, for streamlining production and reduces costs.
Combining with the fact that maybe 100mm is not that popular of focal length compared to longer/ shorter prime lenses, resulting in the lens not going into mass production.
(This is just an educated guess with information provided in the video!)
Another very interesting video on a unusual lens. The wide open portrait and closeup images are my preference. I wouldn't be happy with the sawtooth bokeh balls in the other settings. Thanks!
Awesome review, as usual!! This is probably one of the first videos of yours that I watched without instantly heading to an auction site to check lens prices. I still prefer my '72 135mm Tak, and my '63 105mm is my least favorite (though I admit it is plenty sharp). I went out last week with a reversed-element 35mm Tak and managed a few fun pictures, too!
Thank you - and good to read about the reversed element Tak 35!
Great and thorough video. While the topic was bokeh, the last shot from the gallery was absolutely amazing 😍
I wouldn't mind the saw tooth blades since stopping down I usually only do for long distance or infinity shots if at all ;) Great review Simon. I've used the super-takumar 105/2.8 for concert and think it works great.
There must be some optical reason to use a star shaped aperture. They could easily have fitted it with an aperture like the 200mm tele-takumars.
Just saw one in a local camera shop here in Tokyo, listed for 500k yen. There were only 100 of them so the price went sky rocketed. Still a cult lens among die hard Pentax fans.
One on eBay now for £3600. Plus import duty and tax. LOL.
I wonder if an issue with the lens is that there is a lens element close to the aperture mechanism causing visible dust in the out of focus areas. This might have been difficult to find in testing, but obvious when real numbers of lenses were in the hands of the general public. I find that to be the most distracting element of the images - more so than the sawtooth bokeh.
Great video, thanks for sharing your views on this lens.
Many thanks for this perfect review!...your the right man for this!
Auto setting on camera is not trying to get lightest and darkest parts looking as such, it is trying to hit middle grey for the average of the pixels in the metering area. It has no clue if bright parts are supposed to be bright or that dark parts are supposed to be dark...
Thanks Simon!
I am a big Pentax fan and own a lot of Pentax cameras and lenses. Your review is excellent made, very honest and detailed. Thumbs up. What do you think about the 100mmf2,8. I am very satisfied with the performance of this lens and use it also on my digital K1 and K5 with great results.
Cheers from Germany, Greg
Love this video 🙂 Wondering if you could do something similar with the M42 Tomioka lenses...especially interested in the 60mm f2.8 macro 🙂
A thorough and very interesting review, thanks for your valiant efforts...
Thank you so much !
wow, you got to be kidding, what a lens
This is a truly epic review. Obviously many useful test shots, but nice to see some great photos
Thank you!
Very interesting to see an in depth review of this very rare lens.! Borehole
great review, thank you, I'll probably never touch one, but I did take my MOG Oreston 100 to Venice for Carnival and got what i think are some great shots, thanks again for your scientific approach and your abundant amount of sample shots,
Yes, the MOG 100mm is a nice lens...I'm thinking of doing a quick review of my copy next!
Awesome video. Thank you.
Great video and information
Man, I wish you could start testing these lenses on GFX too. :D
Super fascinating lens. Some very compelling photo results! Really wondering how it might compare against the famous Nikkor 105mm f/2.5, one of my favorite lenses. I'm actually quite a fan of the sawtooth aperture and have several lenses with that style. Not always what I want, but I like the option to do something interesting/different with the bokeh.
I wonder if the metering being somewhat off is due to this older Takumar being a film lens like many others fromin the 50's ,60's and 1970's film days? Even today ,film is often metered for shadows since film is more forgiving on highlights; digital is somewhat the opposite.
This one is interesting , it would be nice to hear your thoughts after comparing it to the Nikkor P 105mm 2.5. It is also a five element lens , the earlier versions being a Sonnar type. The 105 is plentiful and easy to find; early Sonnar is a bit better than the later model Gauss .
Have you ever tried the Takumar 100mm f3.5 black pre-set M42. And, if so what were your impressions. Not planning on it, or looking for one, but it just came up and I bought one ‘cheap’ and it’s on the way. The little information I found is that is a rare lens made for less than a year about 1957. Not many example photos that I’ve found, but a smallish light-weight triotar design should be interesting.
nice lens, 2 of my favorite 100's are the Topcor 100 2.8 , and Lomo 100 f2
Reminds me a little bit of my Oreston 50mm. Loads of character, but that damn iris messes up the bokeh too much.
My 3.5. 135 is a joy to use and lovely rendering. Good to go from 3.5
Super takumar 135.
Interesting review.
tyvm for the vid - quite informative!
Thank you for another very well made, interesting and entertaining video! Hearing you mention the early Takumar "fat" 35mm f2 lens and knowing your fondness for the f2.3 Takumar 35mm, I would be interested to hear your thoughts comparing the early Takumar 35mm's, if you're so inclined. Cheers!
Hi, sorry for the delayed reply. I've spent a fair amount of time looking at images taken with the fat and thin Takumar 35mm f2s. And I participated on forums where people have used the lenses. The lenses were never very "cheap", and I've never been wow'd by the results. So I decided to stick with my f2.3, with it's eccentric bokeh.....maybe the f2s can do interesting things too, but I've never seen it!
If I'm looking for more artistic style images, I purchased a new Sigma 30mm f1.4 lens, and I'm more than happy with that lens - it always goes with me on family holidays. And I also own the Meyer-Optik Gorlitz 30mm and 29mm lenses for eccentricity. Plus I've borrowed the CJZ Flektogon 35mm f2.4, and would prioritise one of those over the Takumar 35mm f2.
I do occasionally think about buying the early fat version, but only as a collector. Really, I'd prefer to own the first M42 Takumar 35mm f4! I read that the f4 is good but needs stopping down for sharpness. I do have a Super-Takumar 35mm f3.5, which I'm less impressed with, although other people rate it higher than I do.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about these or other 35mms too!
Regards, Simon
@@Simonsutak Thanks for your reaction to the other Takumar 35mm lenses. It sounds like the f2.3 version is the most compelling. I've only recently started exploring Takumar lenses, and have primarily been relying on a Contax Zeiss 35mm f1.4 lens, with the C/Y mount, and a Canon 35mm f2 rangefinder lens, with an LTM mount. I like them both as providing excellent sharpness and a pleasant bokeh, but not, as far as I've noticed, any particularly unique results. The Contax lens is heavy, sort of a junior size Hasselblad, but focuses to 0.3 meters and also covers the medium format sensor of a Fuji GFX medium format sensor quite effectively, which gives me the option, in a sense, of a 28mm equivalent focal length. The Canon is remarkably small and compact, like many rangefinder lenses, but has a 1 meter minimum focus distance and pretty much provides coverage for only the equivalent of a standard full-frame sensor. I enjoy both lenses for their excellent build quality and smooth mechanical operation. Anyway, I look forward to more of your excellent videos!
Beatiful ❤️📸👍🍀🌞
Thank you for sharing - twas brill.
Oh god...I had two! I had no Idea they were valuable :( I kept my 105!
I feel like there's something weird about those old preset-lenses when it comes to the aperture markings. I had an old Koki Tele Tokina (105mm 2.8) which seemed to change its bokeh "quicker" than other lenses when stopping down. F8 looked much more stopped down - but at the same time F22 didn't look as stopped down. Not quire sure why I thought it was due to the aperture blades being towards to front of the lens and not the rear. I also assumed that was why it was more prone to flare (with the light being reflected by the aperture blades close to the entry of the optical path) - but it looks like the Takumar 100 2.0 behaves slightly similar but the aperture blades are in the rear? Or is that just an optical illusion?
In any case, I figured that was also why the auto-exposure seemed to be very inconsistent, it got confused by the more "in focus" background/bokeh.
Genuinely curious - Roberts Camera (Used Photo Pro) had this on display for a while in their store but it sold not too long ago. They were selling it for over $3,000. Was it Solomon that got it?
I always wondering, since those vintage lenses are radioactive, why the film did not get fogged with camera made with cloth curtain shutter ?
I think the film will have yellowed if you left the film in the camera long enough (not sure how ‘long enough’ would be...).
Right, and we will not see it on b&w film.
Well I wouldn't pass one up if I found it for a nice price! Have you ever encountered a bad Takumar lens?
Well....I'm a big fan of Takumar lenses, but the Takumar 135mm f3.5 preset lens I showed in the video isn't very good (or at least my copy isn't). It's not bad...just not very good, I've found. They made amends with the excellent 135mm f2.5, second version!
If it was too expensive to produce, then how did Nikon produce the 105mm f1.8? And why was it such a successful lens!
Good questions! I think Pentax put their resources into a Takumar 100mm Macro lens, that proved to be very successful - and was produced in various iterations for half a century. And they also had a cheaper (than the 100mm f2) 105mm lens which sold OK.
@@Simonsutak I agree the 100mm f4 was successful! But could we really call it a contemporary to the 100mm f2? As both occupied different niches! While the 100mm f4 macro, takes beautiful portraits, it cannot compensate for the extra low light performance of the 100mm f2.
How would the 100mm f2 takumar compare to the Nikon 105mm f1.8 ais ?
If my theory is correct the Nikon might be better. And Pentax didn't want to invest in the R & D of making this lens on par with Nikon 105mm. Instead they redirected the efforts into other lenses. As 100mm is neither as popular as 135mm nor as popular as 85mm. I would believe it's a matter of priorities!
Still a comparison would be nice!
@@shirsoghosh4238 The Nikon 105mm f1.8 is clearly great lens. I don't own one! And I only got to borrow the very rare/expensive Takumar 100mm f2. It would be interesting comparison. I agree on the popular priorities you mention.
Thank you from Mexico!!! ✌️🐈☕
next one has to be m42 takumar 83 1.9 :)
The SMC Pentax 20mm 1:1.4 (no not the Pentax-m 1:4)
@@D1N02 it’s pentax k, not m42, right?
The 82 f1.8 is better and it coasts more, so it's bound to take finer images, right? And it's tack sharp wide open.
Do you always have a strap on your camera and do you always have that around your neck?
I use a hand strap now - it goes round my wrist. It’s strong enough to hang a DSLR from my wrist. Yes, its always on my wrist unless I’m using a tripod of course.
I just saw one on eBay, but when I saw the price, I'm like: "😅😅😅😅"
A rather exaggerated wonderment that sells exclusivity and rare high price value. I'm surprised you didn't see the image quality similarities to the 135mm at much less cost.
You're right, and I could have compared the lens's performance with any number of other, mass produced, lenses. However, my purpose and objective in posting this video was to feature the Takumar 100mm f2 on it's own, because there are no other detailed reviews of this very rare lens. Indeed, a few year years ago, some people doubted this lens was produced in any meaningful numbers at all, other than a few test samples. Cost or value for money certainly wasn't my consideration. It's worth what collectors will pay for it of course.
Une brosse à dents à t elle besoin de brosse reluire? 😊
This is a very rare lens, almost impossible to find
Because hardly anyone bought one as the 135mm does an equally fine job?
@@nickykodak7536 I found two on ebay, one for $6000 and another for $9,500 lol
?
Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AI is much better and much cheaper
I’ve heard very good things about that lens. But to be fair this review wasn’t meant to be a comparison of a very rare lens (the Takumar) versus quite common lenses.
Very detailed. Actually too detailed. And too long for what the lens actually delivers and for its status. I had a copy, which I eventually sold, because it was quite anonymous in term of character for my photographic tastes. It is a rarity because manufactured in relatively limited numbers, not quite for its performance, which is good, but nothing remarkable. The tag price is quite unfair, IMO. I find Komura 135mm f2 far more interesting. Or the 'King of Ernostar' Komura 100mm f1.8. Even the Takumar 135mm f2.5 looks more appealing (and certainly cheap). Certainly for the time it was an achievement (Asahi Opt. Co. put a lot of efforts in exploring many horizons). Anyway, I'd rather see a written review, where I can pic the info I like, without having to wait that it is fed to me. Video reviews are cool when short or when they at aimed at videomaking, IMO. Very good images, though! Helpful for evaluating performance. Not many reviewer can do that... ;-)
By the way... pronunciation is 'BÒ-KEH', not 'BU-KÈH'... ;-)
I don't disagree (to use a double negative!). Interesting that you owned a copy. Did you ever post photos taken with your lens? For me personally, 100mm is an "in-between" length; too long or too short for many compositions, except for macro.
On the length of the video, when I started posting lens reviews I wanted to keep them to under 10 mins. Then I began to posting reviews of collections of lenses and the videos grew in length.
While I was waiting for this particular video to compile on my pc for posting - an agonising two and a half hours - I thought: I could have said everything that needs to be said in well under 10 minutes.
But because it's such a rare lens, I decided to include a lot of different photos from the lens, and also the discussion in Part III. And I hope the links to specific sections help so people don't need to watch the whole thing. It would have been even longer if I'd gone into what I think about the 100mm focal length!
I wish I could monetize the amount of times I've been told I mispronounce bokeh, and the number of different ways people tell me it should be pronounced. Now I wish I'd stuck to the way I pronounced it (wrongly) for years - bok-kay and told everyone that was my way full stop, I'm just a simple Simon.