I have these two lenses and everything you said are just like I felt with it. And I use Helios mmz version , I feel this version has more contrast compare to kmz version. Usually I prefer to use at sunset or for swirling background(so F beautiful), and the auto-takumar is for the daily use because it’s sharp enough for everything.
I would try to solve the aperture access difficulty problem by sacrificing a stack filters that have the glass removed. They would give your fingers some breathing room, and act as a bit of a hood. Perfect it by avoiding vignette when attached to a full frame camera. I try not to overdo it too close to reaching vignetting, just in case the light transmission from different front element areas contribute to the final image. Probably good advice to have at least a high quality thread filter be the one that attaches to the lens. (Best to avoid degradation of a valued vintage lens’s filter/hood thread. Crappy/cheap filter with junky threading are no bargain when damaging treasured lenses). I just picked up one of these lenses, and found this review. Unfortunately, I didn’t read eBay description well enough to see that disclosure of mould colony near rear element. I’m searching for rear disassembly instructions so as to not destroy the lens. I refuse to attach it to any cameras until resolution of mould. Mould is like Covid… don’t want to spread this living organism to any camera, and ultimately to other lenses as well. Thanks for posting such a wonderful video, as well as the one comparing to Helios
It's good to know that the CA is kept to a minimum. I have a Takumar 300mm f4 and the CA on that particular lens is atrocious. Extreme colour fringing and so much of it. Often, you don't even need to zoom into the picture that much to see it. And I haven't been very successful in getting rid of all of it with software. I think I'll sell that lens.
For my use it would be for wide field astrophotography with a dedicated CMOS cooled camera. The distortion looks good but I wonder how it would perform as you view to the edge of field and minimize chromatic abberation. I have a Rokinon 85mm F/1.4 which performs awful, as you move further away from center of field star shapes become seagulls, even well stopped down. I am hoping the 85mm Takumar may be a satisfactory candidate.
How about made in USSR not in Russia? There were n such country as Russia back then, only USSR with 15 republics in it. At least read what's has been written on the lens.
Great video man! Quick preference question for you. If both in excellent condition, would you rather have the Helios 44M or a Super Takumar 50mm 1.4 if you could only have one? Let's assume you have an adapter as well as a speed-booster to an APS-C camera. Thank you.
Hi, thanks for the question. I would go with Takumar, since it is more versatile imo. Helios have a particular look and a lot of character some scenes of Batman were filmed with Helios modified lens.
For me that bokeh of helios is horrible. Maybe because Í´m not a professional. Yo veo que en la telenovelas de Turquía se ven unas imágenes hermosas con un suave y bonito bokeh. Thats´s what I want.
Coincidentally, I happen to have one currently mounted on my Sony AX7 II, ready for an early morning shoot. I have a fairly substantial Pentax Takumar m42 collection I shoot with, my favorite vintage lenses.
it's not worth that much to me, colors are weird, no af means it has to be either cheap or bring a lot of character in order to be worth that much... thanks for the review, more shots next time! :)
Perhaps it's fairer to say the Takumar 55mm F2 lens' virtues are more subtle? For a start it was made in the Tomioka plant (not by Asahi) under contract, and they are renowned for their superb and superior lenses. There is a delicacy in the rendering of fine detail and perhaps more dimensionalty presence than with the other Taks? It is particularly good at handling lustrous reflective highlights, and the single coating's rendering has a lovely soft colour feel. It's nickname in Japan is Ma-Ki-E, means 'feeding fish', which is not a compliment. Exhibit-B the Helios- 44-2 by comparison is your drunken party bud...full of life in broad strokes and gushing with vitality, if a bit sloppy... So it's a sober Summicron to a Zeiss on vodka comparison as it were. After my first excursion out with the Tak 55 F2, I was smitten by it's charms.
In the case of USSR lenses, you always have to remember that they can be poorly assembled. Sometimes you will choose a good one out of 5 helios. Such a (well-assembled) Helios is a great lens. :)
Hello Tomas. I just watched this Japanese RU-vid video (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QbW1GGsSyTA.html) in which the vlogger claims the auto-Takumar 55mm f2 lens was made by Tomioka. An interesting idea, certainly, but I'd like to see some documentation of the fact.
Good videos, Tomas, but not enough of them about vintage lenses, especially the Takumars. I have a good collection of Taks. I've been collecting them for years. What I've noticed about the uncoated auto-Takumars specifically the 35 f3.5, the 55 f2, and the 55 f2.2, is that tonal gradation seems to be smoother. This particularly makes for amazing skies under the right conditions, early or late light and some clouds. The later lens coatings make the lenses more "contrasty" which gives an appearance of greater sharpness (acutance?) and perhaps more saturated colors but compresses the tones causing the subtle transitions to be lost. Or that's how it seems to me. If anyone would like to offer feedback about this, I'd be interested to read it. I've never seen a mention of this before.
There is never enough of them :)). I agree with. Non coated version seems to have more pleasent bokeh, but keeps the same sharpness as the multicoated ones. They are not as much contrasty as smc lenses, but I often reduce the contrast in post when filming with midern lenses, so for me it has pleanty enough. Just they are flaring a lot (non multi coated ones)
I am curious if others have to adjust exposure compensation with this lens. I am using this lens on a Pentax KS-1 crop sensor camera and have used it on an older Pentax K10D. For this lens and a few other M42 lenses they drastically over expose the images and I have to set exposure compensation to at least -2.0. Thanks
@@samuellagraciaizumiabarque3212 On this one I used 35mm Fuji F2 (tried it for the first time), and Sigma 18-35 on my BMPCC4K. I still prefer Carl Zeiss 35 F2.4 Flektogon. Just about to make a review about modern Fuji 35 Vs Vintage Flektogon 35 :)
@@tomaspofilms i’ll wait for that review, my 35 f2 is currently on bench, cause i just got my birthday gift a pentax s2 with auto takumar 55 f2 and a 135 f3.5, im learning how to use manual focusing on my xe3 :)
@@samuellagraciaizumiabarque3212 Auto-Takumar 55 f2 is one of my favorite. So sharp and such a creamy bokeh at the same time when wide open. Just need a hood or matte box, because it flares a lot. Enjoy it :)
@@tomaspofilms thank you for your reply. I have a takumar 55 1.8, but I want to buy a super takumar 55 F2 to try. I read on the internet that someone took a vortex bokeh with an auto takumar 55 F2. My hat is the same as yours and h&m's is also green.
On my Canon 5D classic it doesn't hit the mirror. There is a good site showing vintage lens compatibility, I cannot add links here but search for "panoramaplanet lens compatibility"
