Takumars are great, but they have a real issue with infinity focus smacking the mirrors on 5D and 5DII (the 24, 28, 35 (3.5 and 2.0) and 50 F 1.4). I ended up scraping a 35mm F 3.5 Super Takumar (20 feet was a far as I could go without smacking the mirror) for a 35mm F 2.8 C/Y Distagon instead (no mirror issues). The (well linked) list is here:
I use two Takumars ok on my 5DII (meaning no mirror clearance issues), the 17mm F 4.0 Fisheye, and the 300mm F 4.0 SMC Takumar. The 17mm will be scrapped for a Canon 15mm F 2.8 because the edges are really bad, even @ F8.0 on that body, and the 300MM F 4.0 SMC is CA riddled and tough to focus except when using live view-a 300mm F 4.0 EF will replace it one day as well
I do however, use a 50mm F 1.4 Super Takumar form time to time, just not at infinity focus
Super Takumar 135/3.5 on the GH13 w/ET - But I have to say it again: At these web sizes all but the most dramatic bokeh renderings are quite meaningless. Thanks to Marcel VanEerd for including a 100% crops - I will as well at a later date. Most lenses of similar quality (and there are hundreds and hundreds!!!) will look about the same at this scale. I like these lenses a lot. Built for lasting several lifetimes and they feel really good in hand! Fairly sharp too!
Yes, it's Superia 400 with a B&W conversion + toning in Silver Efex Pro. A lot of the colour film I shoot ends up with a B&W conversion in post, particularly with the Takumars as they don't deliver as nice a colour rendering as my Minolta glass (Minolta colour is awesome, but the Takumars do better in B&W IMHO)
Marcel VanEerd wrote:
I meant - you seem to have posted this particular shot twice in this thread? If it is for a particular reason, I failed to notice it.
My bad, forgot I'd posted it upthread.
Here's the on I'd though I'd posted upthread (but didn't)
^ which version of the 135? M42? 6, or 8 blades? (If its the 8 blade version, it's no good, and I'll take if off your hands for peanuts. That's me - nice guy.)