> I've had this lens in Super Takumar and SMC Pentax iterations. It's a > little jewel. And while some complain of its slow aperture, by todays > standards, where slow, variable aperture zooms are becoming quite common, > this lens may recapture some of its lost luster, when faster primes > dominated. It's a great optic! > > Shel
I appear to have a lemon. My Super Takumar 35/3.5, s/n 4137xxx, tests as the worst 35mm prime I own in terms of sharpness and contrast. It appears to be undamaged physically and optically and to focus correctly. I have heard a lot of people praise this lens, so one of a couple of things must account for it: 1) my lens is defective or damaged somehow 2) my test was defective somehow 3) light somehow got into the lens at a funny angle, and the lack of SMC made itself known in the test 4) at identical apertures my other 35mm primes are stopped farther down and thus perform better 5) the 35/3.5 is in fact a good lens but my other 35mm primes are all better (nikkor AF 2.0, Super Tak 2.0 m1, Super Tak 2.0 m2, A 2.0) Certainly the 35/3.5 is small, light, and cheap, and probably a great lens if you can work with a slow 35. Personally, I tend to work wider and/or faster (very few of my zooms are "slow, variable aperture") and don't use this lens much at all. OTOH, I had a 35/1.4 nikkor and don't miss it. Actually, most of Nikon's 35s are mediocre, especially their answer to the 35/3.5. Pentax has always made great 35s, which I why I really wonder if my 35/3.5 is a lemon. DJE
