G'day Mark, Those are all excellent shots. I really like the colours in "Blue Jay", But I love "Rock Dove". That shot is way cool (no pun intended).
Dave S On 5/11/05, Mark Cassino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I used to own a Takumar 500 f 4.5. Not the SMC version. It was a unique > lens in that someone had modified it by gluing part of a screwmount to K > adapter to the lens - making it more or less a K mount lens (it would only > mate to K mounts, but it would not lock into place.) > > Some sample shots taken with it (these are old photos) - > > The extraordinarily rare and elusive Rock Dove (har!) - > > http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/birds/0204b35.htm > > red bellied woodpecker - > > http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/birds/0204b36.htm > > Blue Jay - > > http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/birds/0204b52.htm > > Another Jay - > > http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/birds/0204b50.htm > > Chickadee - > > http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/birds/0204b56.htm > > The latter is a crop from a Kodachrome 64 slide - it really does not hold up > at bigger sizes. the others are all printable at Super-B size with no > problems, lots of detail. > > I shot lots with this lens but replaced it with the A* 400 f2.8, which with > teleconverters is much sharper, though it can burn you in the Bokeh dept. It > should be noted than the A*400 cost a whole order of magnitude more than the > Takumar 500 f4.5! > > The stop down aperture was not a major issue once you got used to it. > > This was a very high resolution lens, capable of producing great results on > film, but it has a major degree of chromatic aberration. I don't know how it > would do on digital bodies. One plus for APS sized digitals - this lens has > a minimum focusing distance of 10 meters, so you need to use tubes > (sometimes lots of them) for smaller birds. That would cause vignetting on > film -probably would not be a problem on *ist-D / DS's. > > There was a thread on photo.net where this lens was panned by numerous > people who never used it, based on their 'understanding' of the laws of > physics and how pronounced the CA would be. In real life the lens is quite > good - not on par with the best of the best but probably the best bang for > the buck for big glass. As for the photo.net thread - it underscored the > validity of the saying "Those who know it all have the most to learn." > > - MCC > > (who knows it all and is busy learning.... :-) > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Mark Cassino Photography > Kalamazoo, MI > www.markcassino.com > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 1:56 PM > Subject: Re: 500mm Zooms > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 1:51 PM > > > >> I find it a little annoying, but not $400 -$500 so... > >> > > > > Cool. I was always curious about that lens and the Takumar equivelent. > > Please post some pictures taken with it when you can so we can see how it > > performs. > > > > Christian > > > > > >
