J. C. O'Connell" wrote:
> The Super-Takumar & SMC Takumar
> 20mm F4.5 lenses suck. Not only
> do the have a very noticeable
> geometric distortion, ( barrel)
> they are only sharp in the middle
> third of the field of view. Edge
> and corner performance is horrid.
So many people say that, or words to that effect. I liked mt 20/4.5
Super Tak, and while it was not the sharpest lens in the equipment
cabinet, I did not think it was as bad as all that. I have a few negs
made with that lens, and the next time I'm getting something scanned,
I'll scan a few of those and post 'em where the list can see 'em. I
tend to agree more with Paul's comments (below), and my results have
been more akin to Bill Casselberry's than to the awful description you
paint.
It was damaged and couldn't be properly repaired, and I was very sorry
to see it go.
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Why should I use a meter? What if the darn thing broke on me
when I was out making a photograph? Then what would I do?"
> There is a lot of wisdom that says this lense
> suffers from distortion. Having said that, I
> believe that the distortion present is only
> going to be objectionable when you photograph
> graph paper or a scene that has horizontal
> and vertical lines that are prominent, off-center,
> and expected to be presented in the image undistorted.
>
> If you plan to use the lens to exaggerate
> perspective, photograph in tight locations where
> you cannot get back far enough to take in a scene,
> control background, etc., you will love it. The
> SMC version might yield better contrast and better
> flare control, but the ST version is still a
> very worthy lens.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
