6 Pentax 35mm Lenses Tested; The Ultimate Pentax 35mm Lens Comparison Review

[@garbhanmyles]

This is an incredibly beautiful video for camera gear. It’s got a bit of soul to it and it’s so refreshing to see a video without people shouting at me about smashing like buttons with scratchy loud music in the background. You, sir, should get a medal for that alone.

[@Filtersloth]

I did not expect such a well paced, interesting and comprehensive video. This must have taken a lot of time to make. Great video.

[@raksh9]

This is a wonderfully comprehensive test, and so useful to see every lens shot with an identical scene. The flares on the Auto Takumar are incredible! And the rendering of the Pentax 35mm f2 is great. Well, more lenses for the wish list.

[@christophergallagher531]

Thanks . I dig the drums, man. Back in the day I really wanted the f2. It woke up the viewfinders in my Spotmatics. I sunk my money into the 17mm fish eye. In the early '90s I found the 35mm f3.5. It got some use before film faded away. In the bright view finders of the little MX and the KX beast, it was like an overdue honey moon. In your interesting comparison, the photos that kept catching my eyes where from the f2.8! I spent a couple of days in Moab, that was only a tease. Nice to have low humidity for your tests. Loved your photos. Chris

[@christophergallagher531]

I have gone micro four thirds. A now old school (ha) 20mm f1.7 is pretty much always on a body. No zoom yet. Late '60s and early '70s Takumar works very well!

[@colingentile]

Exquisite work/video/photographer/places/music !! Such a great moment, thank you !

[@ArminHirmer]

that was really interesting! thank you

[@anglewinder]

This is how its done! Outstanding review! I was sorting through my options for a 35mm Pentax lens to serve double duty on a Fuji mirrorless and my longtime Pentax ME Super. This review fit the bill concisely by presenting real world comparisons that helped me assess my options. After carefully studying the images and listening to the informative commentary, I was able to easily conclude which version best my expectations. Over the years I've looked at a lot photo equipment reviews and this is easily one of the best I've seen in a long time. Thank you taking the time and care to make it!

[@vyoufinder]

Thank you for the compliment, I am glad it helped. I'm curious.. Which did you choose?

[@anglewinder]

For an all around, "go to" 35mm lens, I arrived at the same conclusion as you. I chose the SMC PENTAX-M 1:2.8 35mm. As I watched your review and paused to study the images, I found myself repeatedly drawn to the overall look of this lens. By the end of your video, I had pretty much made up my mind. Your conclusions reinforced my impressions from earlier in your review. I've had a similar 50mm 1:1.7 for a long time and enjoyed the overall design/feel of that lens, so I expect that the the Pentax-M 1:2.8 35mm will meet my needs -- in terms of both image rendering and ergonomics. Of course - many will disagree, and certainly it depends on what one is looking for -- but this looks like the best option for me. I've since found a copy online, ordered it and it is on its way. Thanks again!

[@unclefester6501]

Fantastic work. Extremely useful. I like my Takumar 35/3.5 same hood as yours and just started with a 35/2.3. The original 2.3 hood attached to the outside with a set screw, not by the filter threads.

[@janforsman1546]

Thank you so much! I bought the 35mm 2.8 (M) lens, largely based on this review. I am extremely happy with the lens! Here is a tip: the very compact lens hood that is designed for the DA-40mm is an excellent match. Extremely compact and protecting, and remarkably enough, there is no vinjetting!

[@metalfatigue]

Thanks for this detailed comparison. Minor detail; none of lenses you refer to as uncoated, is uncoated. They're just not "multicoated" which of course was a big selling point for Ashai at one time.

[@AgnostosGnostos]

I love Takumar lenses. Lenses with radioactive thorium have excellent optical quality.

[@Nathan_Thompson]

What a thorough, fascinating, well explained overview! A truly amazing variety and such a helpful comparison. Thank you!

[@柯宗賢-k7v]

Thank you for this great great movie for pentax DSLR users!!

[@jensknappe2485]

Thanks for this intense review and journey into pentax' lens history. Very interesting.

[@dbkfrogkaty1]

Thank you for this highly descriptive and detailed review of these fine lenses. I've been using Takumar lenses for some time including the 35/3.5. When I acquired my first M lens, a 50/1.7, I wanted more. So I recently picked up your top lens. Yes, the SMC Pentax-M 35/2.8. I got a wonderful copy of one. They make a great 35mm and 50mm combo. Both are clean with smooth focus rings and solid aperture rings.

[@vyoufinder]

Thanks and glad you enjoyed it. I also love Takumar and Pentax (as you might've guessed) but one thing: I am not sure I'd call the Pentax-M 35mm f2.8 my top lens. It's probably what I consider the best "all around," and partially takes into consideration size and budget. My favorite of them all is the original Takumar 35mm f4. There's something about the 4 element rendering that is rich and using the lens is an absolute pleasure. I probably use it the most, followed by the Pentax-A 35mm f2 (similar to FA in this video). The S-M-C Takumar 35mm f3.5 offers the most out of them all, especially if you consider the price of them, but lacks bokeh, so why I don't call it the best all around. Since I have choices, the Pentax-M 35mm f2.8 probably gets used the least. If I am going small, I'll usually choose the Pentax-M 40mm f2.8 instead. Ironically, the 35mm Pentax/Takumar lens I consider the best all around, if I only had one, is also probably the one I use the least. The 35mm f2.8 satisfies both bokeh (because of the close focusing) and landscapes and separates itself from the others in this regard. Like most (all?) Pentax lenses, it is truly a masterpiece of engineering and art.

[@dbkfrogkaty1]

@@vyoufinder I meant what you said in the video: " If you're gonna have one [35 mm], this is the best all arounder the M-35/2.8." I like it's close focusing and bokeh, especially for a f/2.8 lens. I haven't used it much since I got it but maybe I'll attach it to my K-5 II more often in the new year 2020!

[@jakeduggan3854]

Thank you for taking the time to make this video.

[@thomasfransson]

Great video! Glad I liked the 2.8 on the side by sides

[@breakingbad3055]

The best and detailed vintage lens review I've ever seen. Great video.

[@k1emenv]

Wow, best lens review I ever saw! Well done, Sir!

[@georgesealy4706]

I have the Pentax-M 35mm F2.8. I recently purchased it to use with my 40-year old Pentax A3000 film camera. I also use it with my Fujifilm X-T4. It only cost about $175 in near mint condition. It is amazingly sharp, and it works really well shooting B&W on the film camera. I really like that lens. It is small and light too.

[@photobobo]

The removable piece from the hood is to allow operation of a polarizing filter with the hood normally attached.

[@patuta_design]

Best Pentax Vintage lenses video I've seen so far. Fantastic job 👏

[@therealchickentender]

Sweet and nicely done. Very cool to see so many of these rounded up like that. A favorite length of mine by far. I've had the FA/2.0 and the K/2.0 in the past, as well as (one you didn't cover) an M/2.0 and currently an A/2.0 (same formula) which I adore (I've had those around for many years). But my favorite of the bunch (newer to me) is my SuperTak/3.5 (non SMC version but like yours as you know). There's just something special about it to me in it's overall rendering. Love it to death after not too terribly long with it. Never did try AutoTak/2.3 - Always figured I had one like that in size already that loved - the good old FA31 and never bothered. At any rate... Cheers and thanks for shooting this.

[@randallstewart175]

The reason that the shade for the 35mm AL lens has a removable hatch in its side is not to allow inspection of the lens (?); it is intended to give access to the lens where a polarizer is installed, allowing you to manually adjust the polarizer without removing the shade. Also, I think you will find that all of your lenses labelled Takumar are coated, and all lenses labelled Super-Takumar or Pentax are multicoated. Pentax was an industry leader in developing the technology to multi-coat camera lenses. Zeiss developed the concept before WWII, but Pentax was the manufacturer who invented the technology allowing them to put multicoating into general use.

[@EnioG]

Fantastic review. Been looking for really good review on some of these lenses and you covered all of them in one go! Just got myself the SMC Pentax-M 50mm 1.7 and I think my next buy will be the 35mm version. Thanks again!

[@HibikiKano]

Thanks for the lovely comparison video. Gorgeous shots, lovely music and most of all informative. Will see if I can catch any of those Takumar lenses online nearby :)

[@mynewcolour]

I like your vibe. And there’s really good info shared here. You’re good at this!

[@vyoufinder]

I appreciate that!

[@jbobdawghomeysizzle]

Since the last time I talked to you about testing out the pentax k 28 3.5, I ended up selling my first copy because I was foolish and felt that I wouldn't miss is after picking up the k 30mm 2.8. However after a year without the 28 I realized I missed the lens far too much and was able to recently find a clean copy with the original case for 40$. Very happy to have it in my collection again. This is the first lens I've sold and repurchased because I missed it.

[@vyoufinder]

That lens is a total gem.

[@themanfromoregon6047]

@@vyoufinder Did you ever find a cheap copy of the K 28mm 3.5? I have 4 now and I'm in Bounitful. Just saying. I've gotten all mine cheap, and I'd sell you one cheap if you're still looking.

[@vyoufinder]

I am trying to remember what I paid for it and if I paid the going rate or managed to find a deal on one and I can't. I do know that my copy works flawlessly and cosmetically very good. Images are extremely "clean." I am so glad I got one and use it often as my first choice as a "slow" 28mm.

[@MikMilman]

I really hope you keep these in depth videos up! I know they are a lot of work, but they are appreciated.

[@vyoufinder]

More in the works. What would you like to see in particular regarding Pentax/Takumar lenses/Cameras?

[@MikMilman]

Good question. Maybe you could talk about the general differences between older and newer lenses: manufacturing tech, build quality, etc. If you're ever in Los Angeles and you'd like to shoot a video together, I have a fully stocked darkroom where I teach. Also, I think a discussion on the pros and cons of shooting with manual focus lenses on digital cameras could be interesting.

[@morbid86]

I second that. And there's something about the way you talk - it's oddly satisfying to listen to :-) I come back here from time to time to see if there's anything new so hopefully you'll give us something soon! I'm a K version fan, currently own 28/3.5 (finally!), 35/3.5, 55/1.8 and sold 135/2.5 earlier on (too heavy). I'm interested in faster 35mm for low light, but I'm bit worried about the floating element of FA version as it can cause issues when adapted using too short adapter. And as far as I know they're all too short.. Have you experienced any problems with sharpness especially on MFD? Thanks for all your hard work, cheers from Poland!

[@martinekwall4671]

Thank you for this inspiring review. Your photos are wow : ) and with the music the most spiritual review I have seen. Cool!!

[@vyoufinder]

Really liked reading your comment, thanks.

[@wizofoz0605]

Hi, thanks for the video. Nicely done. One small point thought, the removable section of the lens hood is to facilitate adjust filters such as a CPL, many Pentax lens hoods have this well thought out design feature.

[@sportsfanivosevic9885]

This video is so good it should go in the KZbin Hall of Fame.

[@hongman24]

Thank you so much for an interesting and in depth review of these Pentax 35's... I've got 2 copies the Tak 3.5, and am constantly on the lookout for the 2.3. Now that I've seen your video, my LBA lust had now expanded to the M 2.8 and FA 2, and even the SMC 2... and most especially.. the Tak 4... !!!

[@mogbaba]

A very valuable history documentation for Pentax lenses, great job, thank you.

[@ryanstark2350]

I have the f2.3 and the Auto Tak f3.5 which you didn't review. Both are excellent. The f2.3 is quite soft unless you set it to f8 or f11 then it is sharp, in fact slightly sharper than my Auto Tak. It is one of favourite lenses. Very unique. I would love that earliest one but hard to find.

[@BrianMcKee]

Something not shown here is just how insane the 35 f2.3's bokeh is with stuff like foliage. Bubbly and paintery caused by some severe spherical aberrations, unmatched by the others in terms of cool factor and the reason it's so valuable. If I had to choose to keep one 35mm it'd be the 2.3 any day and is on my never sell list.

[@vyoufinder]

I won't be selling mine either. Ever. You might know already, it's basically an Angenieux design? I don't use it for everything, but you're right; it's in a league separate from the others in this regard.

[@villemononen5303]

Great video with pleasing presentation, great setting and the audio aswell.

[@jimshorts9708]

Great video! I've watched it probably six times the past few years.

[@vyoufinder]

Wow, thanks!

[@jonlouis2582]

This series has been super-helpful to me. Thank you for this detailed and no doubt time- consuming comparo.

[@madmechanic7641]

Excellent video, Well produced, Great music, Stunning pics and a thoroughly well thought out piece of educational artwork all round. A credit to you! ( And -Yes I've subscribed!)... : )

[@vyoufinder]

Many thanks!

[@joncandyfliprecords]

Fantastic comparison video, with awesome music. Thank you for taking so much time and care with it. Helped me a lot. 🙏👍

[@jimmason8502]

I have to stop watching at 9:00 and comment that already this is one of the best lens reviews have ever seen, and I love Takumar lenses too. OK, switching back to video. So excited to see how my Tak 35mm f3.5 performs against its siblings :)

[@vyoufinder]

Wow, thanks!

[@rfriday9532]

Best vid I've seen on lenses. Thank you.

[@vyoufinder]

Wow, thanks!

[@justnoted2995]

Good one Nathan.. man, you know how to do a good lens comparison video! Thanks

[@oldgittarist]

Excellent reviews in a stunning location!

[@chicochipanza]

The most helpful video I could find on this particular topic. You did a fantastic job here. Thank you very much!

[@__Slingy__]

Such a comprehensive, interesting and useful review...it helped me A LOT in making my decision, thank you so much for the hard work you put into this. Greetings from France.

[@jgrzinich]

Thanks for your efforts. I'm surprised at how good the original Takumar f/4 lens is. They didn't cut any corners back then.

[@Dingosean]

Cool video. I just picked up the 35 f2 FA AL for 2.50. Like 2 dollars and 50 cents at a thrift shop (total was 5 dollars and included a 50 f1.7 M. Absolute wrecking ball of a steal) I'm pretty excited to play with it. This makes me all the more excited.

[@OccultDemonCassette]

The Pentax-M wins again. That's my favorite series of Pentax lenses

[@OmarIbrahim-pz2wf]

Really enjoyed this video. Great information and presentation. Thank you!

[@martinohesse]

Thanks a lot for this video! I was gonna buy the 35 mm F2, but after your video I liked more the F2.8 version. You've helped me to save like 60 bucks and get a better lens (for me).

[@ashersmarvelmcocexamplesof450]

Even more impressive than the (excellent) review, is your photographic ability.

[@basilsteinle]

We’re still waiting for the Pentax 28mm lens comparison! Thanks!

[@mistermatsuda]

Loved the video! I have the Takumar 3.5. I like it for street and find that I rarely shoot it wide open. My favorite vintage lens has to be the SMC Takumar 50/1.4. I have a lot of old Minoltas but the Tak 50 is my "go to" lens for low light if the subjects are mainly stationary.

[@koshkinland]

Really well done, thanks for this.

[@gabriellakey]

Hey Nate! Love your Pentax lens review videos. Just a pleasure to hear you speak and share your knowledge, seriously these are probably my favorite photography videos I've seen on KZbin. Just purchased a Takumar SMC 50 f4 macro for the A7r which is truly amazing. I wanted to learn more about classic Pentax lenses and Google brought your videos up first. Fucking awesome work!

[@PawFromTheBroons]

What an awesomely detailed and fantastic review.

[@kennchandler5315]

Nice review, thanks! One little note; the removable slot in the FA hood is to allow turning a circular polarizer filter without removing the hood. Now....to see if I can find one of those Tak f4's?

[@kunstsein]

Very insightful comparison and thanks for the good work. It looks like that old glass still has a lot to offer.

[@vyoufinder]

Thanks for watching!

[@kamishimoproductions8587]

Thanks so much for a well presented and pretty well-detailed review of these vintage lenses.

[@tonyrobinson8197]

Superbly done. An excellent round up of lenses for review. (I have the Super-Multi-Coated 35mm f2, would have loved it in) You have been able to distill the real essence/character of each across real world applications, not in a lab. I think that this was possibly THE most entertaining and enlightening lens review videos I have seen. Fantastic subject matter, location, cast (lenses), script, video quality, mood music matched to topic and thoughtful and knowledgeable narrative. As I have a heap of Takumars (and still use them) I was intrigued, but didn’t think I’d last the full time.......I couldn’t switch off. Great work......please keep it up. You have a real talent for story telling and a depth of knowledge worth decanting. Regards Tony Robinson Melbourne, Australia

[@jkapp374]

Thank you for this video...I use a Canon C100 (EF mount) to shoot video but I'm looking for a 35mm vintage lens...Pentax will likely be it as M42 can convert to EF easier than most other vintage lenses... so this video is extremely helpful

[@blazingdiamond2761]

Well done! From the side by sides I was able to come to same conclusion that smc m35 would be likely choice if limited to one. Loved seeing how much character differences each lens has.

[@ishayauperelman8290]

Very good video. Informative and well presented.

[@Lexington101]

I really appreciate the subject matter of the photos all in all a great video

[@flowermaze___]

Good stuff, thanks for making the video!

[@chrischristopher7953]

Nathan, I really enjoyed your video comparing these six lenses. Interesting and inspiring. All of it came together as a really fine video, plus answered questions that I had about the lenses. I have the f2.8 and the f3.5, but I'm more interested now in the early Takumar f4 and the Auto Takumar f2.3. I see quite a bit of difference between the two, including distortion and color, both of which might be valuable in certain situations. I'm afraid you may have ignited more lens fever over here. ;-)

[@dangoldbach6570]

Love love LOVE how you did the side by sides all at once on the same screen so my little pea brain can see the differences, they are a LOT easier to pick out that way. Also, one question-radioactive lenses??? What's that all about?? Is it from a coating material or something??? I didn't know that was a thing....

[@vyoufinder]

Thorium was used in some glasses to minimize refraction. Not a coating, it's in the glass itself.

[@pixiedixie3682]

Nathan , thank you for your review , fantastic! I got the SMC 3.5 recently and for street photography I'm really pleased , also I learn from you that this lens has a really good punchy colours something I love and 3D pop either! Thanks a lot man! By the way your pictures are gorgeous! Ah! I forgot, Could you make a review for Takumar portrait lenses? 105 135?

[@ianharper6015]

Thanks for a really useful video.

[@amhtxc2960]

Awesome review. Straight to the point and with real knowledge. Let the images do most of the talking and use good music too. Thank you very much!

[@vangstr]

Awesome and super informative. I like the Takumar f3.5 and the M-f2.8 they are equally good but it will come down to price and condition. Thanks again for the great video! Perhaps a video on a set of 28mm next?

[@vyoufinder]

I'm doing the 28's very soon.. Stay tuned, I mean, Subscribe.

[@justcallmesando]

Great video. Now I am flirting to the idea of the 2.3 instead of my 3.5, I didn't know that version, but since I also own a Flektogon 35mm 2.4 I don't think that I spend money in that lens, but looks great to me. I also like the 3.5 color pretty much. Thanks.

[@FrankHerr]

Super thorough and super helpful. Thank you!

[@10MinutestoRouletteFortune]

I agree that the M lens is supreme. I liked the warmer look this lens provides and I'll be adding this to my stable. Thanks for the time you put into this. The music was fitting to the shoot location.

[@BobLee333]

Hi there kind sir, i 'stumbled' across you channel i was blown away by the quality content and the information plentitude , however since I'm new in Pentax world and recently sold my d3400 to buy a Pentax K-x and left with some money , i was curious what lens would you recommend for this camera, i want to add that i only have 18-55 and 55-210 kit lenses for my old Pentax k-X, any recommendations please that would not make me sell an arm and a leg? regards and thank you in advance.

[@lopsan457]

Great docu, I really enjoyed! Next level review, quality, great music.. Ultimate it is! Thank you sir!

[@Hildalill]

Thank you for a very informativ and well componed video. I learnt a lot from your experiences.

[@rogerb5615]

A bit OT, sorry, but for those of you who love the flare and bokeh qualities produced with the f2.3 Auto Tak, you might purchase a Helios 44M-2. This is a 50mm, not a 35mm, granted, but out of the box and wide open it produces remarkable bokeh; with a light source very near axis it also generates creative flare. Reverse the front element (literally flip it around 180 degrees), and the bokeh and flare are an order of magnitude greater (along with corner distortion and falloff, of course). If you like shooting abstract interpretations of flowers, leaves, close-up bits of nature, this is a fine choice IMHO.

[@Baucan]

I bought the Helios 44M-2 but after I bought the Takumar 55 1.4 I never use the Helio anymore because Takumar is sharper and less yellow :-)

[@stulora3172]

I agree, the Pentax-M rules them all. Actually, almost the whole line. They are my absolute favourites. The FA line is a close competitor.

[@vyoufinder]

I am not sure I'd necessarily agree that it rules them all.. but is certainly a great choice.

[@stulora3172]

@@vyoufinder I may have exaggerated with my choice of words ;) But I really liked the colour, contrast, sharpness, nearly absence of flares and I guess the overall look of the images.

[@thegreatvanziniphotos5976]

Very well done. Thanks for your hard work here.

[@mrjohnbaseley]

Here from Pentax forums.. glad I found you!

[@burstongreye7090]

Thanks for another thorough great review.

[@williambolton5679]

I was looking for some material about the auto-Takumar 35mm f3.5 and found this video. I have three 35mm Taks, the auto-Tak which was stolen (but a replacement is on its way), a Super Tak f3.5 and an SMC Tak f2. I was blown away by the images in your video taken with the f4 version. I've never seen anything about this lens before other than an acknowledgment that it existed. I'm hoping my auto-Tak will produce equivalent image quality. One thing I've noticed about the auto-Tak and my auto-Tak 55mm f2 and f2.2 lenses is the extraordinarily beautiful way they render skies, capturing every nuance of the tonality of the clouds and sky, due no doubt to the absence of lens coatings. Takumars! What can you say? If anyone connected with the design and construction of these lenses should happen to see this comment, thank you!

[@vyoufinder]

Yes, the F4 version, since the making of this video, has become my favorite 35mm (and I have ALL the MF versions.) It is the only one which is a 4 element design. This is disputed online, but I've rebuilt probably ten of them by now, and they've all been 4 element lenses. Very similar to, and almost seems like a "bent Tessar" if that makes any sense. Goes great with a Tessar. I personally think it might be more due the minimal amount of glass in the design than the coatings. This is because my other 4 element lenses, coated or not, all express better definition of or more precise range of contrast. Moreover, though, the f4 is simply a pleasure like no other lens I own to shoot with. Warning though if you buy one. These are the only Takumar or Pentax lenses I've ever had which the grease went stale on. Once rebuilt, they are smoother than almost any.

[@htorres1stk]

By far one of the most thorough videos I have ever had the pleasure to watch. Informative and must have taken a whole lot of time to put together. I love Pentax lenses but do not own the 35mm version (Yet)...... Thx

[@linmarshall4871]

So cool and interesting! Nice shots and great samples for all the comparations! Would be even more exciting with the Pentax-A 35mm F2.8 into the test（but this lens is really rare...

[@vyoufinder]

It has the exact same optics as the M series, so I did not include it.

[@LA3198]

Thank you so much for this very informative and educational video. I have been wanting a 35mm lens and your video helped me make my decision and order the M 2.8 lens. I am curious which adapter you use to mount these lenses on your Sony cameras.

[@vyoufinder]

I use some of hte cheapest adapters available; the Fotga adapters are my favorite. I also have some very expensive ones.

[@rnasution1704]

well explained video, thank you

[@theideastring4706]

Thanks for doing this. I use a M series f2.8 35mm for filming. It's a very nice lens, but I wondered if maybe it was worth looking out for something else. Watching this it looks like I've got the best one. Also compared to the M f2.8 28mm it has nicer bokeh and significantly less barrel distortion.

[@toulcaz31]

Excellent review. Thanks for work put in it.

[@ΑχιλλέαςΤρανουλίδης]

I have or had everyone except the two old ones. I agree generally except that the 35/3.5 super Tac has a nasty bokeh and the the 35/2 FA has a nice one. The FA should have the nicest but in my opinion doesn't. For me the Super Tak 35/3.5 is a phenomenal lens and has a big brother the 65/4.5 for the 6X7 camera. Thanks and congrats for the test

[@vyoufinder]

As far as bokeh goes, I really like the bokeh on the FA, but the SMC K might be better. The Auto-Takumar has its own character and look and I like it quite a bit also. Especially if not focused very close. Which is your favorite for bokeh?

[@azvedicgurukul]

The S-M-C Takumar 1:3.5/35 out performs all of the others in all cases for me.

[@TyroneDeise]

yeah - it seems to whoop the rest in sharpness/contrast.

[@AD98.]

Got one near mint for 10 bucks!

[@vyoufinder]

NICE score!

[@AD98.]

vyoufinder Thankss!

[@quicklyfit8266]

You are not a bookeh person then lol

[@vilmaengedjbe]

Thank you for this video. It was very useful to watch. Also, I enjoyed it.

[@Renclif]

Excellent review and test, this is exactly what I was looking for. I'm going to invest in the 35mm F2 for video work because it has the nicest bokeh and the most interesting lens flares, also luv the way it renders color. For a mint copy of this lens it's quite expensive to buy now, but well worth the investment I think! Thanks for sharing!

[@pepperschannel444]

Had that one for years, never disappointed me. However if I remember properly, I think it had some pretty bad chromatic aberrations under certain circumstances. Still really good lens for the bokeh, also shooting portraits in black in white works great.

[@henrikgustav2294]

my super takumar 35mm f3.5 is sharper than sigma 19mm dn art , sony fe 28-70mm, nikon 20mm, nikon 24mm, nikon 50mm, konica 50mm. only nikon macro lens is as sharp. truly a gem

[@nsilva800]

The pentax-m is the only 35mm i have and i use it with one sunagor semi fish eye 0.42x and it couples beautifuly making it a really nice fisheye lens and good for "macro" since it focus almost with the sunagor touching the subject

[@JimDurfee]

Great video! I love these old pentax/takumar lenses and have a few of them to play around with. I have only one 35mm and it's the old super takumar 35mm f/3.5 lens. It's a great copy and is really sharp, It does have some pretty wild background blur in certain situations. I have a Takumar 50mm 1.4 that probably is the most unique when it comes to 3d pop.....and yes, I also have a radioactive takumar 55mm 1.8 that I try not to carry around 24/7! lol

[@peternicholls6532]

Jim Durfee, I just purchased the takumar smc 50mm 1.4 which is radioactive also :) and the 55mm f2 I'm looking forward to using these older lenses with character

[@therealchickentender]

ST50/1.4 is an absolute gem. As is the ST55/1.8.

[@rogerb5615]

This fine video regrettably misses my favorite, the f2.0 Super Takumar. That was my standard lens for street work from the mid-1960s thru the 1970s, mounted first on an H3V then a Spotmatic. It is very different from the later SMC f2.0, much larger overall, 8 elements, 5 diaphragm blades, and accepts a 68mm diameter filter. Bokeh is not as swirly as the earlier f2.3 Auto-Tak, but then the price is not as "swirly" either...! Provided you stop down to at least f4, sharpness corner-to-corner on the Super Tak f2.0 is very good. Wide open, the images are fairly soft overall and depth of field is very shallow, both of which are handy for shooting available light candid head and shoulders images. The color rendition at all apertures on the f2.0 Super Tak is among the finest, smoothest, most saturated I've seen from any Asahi glass. I use this lens today on a K3 crop sensor body with the M42/PK adapter. PS: Check pentaxforums dot com for thousands of hands-on, detailed reviews of Asahi and other brands of legacy lenses, all posted by fellow diehard Pentaxians. Thank you - liked & subscribed!

[@dinoreps]

Hi I've just discovered your channel it has to be in my opinion the best reviews I have found on the Pentax lenses. Can you please or can you consider doing more comparison videos on vintage Carl Zeiss lenses Minolta etc? Thanks