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

6 Pentax 35mm Lenses Tested;
Takumar 1:4 f=35mm
Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35mm
Super Multi Coated TAKUMAR 1:3.5/35
SMC PENTAX 1:2/35
SMC PENTAX-M 1:2.8 35mm
SMC PENTAX-FA 1:2 35mm AL
The Ultimate Pentax 35mm Lens Comparison Review
I give an introduction to each vintage lens, then show examples of each lens in several different situations. Tests include; bokeh test, maximum bokeh test, distortion tests, light falloff and 3d pop tests, sunstars test, flare resistance tests, sharpness resolution and nighttime image quality tests. This video very thoroughly reviews the best 35mm focal length lenses from Asahi Optical Company's Takumar, Auto-Takumar, and SMC Pentax lenses. All lenses compared are full frame format SLR camera lenses tested on Sony A7ii and A7s mirrorless full frame camera bodies. Video finishes with a review in which I discuss each lens' characteristics.
Lens hood recommendations 6:53
Lens test image comparisons:
Bokeh: 9:21
Maximum bokeh: 10:26
Distortion: 11:22
Light falloff, microcontrast, 3d pop: 13:12
f11 pixel peep 14:56
flare resistance and sunstars comparison 15:48
f4 Nighttime light transmission comparison 17:35
Nighttime sunstars comparison 20:10
Conclusion 21:01

[@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.

[@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.

[@TheAssclown213]

The removable piece in the lens hood on the FA 35mm f2 is so you can still spin a circular polarizer while the lens hood is attached.

[@chrischristopher7953]

Interesting how they made it line up perfectly with the focus range window too, though, huh? Careful design.

[@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.

[@AgnostosGnostos]

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

[@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.

[@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!

[@photobobo]

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

[@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!

[@sportsfanivosevic9885]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@jensknappe2485]

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

[@k1emenv]

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

[@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.

[@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!

[@ashersmarvelmcocexamplesof450]

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

[@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!

[@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.

[@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!

[@OccultDemonCassette]

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

[@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.

[@colingentile]

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

[@jakeduggan3854]

Thank you for taking the time to make this video.

[@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

[@mynewcolour]

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

[@vyoufinder]

I appreciate that!

[@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.

[@breakingbad3055]

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

[@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 :-)

[@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.

[@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

[@user-tj1zh9vf9r]

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

[@Nathan_Thompson]

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

[@joncandyfliprecords]

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

[@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!

[@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!

[@artistjoh]

The first Japanese wide angle lens ever made, the Takumar released in 1957? What have you been smoking? :) The Canon Serenar 35mm f2.8 and 28mm f3.5 were released in 1951 and followed the 35mm f3.5 of 1950, , and I do believe that they replaced the versions previously made for Canon by Nikon. The first Japanese lenses for cameras were made by Nikon for Canon, which produced the first Japanese camera prototyping of which started in 1933. In 1948 Nikon told Canon they were going to produce their own camera and didn’t wish to continue supplying Canon forcing Canon to become the second Japanese manufacturer of camera lenses. Asahi/Pentax produced the first Japanese SLR under the Asahi brand in 1952 (Canon was making interchangeable lens rangefinders.) What that Takumar is is the first wide angle lens for a camera branded as a Pentax, and possibly the first Japanese SLR wide angle lens. That was 2 years before the Nikon F was introduced, and these early Pentax SLR’s are an important part of camera history, but it was Canon in partnership with Nikon who produced the first Japanese camera lenses, including wide angle ones. Asahi was the third Japanese company to do it.

[@jonlouis2582]

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

[@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 :)

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@mogbaba]

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

[@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!

[@__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.

[@basilsteinle]

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

[@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.

[@villemononen5303]

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

[@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... !!!

[@jimshorts9708]

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

[@vyoufinder]

Wow, thanks!

[@OmarIbrahim-pz2wf]

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

[@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!

[@rfriday9532]

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

[@vyoufinder]

Wow, thanks!

[@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.

[@oldgittarist]

Excellent reviews in a stunning location!

[@ThomasFransson]

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

[@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

[@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).

[@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.

[@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.

[@kamishimoproductions8587]

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

[@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?

[@Lexington101]

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

[@mrjohnbaseley]

Here from Pentax forums.. glad I found you!

[@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!

[@flowermaze___]

Good stuff, thanks for making the video!

[@chicochipanza]

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

[@PawFromTheBroons]

What an awesomely detailed and fantastic review.

[@PaoloServadei]

Very well done! Very nice location, informative technical details, and no silly mistakes or questionable remarks (unlike many other KZbin reviews!). I'm just adding something that's quite evident looking at the pictures, and I'm sure you noticed, but for some reason you didn't mention. The exposure varies from one lens to another. The FA is always somewhat overexposed, for example. I am aware that the understandable choice of avoiding post processing doesn't allow to balance the exposure across the various objectives. So I'm not criticizing. Though some pics shot with the FA look a bit washed out, affecting the perceived contrast of the image. Did you take it into account in your final consideration? just curious... By the way, Pentax cameras behave the same way. There are slight exposure variations, from one lens to another, especially using vintage MF glasses with no electric contacts. Given the level of competence you show, I'd say that you are perfectly aware of the problem, just warning the viewers to take it into account when reviewing the pictures in your video... All in all, great video, one of the best of this kind on KZbin. My compliments! I appreciate very much that you concentrated on a single focal, and that you pitted very old objectives (Takumar, Auto Takumar) against newer multicoated models (and even an AF one still sold new). I realize I've always preferred bayonet mount lenses for practical reasons (I always change objectives in the field), and I also snobbed single-coated Asahi Takumars. Not anymore, I have an f/1.8 85mm Auto Takumar that has a wonderful build and a very good rendition, ideal for portraits. In these days I'm testing a new-to-me 8-elements Super Takumar 1.4/50mm (also single-coated) that is showing plenty of "punch". Your video shows how beautiful and well built those early Takumar were. Let's say that your interesting video is very much mouth watering... a pity this kind of lenses are uncommon and not very affordable. Sideline lens collector's question: is it true that the Takumar f/4 was the first (retrofocus) Japanese wide-angle? That would shine a different light on Asahi's early activity as lens makers, and show a level of competence in lens design far better than the average level of Japanese optical industry of the time. If we look at the first examples made by respected present day optical designers, like Sigma and Tokina, we see how poor those objectives were. Solid but rough construction, and optical copycats of western designs (mainly german). From what you say, I get that Asahi was quite innovative since a very early stage of their post-war activity. Fortunately your choice of camera puts you in the enviable position of having almost no incompatible lenses. Recently I've used many lenses from the sixties and even fifties, but most Japanese ones are left out because of the incompatible mount/register. With my Pentax K-1 I'm stuck with M42 objectives, or adaptations that permanently alter the nature of the lens. You can shoot side by side the old Takumar f/4 and a Canon in Leica mount! :) Looking forward to watch more of your videos Ciao Paolo

[@vyoufinder]

Thanks Paulo for your kind and interest provoking comment. Your comment brings up some choices I was forced to make while editing the test images and video that I am glad to address. You are correct in pointing out that the lenses do in fact differ in their exposures for a given f-stop. Mostly when using the lenses wide open. If you're curious, the Takumar 35mm f4 was slightly darker than the rest at f4 and the SMC Tak 35mm f3.5 was not far behind as far as being darker than the rest. The FA is also ever so slightly brighter than the M 2.8 or K f2 making it the brightest of the bunch. The way I kept exposure so close to the same was via adjusting shutter speed where possible, and slight exposure adjustment from .raw to match exposure only. Though very minimal, it was pretty much necessary to do this or via altering the f-stop which was not an option of course. I felt it was critical to match exposure for the sake of comparison. However, when it came to matching color balance. I actually did a separate set of tests that I considered including where I did match the color between images. I did it mostly for my own curiosity, and almost edited them into the video. I decided not to use them, however, because I felt it was more important to show the color characteristics of each lens and it felt redundant watching the corrected test images for a second time. If I had chosen to color correct, then the next thing you know, I was going to be editing each image to look its best and would bring my editing into the equation, so I opted not to and instead to let photographers find the characteristics that they know are best for editing to their final image preferences. This unseen information was however used in coming to my conclusions in the video, along with what I know from generally using the lenses over time in different situations. For example in the nighttime test shots on the river, I do not particularly like the greens shown that the Takumar f4 rendered in camera, but when matched to the other images, it shines. In general, I think the K f2 and Tak f4 render somewhat unpleasing colors for night photography out of camera, but when balanced the Tak f4 looks best in my opinion, so long as it's not flaring. Yes, it's true that the Takumar f4 was the first retrofocus wide angle. Online sources include: www.klassik-cameras.de/Pentax_Takumar_e.html www.pentax-slr.com/71760569 I've done my own checking and as far as I can tell this statement holds true. It is interesting that it is not even mentioned at www.pentax.com/en/pentaxhistory/course/ as it would seem to be a worthwhile achievement. However, maybe humble Pentax is not boasting of it only because it was likely not something they achieved so much on their own. The Wikipedia page for Angenieux retrofocus is minimal and uncited, but leaves the discovery credit going to Pierre Angenieux (French.): "Made in focal lengths of 24 mm, 28 mm, and 35 mm, the Angénieux retrofocus lens inspired other lens makers to produce wide-angle lenses of this type for almost every 35mm SLR, and helped to make it the definitive camera type of the late 20th century.[citation needed]" at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ang%C3%A9nieux_retrofocus

[@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.

[@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?

[@justnoted2995]

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

[@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

[@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. ;-)

[@lopsan457]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@FrankHerr]

Super thorough and super helpful. Thank you!

[@themanfromoregon6047]

The only thing that will always bother me about this is that if we are comparing the m 35mm 2.8, we should have used the K 35mm 3.5. Yes its the same optical formula but the minimum focus distance drops from 45 cm to 30 cm which is significant. I prefer the K to the M but I am a bit biased.

[@user-xs4wd7tg4o]

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?

[@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!

[@22fret]

I've got the SMC 2/35, it's an excellent lens, but definitely quite on the heavy side. The only of my 17 lenses suffering from sticky aperture blades is the Pentax-M f4/20mm. Not as sticky as your 35mm but too slow for normal use. You can stop down the lens by pushing the DOF-button before shooting, that works quite well... EDIT: are you sure about the radioactivity in the 2/35? I know, that was a slight issue in some of the old Takumars, but those were recognizably yellow in their coatings and a slight tint due to Thorium and/or Lanthanium. But mine (K-mount) has been bought by my dad in 1976 or 77 and it has never had the slightest tint to this day...

[@vyoufinder]

I tested it with a geiger device... Yep, radioactive.

[@22fret]

@@vyoufinder OK, interesting...

[@burstongreye7090]

Thanks for another thorough great review.

[@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

[@koshkinland]

Really well done, thanks for this.

[@jacobsanchez9949]

The one thing I think about every time i watch this is that I wish you used the K version of the 35mm 3.5 and that's only because it has a shorter minimum focus distance than the Takumar version. I mean, 45 cm vs 30 cm is a world of difference comparing bokeh. I feel the K 35 3.5 is one of my favorite walkaround lenses but I had someone offer to mail me a free M 35mm 2.8 version so I'll have to see for myself.

[@vyoufinder]

The reason I didn't is because I am avoiding radioactive lenses, and don't own that one anymore. Good point though. It's similar to the M series 2.8 in that it focuses unusually close. The image quality of the K series is also phenomenal, but does distort a fair amount.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@Hildalill]

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

[@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

[@MrBartolomeo22]

Love the presentation and review :). Very informative, lots of example images. Surprised how the very old S-M-C Takumar 35mm/3.5 handles flare, it's even miles better than most of the modern lenses. What do you think about Pentax-A series lenses?

[@vyoufinder]

The SMC Pentax-A 20mm f2.8 is my favorite wide angle lens of all time. The A series lenses are very similar to the M series lenses, especially with regard to their optics and build quality. With some of the A series lenses, however there is a little more plastic used in such things as aperture rings, but mostly only on the lower end lenses. yet they are durable and have held up. You get the A benefits if you use them on a Pentax body, but I do not. They are some of Pentax's finest lenses. In comparing to M series optuics, you will find the A series lenses tend to have an extra element in some, for improving sharpness, CA, or distortion, and therefore you will get a different look in your images.

[@therealchickentender]

I love the A's and this was my feeling about them for a long time. But the more of them I tried and used when compared to the M's, the more I prefer the build of the M's. I find that overall the A's wind up with just a tad more slop and a more frequent catch or hiccup, or an app ring that gets stiffer faster. Not sure what it is exactly but I'm guessing that the additonal plastic just couldn't be made to *quite* the same tolerances as the all-metal in the M's. I think the proof-in-the-pudding is how many Takumars and Super Takumars *still* handle like butter even with 10, 20, or 30 years over on the A's. I just don't imagine the A's will last that long. All that said - they're still fantastic and I still have a good few and love'm.

[@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.

[@ArminHirmer]

that was really interesting! thank you

[@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.

[@cichlidophile]

thank you for this informative video!

[@GreekAudioGeek]

As a fellow content creator, I recognize how much time and effort went into this. OUTSTANDING work.