Hi Stan,
I have this lens and also the Takumar Zoom 70-150/4.5 that preceded it. They
are both great lenses and perform much better than one would expect from
lenses that old.
The 70-150 is a Super Takumar lens, while the 80-205 is a Super Multi Coated
Takumar one. However, the later doesn't have the open aperture lever that
was introduced for that series of lenses.
They are both extremely well built lenses and you can see no expenses were
avoided or corners cut by Takumar on their production. The older lens uses a
much needed tripod collar that is, unfortunately, not present at the 80-205.
They both need an "attachment" close focus lens to focus at objects closer
than 3.5 meters. On the 70-150 the filter ring is a 67 mms one, while the
80-205 uses a 58 mms one. With such attachments they will both focus from
1.9 to 3.5 meters, indicated by a third focusing distance scale on their
respective barrels. I suspect the not so short minimum focusing distance
helps prevent distortion at the short end of their zoom ranges.
The hood for the 80-205/4.5 is exactly the same used by the 135/2.5 and the
200/4, except for the markings.
The 80-205 is a VERY long lens an, IMHO, needs a tripod more than other zoom
lenses of similar range.
This is only a subjective view and,for what it's worth, I consider it's
optical performance to be similar to the Vivitar S1's 70-210/3.5 that I also
use.
I haven't used the Takumar in a situation where flare would be a problem but
I suspect it's as good as the other SMC lenses of this vintage, perhaps a
little worse due the number of elements.
It's definitively not "mushy" at the long end...;-)
I hope this helps.
Best regards,
Eduardo.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stan Halpin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "PDML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 11:23 PM
Subject: Any info on 80-205mm f4.5 Takumar, with Macro?
> Does anyone have any practical experience with the subject lens? Has
anyone
> ever seen one? I received a note from someone who has one and is wondering
> about it. I can tell him that older zooms tended to be weak and mushy at
the
> long end, distorted at the short end. And would show flare if not SMC
> coated. But all of this would be extrapolation from what has been said
about
> other lenses, not based on direct reports. Can anybody help me out?
>
> Stan
> -
> 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 .
-
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 .
