1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Super Takumar 50/1.4

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by dixeyk, Oct 8, 2012.

  1. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Kevin
    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dixeyk/8069239253/" title="Embers by dixeyk, on Flickr">"1024" height="680" alt="Embers"></a>

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dixeyk/8069249572/" title="Post Floral by dixeyk, on Flickr">"1024" height="680" alt="Post Floral"></a>

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dixeyk/8069250012/" title="Culebra by dixeyk, on Flickr">"1024" height="681" alt="Culebra"></a>

    Took out the Super Takumar 50/1.4 on the walk home. That is one nice feeling lens...and the pictures aren't bad either :D I think these were shot at f4 or f5.6.
     
  2. davect01

    davect01 Super Moderator

    Aug 20, 2011
    Fountain Hills, AZ
    Dave
    Some very respectable pics. Looks like a good lens.
     
  3. asimkalkan

    asimkalkan TalkEmount Regular

    37
    Sep 27, 2012
    This lens is ultra radioactive one... Be careful.
     
  4. Bimjo

    Bimjo Super Moderator

    Oct 28, 2011
    Washington State
    Jim
    Be careful of what? You ingest more radioactive material eating table salt every year than you could possibly get through normal use of this lens. Now, if you wanted to screw it into your eye socket ala "the Borg" you might have a legitimate concern for your cornea. Then again, if you habitually screw camera lenses into your eye you have bigger issues to deal with.

    Spreading FUD is never productive.
     
  5. Bimjo

    Bimjo Super Moderator

    Oct 28, 2011
    Washington State
    Jim
    Oh BTW- looks like you've got a nice copy of this lens Kevin. Love the DOF on that last one.
     
  6. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Kevin
    There realistically isn't a significant health hazard using the lens. The amount of radiation you would get from the lens is less than the average transcontinental flight or dental x-ray. It's probably akin to the daily dose of radiation we get walking around. Also, I don't have constant contact with my lens. I appreciate the concern but from everything I have read the health impact is minimal (and being a 10 year cancer survivor I tend to be very picky about stuff like this).
     
  7. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Kevin
    Thanks, I am very pleased with it.
     
  8. asimkalkan

    asimkalkan TalkEmount Regular

    37
    Sep 27, 2012
    Heyy be relax guys :) I just warned that because i see this lens as a one of the most radioactive lens ever.
     
  9. oylo

    oylo TalkEmount Regular

    125
    Aug 16, 2012
    Norway
    Is this the 1965, 1971 or 1972 model of the lens?
     
  10. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Kevin
    No worries, as I I said, I appreciate it. I did quite a lot of reading about the radioactivity and while the Super Takumar does appear to have more radiation than Lanthanum lenses like the Industar 61LD it still does not appear to pose much health risk. Now I can imagine it being a much greater risk for those that manufactured the glass.
     
  11. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Kevin
    Off the top of my head I can't tell you. I assume that would be in the serial number like it is on my Vivitar. It most definitely is a radioactive lens in that it suffered from yellowing (well it did until I light exposed it). I'll check when I get home.