• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Scored a great wide angle lens.

Latest Gallery

Flush

H
Flush

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
vanhorne_bessa2_1.jpeg

A
vanhorne_bessa2_1.jpeg

  • 0
  • 0
  • 27

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
202,908
Messages
2,847,402
Members
101,537
Latest member
Photopotato
Recent bookmarks
0
Markok765

Markok765

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
2,262
Location
Ontario, Can
Format
Medium Format
Hello! I went to the toronto Henrys today, and I bought a 28mm F3.5 Pentax super-takumar lens! I paid 80 with 1 year warranty and tax! Also, do I really need a UV filter? The guy at Henrys outlet showed me the durability of a lens by scratching it with his keys, and dropping it on the floor. It still worked well, so should I get a filter? Anyone know anything about this lens? Its not multicoated.
 
marko

i hope he didn't do that to the lens you bought, YIKES what a show .
i would take it back and get another ....
and ask for the sale LESS the damage :wink:
 
jnanian said:
marko

i hope he didn't do that to the lens you bought, YIKES what a show .
i would take it back and get another ....
and ask for the sale LESS the damage :wink:
Click to expand...

Nope, it was a Nikon lens. 24mm I think. My Pentax lens has been damaged, auto/manual stitch is bent a bit, but the rest of the lens is mint.

Here:
Photo+88.jpg
 
I'm sorry, but, (milk through the nose, OH CRAP) in the dictionary under gullible it says 'see . . .'
 
Markok. In regards to the UV filter, I'm of the impression that it only required for someone who does not take care of their equipment and keep their lenses from getting scratched through absent mindedness or the like. For as long as you've been here, you don't seem that type. I don't own any so it really depends on your own personal preferences. In regards to the sales scenario at Henry's, I hope you did not buy that lens. I don't run over a customer's carberator to show off its durability before the sale. Maybe after if he's a jerk. I would go back to Henry's and tell the guy to get bent (fornicate himself) and give me a lens that does not require a DROP TEST and then get a public apology that involves flies and whipped cream. You should not be taking things like this. Stand up for yourself. Point out their bad sales techniques. I don't know what possessed the guys to maul that lens (he should be shot for that alone) but it is not acceptable behaviour here in, well, anywhere I guess. Man, I can't believe that there is a person that allows another to sell his photogrpahic equipment and then act like that. DUde would be out on his ear. In a heartbeat.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Nikon was probably just a stunt lens. Something else wrong with it so they couldn't sell it, so they probably just decided to turn it into a demonstration. Still, the salesman sounds like an idiot. I know I wouldn't buy anything from someone who thought that was a good idea. You'd always wonder whether he had done the same thing to the lens you bought for someone else.
 
Jerry Thirsty said:
The Nikon was probably just a stunt lens. Something else wrong with it so they couldn't sell it, so they probably just decided to turn it into a demonstration. Still, the salesman sounds like an idiot. I know I wouldn't buy anything from someone who thought that was a good idea. You'd always wonder whether he had done the same thing to the lens you bought for someone else.
Click to expand...
I tried it on a F3, and everything worked. It is the most expensive lens there[for nikon]
 
We used to have a junk lens in the store where I worked that we'd use to demonstrate the durability of glass on- but only to new employees at the store, not in front of customers. I think it was a Quantaray zoom lens that no longer focused or zoomed. In any case, it was such a piece of junk even when it was new that there was no crime in trying...
 
Markok765 said:
Hello! I went to the toronto Henrys today, and I bought a 28mm F3.5 Pentax super-takumar lens! I paid 80 with 1 year warranty and tax! Also, do I really need a UV filter? The guy at Henrys outlet showed me the durability of a lens by scratching it with his keys, and dropping it on the floor. It still worked well, so should I get a filter? Anyone know anything about this lens? Its not multicoated.
Click to expand...

Hi Marko,

JFYIIMO

Even if you can't see a fair sized objective scratch on the ground glass, it is still there. If you had stopped the lens down, the damage, depending on its severity might become more apparent. Even if you couldn't see it then, it is still there, lowering contrast, and affecting sharpness in your micro contrasts, the exact place were proper printing tweakes make a print sing. I have older lenses that have cleaning wisps, etc. and still perform well, but I'd be happier if they were primo. That's the way it is. Is $10 worth spending to protect an $80 lens? Depends on what $80 is worth to you, and at what point you consider a lens compromised. :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Marko, the lens you have purchased is a really good lens. If you take some pictures with it and you are happy with the results, then it is a really, really good lens for you.

As to whether you should have a UV filter as a protection for the front glass element, only you can really answer that.

However, think about a few scenarios you may encounter with the lens on the camera.

You may be walking around a crowded market with the camera hanging from it's strap near your waist, someone with a hard object, like a box, may just accidently hit the lens element.

You may be near the sea one day, salt laden air with the misty clouds common to this environment, surely isn't too flash for the front element.

Personally, I always have a UV filter on the front, unless I'm running an orange or like filter for my B&W film. The other thing I find good to protect my front element, is a metal lens hood, not the folding rubberised type.

In fact one of the better things you can have on the end of your lens is a correct lens hood. The lens hood will reduce possible flare from extra light as much as possible. Also a hood will be really beneficial for keeping light misty rain off the front element, something which may apply to you where you live, I would assume.

As your ability to purchase lenses and/or photographic equipment as time goes by gets better, you will become more able to figure out which direction you will head to. I think the 28mm lens is a very good semi wide lens, with great possibilities.

The fact that you have a guarantee, for someone in your position, is a bonus, and something not to be sneezed at.

I wish you well with it and look forward to seeing the fruits of your exposures!

Mick.
 
Marcko,

Sounds like you just met Paul at the clearance Centre, he is a character and a Pentax freak. Paul is also biased against filters but that is his personal bias showing through, I err on the side of caution. Did Paul, juggle camera bodies while you were there?

Two years ago when shooting at St. Lawerence Market, I dropped my Nikon F on it's lens in a total dufus moment. The Filter was toast but the lens was fine, lesson learned.

Bill
 
Uncle Bill said:
Marcko,

Sounds like you just met Paul at the clearance Centre, he is a character and a Pentax freak. Paul is also biased against filters but that is his personal bias showing through, I err on the side of caution. Did Paul, juggle camera bodies while you were there?

Two years ago when shooting at St. Lawerence Market, I dropped my Nikon F on it's lens in a total dufus moment. The Filter was toast but the lens was fine, lesson learned.

Bill
Click to expand...

Actually yes, that was Paul. I got his card. He showed me a pentax brochure. He didn't juggle bodies. Tell him hi for me next time you come in! I'll probably get a filter when I go to my waterloo Henrys. BTW, toronto people, they have tiffen filters, mostly 49mm 3/$30.

He told me a Spotmatic is as durable as a F3. Is this true?
 
Out with a Pentax MX & 40mm pancake last month.It started to snow and I tucked the camera inside my jacket catching the front element on my zipper.
Tossed the UV filter when I got home because it had sustained a nice vertical gouge across it's surface.
'Nuff said.

JMK
 
I am a lens hood fanatic. I use filters almost exclusively for simply filtering light, and lens shades for blocking stray light and to protect the lens. The only reason I use a filter for protection is for situations where the wind is whipping up sand, water or other debris. Other than that, I prefer to not have an extra piece of glass between my lens and the subject, if I don't need it. I have zero scratches on all my lenses, many of which are over 30 years old, thanks to the proper use of lens shades and lens caps when the lens is not in use.

To me, a filter on a lens, without a lens shade, would be inviting the chance of stray light (flare) to lower the quality of a photograph. And my first priority is the quality of a photograph.

Marc
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a digital pic, but I took it a few days ago, with a UV filter on the front of my 50mm lens. I believe that the reflections were caused by the filter.

IMG_8169400x600.jpg


Because of this, I've taken the UV filters off my lenses
 
I use UV filters on all my filters as a matter of simple protection.

That doesn't mean you cannot remove them for particular shots.

Hey - they're your lenses you can do what you want with them. Just don't ever ask to borrow one of mine!
 
Marko, your question regarding the durability of the Spotmatic compared to the F3 is interesting.

The F3 was designed in the mid to late seventies by a company that was pretty much at the top of the tree in it's field, at that time. The F3 was designed for professional usage day in day out, my personal take on the F3 is that it is the best straight 35mm camera produced by Nikon.

By comparison the Spotmatic was designed in the very early sixties by a company that was at the time, also close to the top of the tree in it's field. If you are referring to the M42 Spotmatic of the early sixties I would sort of agree that it is designed and built reasonably close in comparison to the F3. They certainly have lasted and they work pretty much as they did when new, some forty years later!

With designs of anything it is usually a matter of careful selection of materials and melding of form over function, to produce something that works extremely well for it's intended purpose. This usually means the item works well, sometimes to a degree that is unbelievable.

If it is done well people recognise that and purchase it in numbers that are sometimes stupendous.

The Spotmatic, the Nikon F3, the Volkswagen Beatle, the Ipod.

Mick.
 
Well said, Mick. Steel and glass haven't changed much since the sixties, it's just a question of wanting to put in the engineering effort to truly leverage their strengths (pun intended?).

I've always looked at UV filters as just another air-glass interface to cause flare and contrast loss. Not worth it IMHO.
To paraphrase the old maxim, would you rather own a sharp contrasty $80 lens or a flare-prone $90 one? And don't drop either one! ^_^
 
okto said:
Well said, Mick. Steel and glass haven't changed much since the sixties, it's just a question of wanting to put in the engineering effort to truly leverage their strengths (pun intended?).

I've always looked at UV filters as just another air-glass interface to cause flare and contrast loss. Not worth it IMHO.
To paraphrase the old maxim, would you rather own a sharp contrasty $80 lens or a flare-prone $90 one? And don't drop either one! ^_^
Click to expand...

Well - if you can "plan" your drops - I guess this is a wise thought.

But, "drops" are "accidents" and, as such, unplanned.

But, more importantly, I see you've just joined us.

Welcome to APUG,

We have a special "Intro" forum set up so new members can introduce themselves.

Oh, and, BTW, if you do a search of this site, you'll find that the Filter v. No-Filter argument has been beaten to death many times.

It really come down to a simple solution: Do whatever you want to do - but you are no more right than you are wrong. Those of us who prefer to use prophylactic filters will continue to do so, not matter what you say - and vice versa.

So, don't worry about it.

Just intro yourself on the Intro thread and welcome to APUG....

Oh, just in case you haven't realized that this is a "geezer site", I too have been shooting since "way back then". My first camera was a Nikkormat FT-2 with a 50/2.0 lens. And, yes, I put a filter on it.
 
A geezer site? ? But I'm young! I got a 1 year warranty with it, should I still get a filter?
 
Oops. Forgot to lurk moar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:
Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom