on the other hand

Pentax alone has four ways to achieve the 17mm fish-eye effect: the f/4 Takumar, the f/4 SMC (bayonet mount), the 17-28 f/3.5-4.5 F (autofocus) and the 10-17 f/3.5-4.5 DA of current days.  The first three are full frame/film friendly (FFFF?), the later for aps-c only.  Other primes and zooms can cover 17mm, though I don't believe any of them are fisheye types.  My K-5 bodies really trim off most of the fishiness anyway, but effectively the sides of the frame compare well to 15mm straight lenses - and the primes are very small and light, making them easy to carry along.

My plans are still to pick up a second copy of the SMC 17/4 as I really liked the last one and manual primes are fun to use.  Trouble is, that seems to be the rarest of the lot!  The Takumar is probably the same optics and is no cheaper, but is definitely more common on the used market.  The 17-28 is a smidge faster at 17mm f/3.5 and the 10-17 a mite slower at f/4.5 maximum.  The DA 10-17 has never been seen below $350 so it's the more expensive model, while the 17-28 can be found for under $250 and is the least expensive most of the time.  It's slightly heavier and of course longer than the 17/4, but neither zoom is a massive beast.

I need make no decision in a hurry, thankfully - but when the time comes it will be curious what I end up with.  The F 17-28 might even be fun on the Q, sitting beside the 5-15mm normal lens. ???

first impressions galore

Having just scoured out my kit and added several primes, it's time to say what I think.  Hmm, I should find something negative to say too though, we shall see...

In order of purchase, most recent first:

• Takumar 300/4 M42 mount.  The negative here is easy, it's 1500 grams and that's a lot.  What I get for my pain is a like-new lens with one spot on an interior lens that will make no difference to images given the really long minimum focus.  I've read that this was the version made from 1958-62, this thing is just about my age and looks great!  Every aperture setting is circular thanks to 16± blades, and it has a mount collar for tripod or monopod use.  Images are quite impressive, and almost two stops faster than my f/6.7 zoom; that one is about 400g though so it will still get some use!
• SMC-M 200mm f/4.  Looks to be in great shape, but the rear element does have a nasty scratch across the center.  How could that happen, I wonder, as it's so deeply recessed?  Anyway I cannot really see any issues resulting from this other than a possible loss of contrast; it's still sharp and colorful and contrast is decent even so.  I was torn between this, the tiny SMC-M 135/3.5 or holding out for a 150mm prime - but for the $32 winning bid I feel this was a good choice even with the scratch.
• Super Takumar 105mm f/2.8, M42 mount.  This one supposedly has small scratches on the front element, which a quick glance didn't reveal to me; the price I paid relative to its typical price makes it all worth while.  And again, this is a lens with a long minimum focal length so the front element markings will only affect purist shooters and not images!  I was really surprised at how tiny this lens is; the DA70 clearly has some good genetic history to explain its size!  Images look very nice and I'm a happy guy.
• SMC-A 50mm f/2.8 1:2 macro.  As noted elsewhere this is not my first macro lens, but it could be my last as I don't need true macro ability in my shooting.  I tried to bump it up my priority list and it didn't take.  At f/4 this would have stayed behind, but f/2.8 made it worth a larger bid.  This one cost me more than the above three Combined, but I am still glad I have it.  More tests are needed as the others came soon after to take away camera time, but I liked what I saw with the first few images - bright, sharp, excellent results.  Yay!
• SMC 17mm Fish-Eye f/4.  This goes back a whole two months so it hardly fits in the new-purchase list :^) but however old it's a very nice lens.  Its horizontal field falls between the DA14 and DA15 and that's wide enough for what I do, so the 8mm fisheye will not be long in my bag.  I really like how closely this lens focuses.

the Beast arrives

The early-60s Asahi Takumar 300mm f/4 has arrived.  My first test images were hand held, and I'm exhausted - for a four-element design to weigh 1450 grams / 3/6# sounds all wrong, but the 82mm filter size gives a clue as to how that's accomplished.  Who needs barbells when one has this lens?

So it's huge, check.  It's also very well built, and my copy is in excellent shape with no sloppy feel or loose rattles.  The aperture ring is at the front section of the lens, and the blades are... well numerous, providing a nearly-perfect circular aperture as they close.  Eighteen looks about right, so let's go with that!

As to images, also check: great color, contrast, very sharp even hand-held.  Some color fringing can be found at f/4 when deliberately shooting to provoke it (power lines on a bright sky), and the colors fade with a couple of clicks down-scale.  Very nice.

The final easy check-mark is the $115 price tag.  Inconceivable!

This is cool because I wasn't really happy with my 100-300mm going to f/6.7 above 250mm.  The main alternative is the DA55-300 at f/5.8 (or something unaffordable like the Sigma 100-300 f/4) so this lens relieves any pressure on the big-tele side.  I also have a Hanimar 400mm f/6.3 around for emergency use, it weighs half of the Takumar so what a relief to use that instead!