> > I shot lots with this lens but replaced it with the A* 400 f2.8, which > > with teleconverters is much sharper, though it can burn you in the > > Bokeh dept. It should be noted than the A*400 cost a whole order of > > magnitude more than the Takumar 500 f4.5! > > > > The stop down aperture was not a major issue once you got used to it. > > > > This was a very high resolution lens, capable of producing great > > results on film, but it has a major degree of chromatic aberration. I > > don't know how it would do on digital bodies. One plus for APS sized > > digitals - this lens has a minimum focusing distance of 10 meters, so > > you need to use tubes (sometimes lots of them) for smaller birds. That > > would cause vignetting on film -probably would not be a problem on > > *ist-D / DS's.
I've got one of the pre-SMC takumar 500/4.5s, which I haven't used much yet. I shot one football game with it mounted on a Nikon D1H with a optical converter, and I found it to be plenty sharp but with odd color balance. It's also nowhere near as easy to handle as a modern internal-focusing super-tele, and the various tripod/mount ways of rotating the lens are none too smooth on my example. Follow focusing sports action with this thing was a challenge. I also shot a softball game with it mounted on a Canon 20D with a non-optical converter. I was shooting through the fence with the hood extended (bad backlight...) so I suspect the fence was acting as a bit of a diffusion filter. These shots were not acceptably sharp even when my focus appeared to be correct. I don't know if this was caused by shooting through the fence or if it has to do with the 20D (higher resolution, different sensor and processing, perhaps different response to lens CA) Color saturation was terrible, but I WAS shooting into backlight, and the color on the Canon 20D is pretty lousy anyway, so I'm not sure that much of that problem can be blamed on the lens. I haven't yet shot the lens on film, or for that matter on a Pentax digital--it's rather a special-purpose beast for me. The long minimum focus compared to a modern IF lens can be an issue for some uses. On the other hand, it's small and quite inexpensive for what it is--compare it to the 500/4 Nikkor, for example. DJE
