A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 vs. Pentacon 50 mm f/1.8



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 22nd 05, 05:40 PM
Jeremy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Matt White" wrote in message news:lSxYe.95060

One thing to be careful of on EOS bodies (which I assume the 1.3x crop
DSLR is) is that on some wide and normal M42 lenses, the rear lens element
is so far back that the mirror will actually collide with it when it's
near or at infinity. I can't use my wide and normal super taks on my EOS
film bodies because of this. I don't know if this will happen to you, but
it's something to watch for.


Good point.

The 50mm Takumar f/1.4 normal lens was developed primarily for the Spotmatic
and ES models. The rear element tended to protrude just a tad too far back
to be compatible with other makes of camera, and more than a few users of
competing brands had their reflex mirror break, or saw the rear element of
the lens become damaged.

I have always had the suspicion that Asahi might have designed the lens that
way to discourage buyers from trying to get off cheap and mount them to
non-Pentax cameras, many of which used the Universal M42 mount back then.
Asahi made an obscure comment in their camera manuals that the 50mm normal
lens was not designed to be used on other cameras. If a customer wanted to
use what was then Asahi's flagship lens, it had to be on a Pentax camera.
As I recall, my local dealer did not even sell those lenses as stock
items--you got one with the purchase of a Pentax body, and to buy the lens
alone required a special order. It may have been that Honeywell, the
importer at that time, was trying to discourage people from trying to avoid
buying their cameras.

If anyone is in the position of wanting to mount a Takumar normal lens on
another make of camera, the simplest solution is to go with the 55mm f/1.8
or 55mm f/2.0 Takumars, which do not have that nasty protruding rear
element. They also do not have Thorium mixed into the optical glass used in
the elements, and thus have none of that pesky "yellowing" problem.


  #12  
Old September 22nd 05, 07:53 PM
Chris Loffredo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Peter wrote:
Stacey wrote:

wrote:



From experience I would go with the super tak. Check to see if it has
yellowed which can be fixed but is time consuming.


I agree. The "pentacon" branded lenses were the bargain ones for that
camera, the good ones were Carl Zeiss Jena or CZJ.



Pentacon branded lenses were mostly made by the remains of
Hugo Meyer Goerlitz. They had been a fine lens company
(though not as celebrated as CZJ) in the pre-communist era.
The communists appear to have decided that Meyer should be
a second-tier maker, not necessarily bad, but not intended
to be the very best.

Still, I'm always looking out for a Meyer-Goerlitz or Pentacon
100/2.8.

Peter.


I do have one I maybe don't need (Meyer 100mm 2.8 in M42): The choice is
whether to keep it or a Schacht-Ulm 90mm - They are both excellent, with
somewhat different characters. Make me an offer I can't refuse!
; )

(Location: Germany)
  #13  
Old September 22nd 05, 08:02 PM
Chris Loffredo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

JMW wrote:

You make a very common mistake.in your expectations. Compare the two
lenses at f8 and f11 - typical optimal settings.

I believe the Pentax will sell itself.

(The mistake - wider openings are for focus, being the most shallow in
DOF. Narrower openings are for shooting. Unless you buy a really big
bucks lens, don't expect wide open shots to represent what the glass
really can do.)


Ahem!!!

One of the defintions of a really good lens IS how it performs at wide
apertures.

At f/8 or f/11 you will probably see little difference between a pretty
good and a great lens - it's what they do at wider apertures that counts!
  #16  
Old September 22nd 05, 08:50 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I think both are good; the Pentacon was a massive improvement over the
CZJ 50mm f2.8 tessar that 'graced' cheaper Prakticas but the Pentax is
even better. Some cameras can't use the Pentax though, so check for
fumps on the rear element just in case.

I have no idea how these compare with new lenses, however they are
incredible value for money now, especially the Pentax.

  #17  
Old September 22nd 05, 09:07 PM
Norm Fleming
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


" wrote in message
oups.com...
I think both are good; the Pentacon was a massive improvement over the
CZJ 50mm f2.8 tessar that 'graced' cheaper Prakticas but the Pentax is
even better. Some cameras can't use the Pentax though, so check for
fumps on the rear element just in case.

I have no idea how these compare with new lenses, however they are
incredible value for money now, especially the Pentax.



Agreed. The Takumars are great and better built, but the Pentacon is no
slouch, especially at smaller apertures. One plus point of the Pentacon
that has not been mentioned is its ability to focus to around 10-11 inches
for significantly larger close up images. Something between a macro and a
standard 50mm.

Cheers

NF


  #18  
Old September 22nd 05, 09:37 PM
Jeremy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


" wrote in message
oups.com...

I think both are good;


Here is the link to the lens flare table.

http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/flare1.txt

The Takumars--especially the SMC versions--came in significantly better than
the competition (this is from the 1970s, when Takumar was probably the only
multicoated lens line available.) The figures are probably much less better
for Pentax lenses of today (vs. the competition) but if one is looking at
lenses from the early 70s, the margin of superiority is compelling in favor
of Pentax.


  #19  
Old September 23rd 05, 01:24 AM
Gollum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Peter wrote:

There is another problem then. The Nikon F mount is one of the few which
has a mount to sensor distance longer than the M42 system. A simple
adaptor without optics will not allow you to focus at infinity with an M42
lens.


That's right, the register (film to flange distance) is 46.5 mm for Nikon
F-mount, vs. 45.46mm for M42. I suspect the adapter would add at least
1 mm as well, so it will be like using the lens with a 2 mm or longer
extension tube. If the optical construction is similar to the Nikon
series E 50mm 1:1.8, you'll get a maximum focus distance of roughly 1.5m.

On the other hand, you should get a fairly decent close focusing distance,
and you probably won't have any problem with the rear element colliding
with the mirror.

Being able to use a lot of older, manual focus lenses with adapters is
mainly a benefit for Canon EOS owners. Ironically, they can use M42,
Nikon, Olympus and Contax/Yashica lenses, but not FD-mount Canon lenses.

  #20  
Old September 23rd 05, 02:02 AM
Frank Pittel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Get the Takumar!! I've got the 50mm 1.4 SMC lens and it is the finest
lens I've ever used.


In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
: I am getting one of these old M42 manual lenses for use on a slightly
: newer 1.3x crop DSLR via an adapter. The price for the Super Takumar
: is considerable higher than the price of the Pentacon - but neighter
: will break the bank - so the price doesn't matter. The Pentacon is
: mint, the Super Takumar shows some wear, but the glass is in good
: shape and the controls are smooth.

: Which one is the best (resolution, contrast, colour)? I am aware
: that the Super Takumar is almost one stop faster, so I am leaning
: towards that one - but would like to hear from someone that has
: actually used either lens.

: I understand that the old lenses have some limitations compared to
: modern lenses - e.g. that there is no aperture coupling, and that they
: won't meter on a modern camera. But how do these 30 year old (?)
: lenses compare /optically/ to modern 50 mm lenses such as a Canon or
: Nikkor 50mm f/1.4?
: --
: - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
: ------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
: ------------------------------------------------------------------------

--




-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
nikon 55mm f/1.2 over various 50mm f/1.4 Bruce Murphy 35mm Photo Equipment 3 November 29th 04 07:36 PM
nikon 55mm f/1.2 over various 50mm f/1.4 Bruce Murphy Digital SLR Cameras 3 November 29th 04 07:36 PM
FS: Canon A-1 and Canon 50mm f/1.4 FD SSC Witold 35mm Equipment for Sale 1 November 22nd 04 10:18 AM
FS: Canon A-1 and Canon 50mm f/1.4 FD breechlock lens Witold 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 October 19th 04 12:12 PM
FA: Pentax Super Takumar Macro Lens 50mm f/4 screw mount UncaMikey 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 May 31st 04 08:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.