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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 vs. Pentacon 50 mm f/1.8
In article ,
says... 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? From experience I would go with the super tak. Check to see if it has yellowed which can be fixed but is time consuming. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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? I also agree in this case that the Takumar is likely to be bettere than the Pentacon lens (but not necessarily better than the "Carl Zeiss Jena", "Aus Jena" or "CZJ" lenses) The main *improvement* in most prime lenses (unless they are Asph, Apo, or of extreme speed or focal length) is that they are cheaper to make than those of 30 years ago. Many of my favorite lenses are over 30... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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? I have both the Super Takumar 50/1.4 and the Pentacon 50/1.8. The Pentacon is decent (I've always suspected I have a bad copy), but the Takumar is nothing short of amazing. That extra 2/3rds of a stop has saved many of my shots from blur in low light; I'm allergic to flash. I don't have an EF or Nikkor 50/1.4, and I've never done any scientific tests, but my Takumar is at least as good as my EF 50/1.8 and Series E 50/1.8. 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. - Matt |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Matt White wrote:
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? I have both the Super Takumar 50/1.4 and the Pentacon 50/1.8. The Pentacon is decent (I've always suspected I have a bad copy), but the Takumar is nothing short of amazing. That extra 2/3rds of a stop has saved many of my shots from blur in low light; I'm allergic to flash. I don't have an EF or Nikkor 50/1.4, and I've never done any scientific tests, but my Takumar is at least as good as my EF 50/1.8 and Series E 50/1.8. 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. - Matt 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.) Jan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
JMW wrote:
Matt White wrote: 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? I have both the Super Takumar 50/1.4 and the Pentacon 50/1.8. The Pentacon is decent (I've always suspected I have a bad copy), but the Takumar is nothing short of amazing. That extra 2/3rds of a stop has saved many of my shots from blur in low light; I'm allergic to flash. I don't have an EF or Nikkor 50/1.4, and I've never done any scientific tests, but my Takumar is at least as good as my EF 50/1.8 and Series E 50/1.8. 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. - Matt 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.) Jan Comparing at f8 or f11 doesn't make sense if he's looking for a fast lens for low light shooting. If I was looking for a fast lens, I'd be comparing the images taken with the lens wide open. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. -- |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
JMW wrote: You make a very common mistake.in your expectations. Compare the two lenses at f8 and f11 - typical optimal settings. Both the Super-Takumar 50/1.4 and and the 55mm/1.8 will be at their best in the centre of the image at f/4 or f/5.6. I really like my SMC Takumar 55mm/1.8. These were first-class lenses when made, and in those days Kodachrome II (ASA 25) was very popular and a lot of photography in sunlight was done at f/4 or f/5.6. I believe the Pentax will sell itself. Agreed. (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.) Pay no attention to the modest price tag. These were first class lenses for their time. They are very nice at f/4 and not too shabby wide open. Peter. -- |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Gisle Hannemyr wrote: Matt White writes: One thing to be careful of on EOS bodies (which I assume the 1.3x crop DSLR is) No, it's a Nikon F-mount Kodak (see sig.) but I'll make sure the mirror clears before I use it. Thanks for the warning. 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. Any adaptor which will work at infinity has to include a small teleconverter. If you don't already have M42 system lenses, I wouldn't buy them with the intent of using them on a Nikon-F mount body. Peter. -- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 06:36 PM |
nikon 55mm f/1.2 over various 50mm f/1.4 | Bruce Murphy | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | November 29th 04 06:36 PM |
FS: Canon A-1 and Canon 50mm f/1.4 FD SSC | Witold | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 1 | November 22nd 04 09:18 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 |