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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Gisle Hannemyr" wrote in message
... 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. The Pentacon is a pretty good lens, but The Pentax is one of the greatest 50mm lenses ever made. A slightly later Super-Multicoated-Takumar or, later still, SMC Takumar would probably be a better bet still, since Pentax's SMC coating is to this day one of the very best. (The original SMC is as good as modern Zeiss T* and Fujinon EBC, the current SMC I think edges even both these out.) However, the latest Super Takumars were multi-coated before the process was officially launched by Pentax, so take a close look and you _may_ find you get a bargain if the lens has multicoating but not the 'label' to say so. The Super Taks started off using Thorium in their glass formulation and some of the earlier ones have now yellowed due to compounds of the products of Thorium's radioactive decay. Not all samples seem to exhibit this effect, it should not be confused with the lens coating which can look yellow/brown from certain angles. Look through the lens at a piece of white paper to see if it has become too yellow - a little warmth you may or may not mind, but appreciable yellowing is a problem. It _may_ be possible to clear a yellowed lens with UV light, but people argue about this so I wouldn't buy a yellowed lens on the assumption it will definitely work. 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. The Pentax is quite good wide open - better than the Pentacon, but stopped down to around f5.6 is where it will really blow your socks off. 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? The Penatcon will probably not perform as well, though it won't be miles behind. The Pentax beats both these examples, though the Nikon may be a bit sharper wide open, if not when stopped down. Subjective impressions, these. Personally, however, I like Pentax's lens 'philosophy' better than Canon's or Nikon's anyway. Canon can look too 'smoothed out' to my eye - not enough micro contrast, perhaps - as if the whole world (not just people) were wearing a bit of foundation. Nikon is much more contrasty, and I like that for B&W, but less so for colour, and the Nikon's bokeh is not attractive. These are very subjective views and relate to what works best for my style and subject matter, so YMMV. Peter |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
My main lens is the SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4 and my wife's main lens is
the Pentacon and I can definitely say the Pentax is a lot worse wide open; in fact it resembles a Helios wide open i.e. hilarious. Oddly the Helios at around f11 becomes really really sharp in the centre and overtakes the Pentacon although the edges really never seem to catch up. However I think you can see the general direction of all the posts... :^D |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I have a copy of the Pentax Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4. Its a superb lens. Metering works fine with the lens. You just have to set aperture manually. I bought a M42-to-EOS mount adapter from eBay for ~$12 for this lens. But two pain areas a 1. 50mm on my 300D with the 1.6x crop factor is not convenient to shoot all the time. 2. Focus is almost always wrong at large apertures because of shallow DoF and no manual focus aids in my Canon 300D. - Siddhartha |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Bandicoot" wrote in message ... A slightly later Super-Multicoated-Takumar or, later still, SMC Takumar would probably be a better bet still, since Pentax's SMC coating is to this day one of the very best. (The original SMC is as good as modern Zeiss T* and Fujinon EBC, the current SMC I think edges even both these out.) However, the latest Super Takumars were multi-coated before the process was officially launched by Pentax, so take a close look and you _may_ find you get a bargain if the lens has multicoating but not the 'label' to say so. Actually during the late 1960s and early 1970s Pentax and Zeiss were partners in many developments ophthalmological equipment and lens coatings were just two areas. The SMC and T* were a result of that co-operation. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Darrell" wrote in message ... "Bandicoot" wrote in message ... A slightly later Super-Multicoated-Takumar or, later still, SMC Takumar would probably be a better bet still, since Pentax's SMC coating is to this day one of the very best. (The original SMC is as good as modern Zeiss T* and Fujinon EBC, the current SMC I think edges even both these out.) However, the latest Super Takumars were multi-coated before the process was officially launched by Pentax, so take a close look and you _may_ find you get a bargain if the lens has multicoating but not the 'label' to say so. Actually during the late 1960s and early 1970s Pentax and Zeiss were partners in many developments ophthalmological equipment and lens coatings were just two areas. The SMC and T* were a result of that co-operation. Actually Pentax licensed the technology from an American firm. They were the first to use it on lens elements. Zeiss and Pentax were rivals in the 60s. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
Which one is the best (resolution, contrast, colour)? [...] I just got myself a used Praktica with a Pentacon auto 1.8/50 multi-coated lens. I haven't taken any pictures with it yet, but I noticed that the diaphragm blades on the lens are much more glossy than on my other lenses. I assume that will affect contrast, especially at medium and small apertures, as light reflected from the film will be reflected back by the diaphragm blades. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Gollum wrote:
Gisle Hannemyr wrote: Which one is the best (resolution, contrast, colour)? [...] I just got myself a used Praktica with a Pentacon auto 1.8/50 multi-coated lens. I haven't taken any pictures with it yet, but I noticed that the diaphragm blades on the lens are much more glossy than on my other lenses. I assume that will affect contrast, especially at medium and small apertures, as light reflected from the film will be reflected back by the diaphragm blades. A very late answer. I have both a 55mm f1.8 Super-Takumar and a similar spec 50mm Pentacon. I use use the Super-Takumar as a manual lens on a 20D. The super-Takumar images are perceptibly yellow, nothing that can't be corrected, but its contrast and resolution are noticable better than the pentacon. I hope this helps |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Ian Anderson" wrote in message
... The super-Takumar images are perceptibly yellow, nothing that can't be corrected, Most unusual to find a yellowed Super Takumar. Pentax did not include Thorium in the 1.8s, just the 1.4s. Although they WERE adding multicoating in some of the late runs of Super-Takumar lenses; I wonder if they were also experimenting with rare earth glass?? I have 4 of the f/1.8 and the scaled-down version, the f/2.0 lenses, and all of them are free of the yellowing that plagued the 50mm f/1.4. Quite odd to hear that the 55mm normal lenses might also have suffered from this problem. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
I have a 55 1.8 that I am using with my 350D
Do you notice a distinct softening at larger F numbers?? I was trying to use it for star images and noticed that they were showing up as donuts. I originally thought that I might not be reaching focus, but some tests on closer objects showed that the 55 is softer than the oem zoom at openings below F5.6 and better at F8 and F11. Great cheap way to get additional lenses. I have a 135 f2.8 and a kitcamera 80-250 zoom + macro, and I am getting great fun out of them (esp the zoom). I am sure that a modern made for digital lenses would be superior, but the 135 & zoom cost me less than $50 in total - In fact the UV filters I bought for then cost me more than the lenses!.. Villy "Jeremy" wrote in message news:0Ub_e.13219$y64.4157@trnddc06... "Ian Anderson" wrote in message ... The super-Takumar images are perceptibly yellow, nothing that can't be corrected, Most unusual to find a yellowed Super Takumar. Pentax did not include Thorium in the 1.8s, just the 1.4s. Although they WERE adding multicoating in some of the late runs of Super-Takumar lenses; I wonder if they were also experimenting with rare earth glass?? I have 4 of the f/1.8 and the scaled-down version, the f/2.0 lenses, and all of them are free of the yellowing that plagued the 50mm f/1.4. Quite odd to hear that the 55mm normal lenses might also have suffered from this problem. |
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 |