Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Normal lens Takumars compared
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri May 02, 2008 3:48 pm    Post subject: Normal lens Takumars compared Reply with quote
Someone on flickr asked for this, and I admit I did a half-*$$ed job of it. For one, it would have been good to show all 4 lenses at the same aperture (I shot those, but simply was too bored to labor to include them) and so on.

However, it is what it is. 4 lenses wide open. Sharpness, contrast and bokeh. (FWIW past a certain point, which I passed here, the effects of environment swamp minor lens differences)



the lenses:
SMC Takumar 50/1.4
Super Takumar 50/1.4
Auto Takumar 55/1.8
smc-FA 43/1.9 Limited

The 100% crops:




These are both in the same order, but not in the order I listed the lenses.

To see larger images and the full frame (reduced size) you can look here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/sets/72157604816296505/


PostPosted: Fri May 02, 2008 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
interesting comparison


PostPosted: Fri May 02, 2008 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hallo!
The sharpest will be the 43mm limited, the best bukeh have the pair of 50/1,4 and the best allrounder is the 50/1,8, all lenses are great.
I have the "new" SMC FA 50/1,4 and I have ordered a 50/1,8 too, then I can try a comptetition too.

nice test, thank you

respectfully Peter


PostPosted: Fri May 02, 2008 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice comparison.
At least in this test, the 43mm is definitely not the sharpest.

For me, SMC Takumar 50/1.4 is the sharpest.
Bokehwise, I can't make out any difference.


PostPosted: Fri May 02, 2008 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
in each photo, #1 is the 43, #2 is the SMC, #3 is the Super, and $4 is the Auto 55.

#3 is focused a bit further than the others.

I think over the weekend I'll dig up matched sets at 2.8 to see what the differences there are.

At the edge, it seemed the 43 and 55 held the most contrast, sharpness I wasn't as sure of.

For me the overall point is: given a minimum level of performance, the differences aren't quite as huge as they might be expected to be. And I go cross eyed and get very confused quickly when I do these comparisons...


PostPosted: Sat May 03, 2008 6:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Photozonetest :
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Pentax%20Lens%20Tests/125-pentax-smc-fa-43mm-f19-limited-review--test-report?start=1

The 43mm is one of the best lenses, and rare and expensive.

regards Peter


PostPosted: Sat May 03, 2008 10:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
padiej wrote:
The Photozonetest :
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Pentax%20Lens%20Tests/125-pentax-smc-fa-43mm-f19-limited-review--test-report?start=1

The 43mm is one of the best lenses, and rare and expensive.

regards Peter


I'l see your 43mm SMC-FA MTF chart:



and raise you my 40mm Ultron chart (also available in pentax mount, currently made, and not super expensive)



Notice the edge performance wide open, in particular. The Ultron is markedly better there, while the FA has better edges at f/4 and f/5.6.


PostPosted: Sat May 03, 2008 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The FA isn't that expensive. There are four on ebay at the moment, at CAD 400 (around EUR 250).
Click here to see on Ebay


PostPosted: Sat May 03, 2008 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Chris wrote:
and raise you my 40mm Ultron chart

just a observation
the scale of the chart for the ultron and the smc are not the same
they come for 2 different dslr and tests results are not comparable across the different systems
based on this test, from 2.8 to 5.6 smc is much better than ultron
wide open is for available light where corner are not the same important as for landscape shot


PostPosted: Sat May 03, 2008 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
Chris wrote:
and raise you my 40mm Ultron chart

just a observation
the scale of the chart for the ultron and the smc are not the same


Correct, but luckily I can read, and the numbers can be compared as long as one knows how to read a graph.

poilu wrote:
they come for 2 different dslr and tests results are not comparable across the different systems
based on this test, from 2.8 to 5.6 smc is much better than ultron

Please feel free to purchase a pentax-mount ultron and send it to photozone.de so that they can do a more strictly direct comparison. Rolling Eyes meanwhile I will compare what is available and read the photozone.de FAQ (which gives a little more finesse in sources of error and how to compare across systems, rather than a blanket "do not compare" which you wave in my face and then proceed to compare them down to the last decimal anyway.)

At 2.8 they are broadly similar, the smc is slightly better but as you just said, different systems so allow some margin of error. At f/4 and f/5.6 the difference in the borders is more extensive (as I already said) and the difference is probably real even taking into account a margin of error (as the FAQ says). Similarly at f/2 or f/1.9 the border performance of the SMC is quite shockingly low (as the review points out) even allowing for a margin or error from different sensor systems.

poilu wrote:
wide open is for available light where corner are not the same important as for landscape shot


Speak for yourself. I like my corners to be sharp as possible everywhere, actually. Blurring can always be added, but not taken away. But if you like that 'blurred vignette' special effect, I suggest a thin smear of vaseline round the edges of your filter.


PostPosted: Sat May 03, 2008 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting observations.... and photozone does provide a good service.

Which is why I was a bit surprised that I don't see the same degradation at 1.9 on my copy of the lens- one reason for including the 43 in these comparisons is to have a benchmark of sorts... and in my quickie test the edges weren't losing much sharpness to my eyes at least.

Which is to say - there are variations between lens samples and cameras, and in the end how a lens works in YOUR setup is what matters to YOU.


Did people guess which lens took which picture when they offered up their opinions, or not?


PostPosted: Sat May 03, 2008 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nesster wrote:
Interesting observations.... and photozone does provide a good service.

They do, yes. Its a pity they don't test more MF lenses, which they seem to see as undesirable Smile

Nesster wrote:
Which is why I was a bit surprised that I don't see the same degradation at 1.9 on my copy of the lens- one reason for including the 43 in these comparisons is to have a benchmark of sorts... and in my quickie test the edges weren't losing much sharpness to my eyes at least.


Photozone, in their analysis of error margins for various tests, state that for MTF the largest source is lens sample variation; that they reject around 15% of lenses for being out of tolerance, and that they occasionally withdraw or edit a review if the tested lens is shown to be out of tolerance.

I suggest that you mention your findings on their forum, point out the discrepancy in wide-open edge performance, and (if you are willing) offer to lend them your lens for a retest.

Nesster wrote:
Which is to say - there are variations between lens samples and cameras, and in the end how a lens works in YOUR setup is what matters to YOU.

Yes, indeed.

Nesster wrote:
Did people guess which lens took which picture when they offered up their opinions, or not?

I think your statement that the numbers did not correspond to the order of listed lenses might have been overlooked, yes.


PostPosted: Sat May 03, 2008 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I went back to look, and I was wrong: the 43 resolves less wide open than at 2.8.

However, I take my hat off to the photozone testers - being off even a bit on focus changes the appearance of things tremendously. In my little test, the focus was a bit different at f/4 - which made a big difference in apparent resolution!
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1