S-M-C Takumar 50mm 1.4 vs Yashica ML 50mm 1.7

Rodrigo · Joined: 21 Jul 2008 Posts: 223 Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Some simple tests I made this night:

50mm S-M-C Takumar @ F1.4

50mm S-M-C Takumar @ F2.8

50mm S-M-C Takumar @ F4.0

50mm S-M-C Takumar @ F5.6

50mm S-M-C Takumar @ F1.4 (for Bokeh)

50mm Yashica ML @ F1.7

50mm Yashica ML @ F2.8

50mm Yashica ML @ F4.0

50mm Yashica ML @ F5.6

50mm Yashica ML @ F1.7 (for Bokeh)

The S-M-C Takumar is soft wide open but at 2.8 it's already quite good (probably even less, but I didn't test). Yashica ML preforms very well over all apertures I tested.

the_Suede · Joined: 30 Oct 2008 Posts: 67 Location: Sweden

The yashica's all seem to be performing very well! I've heard many good things about the 28/2.8 ML that you have in your equipment list, some even very assuredly say that it in many ways outperform the CZ28/2.8. What do you think of it? I currently have one ML 35/2.8 on it's way here from an auction last week! Smile

(guess posting this q now is kinda stupid as I'm currently bidding on two 28's on the German fleabay... Smile

) - but anyway?

Thank you for the comparison. I recently compared a borrowed ML 50/1.7 to my own CZ 50/1.7 - and the CZ was so much better that I'm certain that the yashica was faulty. Others have found them almost equal, but with the CZ slightly better for most purposes. For this reason I didn't save the results... The comparison felt flawed.

Rodrigo · Joined: 21 Jul 2008 Posts: 223 Location: Lisbon, Portugal

I'd like to have that CZ Planar 1.7 but I still don't think it would be much better than Yashica (just better Wink

)

About the Yashica ML 28mm, I can just say awesome things. It's an awesome lens and very affordable (my cheapest one, only 20�)!

I have some photos with it here:
[img]http://picasaweb.google.pt/satadress/YashicaML28mm28?authkey=Z95sKyy_TGk#[/img]

I use it a lot of times reversed as you can see Wink

Prometheus · Joined: 27 Feb 2008 Posts: 878 Location: Garphyttan, Sweden

They both look good.

I have the ML 35mm/2.8, also a great one Smile

S�amuis · Joined: 20 Jul 2008 Posts: 157 Location: here & now

was this done on a tripod? the Takumar looks too soft wide open. Ive never seen any Takumar especially the 1.4 50mm that soft wide open.

Rodrigo · Joined: 21 Jul 2008 Posts: 223 Location: Lisbon, Portugal

All in a tripod. Can you show me some photos of the Takumar at 1.4 100% Cropped so that I can see the differences?

S�amuis · Joined: 20 Jul 2008 Posts: 157 Location: here & now

I don't think Ive ever used it on digital, so I likely do not have any on my HDD to show you. besides that I don't use or even own a tripod, so I don't think it would be very fair for use in such a test.

Rodrigo · Joined: 21 Jul 2008 Posts: 223 Location: Lisbon, Portugal

The tripod woudn't be a problem if you shoot with enough speed, but the digital shooting would be usefull. Too bad Sad

S�amuis · Joined: 20 Jul 2008 Posts: 157 Location: here & now

well to be honest, despite all the lenses I currently own I use very few on digital. mostly the M 50mm 1.7, or the FA 43mm Limited. and just about all of my photos are taken on the move. even if only a small amount. I am rarely standing stationary. I just don't take any photos in that manner. so through all of that, a lot of my photos aren't necessarily in 'perfect' focus. but I have seen more than enough examples on the pentaxforums, to know that typically that lens shouldn't be so soft wide open. I don't mean to tear apart your test, I just have never seen any photos made by the 50mm 1.4 that soft wide open, in fact I don't think ive ever seen any pentax 50mm lens 1.4 or otherwise that soft wide open. it just strikes me as odd.

Rodrigo · Joined: 21 Jul 2008 Posts: 223 Location: Lisbon, Portugal

I'm sorry to disagree but I already tested a Super-Takumar 50mm 1.4 and it was softer wide open than this one. But if I don't crop you can't see this softness.