SMC Takumar 300/4 - Nikkor ED IF 300/4.5 - Sonnar 300/4

aoleg · Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1389 Location: Berlin, DE

Seeking for the best 300mm lens, I accumulated some fine glass: S-M-C Takumar 4/300mm, Nikkor ED IF 4.5/300mm, and CZJ Sonnar MC 4/300mm, all very fine lenses. My findings with the full-frame 5DmkII are below.

Size: Takumar is the shortest of the bunch, by about 2cm shorter than Nikkor. And that's despite Nikkor has ED and was touted as being the most compact 300mm lens of the time. Sonnar is by far the biggest and the bulkiest.

Weight: Takumar and Nikkor are about the same weight; Sonnar is obviously heavier.

Handling: Nikkor has by far the smoothest focusing. Nothing extends, focusing is light and conveniently located. Takumar is the second, and Sonnar is extremely bulky, making it difficult to handle.

Image quality: That's the most interesting part. I shot the same scene with all lenses wide open and at f/5.6, making sure to focus with LiveView and picking the best focused shot out of several. Focusing was on a satellite dish.

Sharpness: Wide open, I would say it's Sonnar and Nikkor (both about equally sharp), followed distantly by Takumar. Overall, I found the Tak to be not quite sharp enough wide open with less micro-contrast than the other two lenses. Stopped down to f/5.6, all lenses give comparable performance; I would say, Nikkor and Sonnar closely, then Takumar.

CA: Chromatic aberration plagues old teles. Takumar shows especially strong CA wide open, even slightly worse stopped down; both Nikkor and Sonnar handle CA beutifully. Takumar has the most pronounced lateral CA. Note that Sonnar is a 50 year old design without any ED glass in it! Both Takumar and Nikkor are significantly newer.

Background blur: Tested on a different set of pictures, bokeh seems to be worst with the Nikkor. OOF highlights are onion-structured and can be slightly disturbing. Nothing too bad though. The Takumar is much smoother, but the Sonnar is absolutely the best in this test.

Vignetting: Wide open, both Takumar and Nikkor exhibit light fall-off towards the corners. Stopped down, the issue almost disappears. Generally, I don't mind vignetting in tele lenses as it adds to the atmosphere. Having said that, the Sonnar has none of it! No wonder, it's a medium format lens after all.

The winner? IQ wise, I'd pick the Sonnar any day for its uniform picture quality, no light fall-off, and nice rendering with smooth bokeh. However, it's a heavy and bulky beast which is hard to haul around even for a short while. Nikkor finishes a close second; I love its handling, its compact size and relatively light weight. Takumar disappoints by not having the punch wide open the other two lenses have, and exhibiting pronounced CA all over the frame. Despite S-M-C coatings, micro-contrast wide open is not that exciting as well.

Conclusion: Out of the three lenses, the next one I'll take on a photo hunt will be Nikkor ED IF 300/4.5.

Test shots. This was the scene I shot the tests:

100% crops will follow. Unsharpened, unprocessed. A little USM will certainly give more details; even wide-open shots made with the Takumar are very usable when looked at with less magnification!

aoleg · Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1389 Location: Berlin, DE

Here are 100% crops of the test shots of S-M-C Takumar 300/4. They were not sharpened or processed.

Center, wide open (f/4):

Center, f/5.6:

CA wide open (note: this is not a sharpness test; a different subject was focused on):

CA at f/5.6:

aoleg · Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1389 Location: Berlin, DE

Here are the test shots of Nikkor ED IF 300/4.5.

Center, wide open (f/4.5):

Center, f/5.6:

CA wide open (note: this is not a sharpness test; a different subject was focused on):

CA at f/5.6:

aoleg · Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1389 Location: Berlin, DE

Finally, the test shots of CZJ MC Sonnar 300/4.

Center, wide open (f/4):

Center, f/5.6:

CA wide open (note: this is not a sharpness test; a different subject was focused on):

CA at f/5.6:

trifox · Expire: 2014-05-29

I think that the Nikkor is better than the Sonnar in blacks - shadows..
tf

patrickh · Expire: 2011-11-18

Thanks for these samples - very interesting. I love the nikkor 300/4,5 it's simply one of the best at that range.

patrickh

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

ChrisLilley · Joined: 01 Jan 2008 Posts: 1767 Location: Nice, France

The Takumar really trails the other two, purple and green everywhere.

The Nikkor is nice (better than my 300/4.5, which is pre-ED) although CA gets worse as its stopped down, I see.

aoleg · Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1389 Location: Berlin, DE

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

aoleg · Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1389 Location: Berlin, DE

Gurdie · Expire: 2013-02-20

Thank You for this most interesting test. I�m looking for a 300 mm lens for my Nikon, and by your test, it seems, that a Nikkor ED glass is the best option. I just wonder, how a Tair-3, or -33 would have done with these three?

aoleg · Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1389 Location: Berlin, DE

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

Interesting comparison between the Nikkor and the Sonnar.
The Nikkor has worst CA stopped down but has nearly none wide open, while the Sonnar has a bit of CA in every situation.
Since super long tele lenses are often used wide open, I would then vote for the Nikkor.
The Takumar unfortunately does not seem up to the same quality level.

ChrisLilley · Joined: 01 Jan 2008 Posts: 1767 Location: Nice, France

aoleg · Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1389 Location: Berlin, DE

Nikkor @f/5.6 corrected for CA:

wildlightphoto · Joined: 06 Sep 2008 Posts: 66 Location: Sacramento USA

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

ChrisLilley · Joined: 01 Jan 2008 Posts: 1767 Location: Nice, France

aoleg · Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1389 Location: Berlin, DE

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

edumad · Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:24 am Post subject:

I bet my Helios 300mm F4.5 could beat them... Not.

So far doesn't seem too bad, maybe on par with Tair, but CA is quite evident.
I still have to try it in a sunny day. Only have slow shutter speed photos.

If I had money, the M* 300 F4, A* 300mm F4 and A* 300 F2.8 seem rather interesting.

xjjohnno · Expire: 2011-11-18

Vey useful comarison there. I've been thinking of adding some 300mm+ lenses to my collection and at least have an idea on what not to buy.

patrickh · Expire: 2011-11-18

PS The nikkor 300/4,5 ED (non IR) was a very short production run and so is rare and expensive.

patrickh

peterm1 · Joined: 06 Dec 2007 Posts: 224

I have both the Tak and the Nikkor. I prefer the latter. Although the Tak is certainly sharp enough I found it to have quite unusual and rather harsh bokeh. But here are two photos - first the NIkkor and then the Tak. I would be interested in seeing what you think. Maybe the bokeh in mine had something to do with the shooting conditions or the version (mine is the early manual aperture version.)