MFlenses - A new life in a digital age
MFLenses 2026

Manual Focus Lenses Forum

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.
logovectorizer.com
Spotlight

Featured partner placement for the forum front page.

Super-Tak 85/1.9 against SMC Tak 85/1.8
Post new topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  


Post
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:11 pm
Post subject: Super-Tak 85/1.9 against SMC Tak 85/1.8
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:11 pm
Post subject: Super-Tak 85/1.9 against SMC Tak 85/1.8
Reply
Here is my non-scientific (!) comparison between:
- Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 85m f/1.8
- Super-Takumar 85mm f/1.9

Based on my findings I think the differences in real world usage are rather small. The SMC IS definitely sharper as the crops show (especially in the window crop), though not by much. The Super-Takumar has a "glow" around edges, something the SMC does not have (or at least not to the same extent).

My own non-scientific verdict: both lenses are sound performers. The SMC has the edge here, but only by a small margin. I think the SMC will perform better in strong backlighting conditions although I have not tested this. So if you don't want or need the last 1% of perfection you'll be perfectly happy with the Super-Takumar.

Everything was shot wide open on the Canon 5D. Converted from RAW to JPG, the framed pictures are sharpened. The crops are unaltered (apart from using the default ACR settings). I applied the white balance of the Super-Takumar to the SMC Takumar shots (so the white balance should be the same in both shots).





SMC 85/1.8 crop:


Super 85/1.9 crop:






SMC 85/1.8 crop:


Super 85/1.9 crop:















Post
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:36 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:36 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Thank you for your work ! I had same impression before I didn't see significant difference especially if we use for portraits them. Interesting I found Auto-Takumar 85mm f1.8 is a very nice lens for animal portraits and any nature related works. I couldn't make any good human portrait with Auto Takumar 85mm. Skin tone just didn't match with my taste.


Post
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Interesting observation about the Auto-Takumar. Thanks Attila!


Post
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:57 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:57 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Thanks Peter, I have the S-Tak 1.9 but not the SMC 1,8 and from a few older messages I had the impression the SMC was considerably better than mine, so this makes me feel a lot happier!

I very rarely use any lens wide open. I imagine the glow in the 1.9 pictures would be considerably reduced at a smaller aperture. What do you think?


Post
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:04 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:04 pm
Post subject:
Reply
peterqd wrote:
Thanks Peter, I have the S-Tak 1.9 but not the SMC 1,8 and from a few older messages I had the impression the SMC was considerably better than mine, so this makes me feel a lot happier!


I'm glad I could take away your little insecurities Wink

Quote:

I very rarely use any lens wide open. I imagine the glow in the 1.9 pictures would be considerably reduced at a smaller aperture. What do you think?


That may be possible and I will try it out for you. I think the glow is mainly due to the 1.9 lacking the SMC coating (more light scattering between lens elements).


Post
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:09 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:09 pm
Post subject:
Reply
thank you very much Spotmatic, exactly what I had asked for at the 'what is your most loved equipment' thread


Post
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:21 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:21 pm
Post subject:
Reply
No thanks! I think the Super-Takumar's bokeh is a little smoother, what do you think?


Post
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:26 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:26 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Yes, there's some difference. Esp. the 03.jpg image shows better separation of in focus/out of focus areas. That's probably caused by the optical design: S-M-C 85/1.8 is pure double gauss 6/6, while Super 85/1.9 (and Auto 85/1.8 ) are 5/4 lenses with some sonnar-ish rudiments.

It's quite funny, because the front optical block is almost identical to Zeiss C-Sonnar 85/2 (the modern one), while the rear optical block is almost identical to Zeiss Sonnar 85/2 (pre-war):



Post
Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:22 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:22 am
Post subject:
Reply
Thanks Peter ALOT for your work, this is a great practical test and to the point.

Cheers
Tobias


Post
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 4:14 am
Post subject: Are the SMC (K) the same optics as the last Takumars?
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 4:14 am
Post subject: Are the SMC (K) the same optics as the last Takumars?
Reply
Great thread. The close-up of the lace curtains shows the most significant difference between the two, IMHO.

I have the SMC (K) 85mm f1.8. Is this the same optical design as the Takumar? Can the same be said of all SMC Ks of similar focal length/aperture (with their final version Takumar counterparts?)

Thanks!


Post
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:46 am
Post subject: Re: Are the SMC (K) the same optics as the last Takumars?
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:46 am
Post subject: Re: Are the SMC (K) the same optics as the last Takumars?
Reply
cheekygeek wrote:
Great thread. The close-up of the lace curtains shows the most significant difference between the two, IMHO.

I have the SMC (K) 85mm f1.8. Is this the same optical design as the Takumar? Can the same be said of all SMC Ks of similar focal length/aperture (with their final version Takumar counterparts?)


Thanks! Yes, the SMC K version is 100% the same as the last 6-element SMC Takumar, and the same goes for the other SMK K lenses (such as the K55/2, K55/1.8, K50/1.4 etc. etc. etc. Also, in my experience the K's are better built than the later M versions (the K's have more brass while the M's have a lot of aluminium inside).


Post
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 11:09 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 11:09 am
Post subject:
Reply
this thread exactly shows what i like this forum for...

test shots that are far more than "test shots" & lot of experts that are really deep into it!
Post new topic Reply to topic
Page 1 of 1