Super-Tak 85/1.9 against SMC Tak 85/1.8

Spotmatic · Joined: 18 Aug 2008 Posts: 4064 Location: Netherlands

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:

Attila · Expire: 2021-11-18

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.

Spotmatic · Joined: 18 Aug 2008 Posts: 4064 Location: Netherlands

Interesting observation about the Auto-Takumar. Thanks Attila!

peterqd · Expire: 2014-01-04

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?

Spotmatic · Joined: 18 Aug 2008 Posts: 4064 Location: Netherlands

kuuan · Expire: 2014-12-26

thank you very much Spotmatic, exactly what I had asked for at the 'what is your most loved equipment' thread

Spotmatic · Joined: 18 Aug 2008 Posts: 4064 Location: Netherlands

No thanks! I think the Super-Takumar's bokeh is a little smoother, what do you think?

no-X · Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:26 pm Post subject:

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):

tobbsman · Joined: 25 Jul 2008 Posts: 2591 Location: Austria

Thanks Peter ALOT for your work, this is a great practical test and to the point.

Cheers
Tobias

cheekygeek · Joined: 05 Aug 2008 Posts: 183

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!

Spotmatic · Joined: 18 Aug 2008 Posts: 4064 Location: Netherlands

supahmario · Joined: 18 Mar 2009 Posts: 618 Location: Berlin, Germany

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!