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

Takumars vs Leica/Zeiss
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 4:03 pm    Post subject: Takumars vs Leica/Zeiss Reply with quote
Hi all

Ive been taking lots of shots with my Pentax KX and the cool Takumars from the 60s and 70s, but I was wondering if anyone has a comparison between the Taks and the Leica and Zeiss lenses of the same era?

IE which is *better* or sharper, I know thats a subjective question, but if anyone has any input/advice , feel free to chime in!

d163

Im half hoping someone will say the taks are just as good for 1/25th the price:)


PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, as Zeiss lenses are generally made for the charts, they would have to be the "sharper" if you mean higher resolution, higher micro contrast - "generall speaking". That's not personally "better" in my books, I prefer the look you get from Takumars, Rokkors, Minoltas etc.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 4:21 pm    Post subject: Re: Takumars vs Leica/Zeiss Reply with quote
The taks are just as good for 1/25th the price.

Hey, you wanted someone to say that, right? Wink

Seriously, Leitz and Zeiss glass probably is the best you can get. They have a somewhat different character, thus there are Leica fans and Zeiss fans. It's a bit like with Canon and Nikon. Wink

But the Takumar lenses are really close behind. For most of us they are more than just "good enough".


PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 4:58 pm    Post subject: Re: Takumars vs Leica/Zeiss Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
The taks are just as good for 1/25th the price.

Hey, you wanted someone to say that, right? Wink

....


Hahaha, quite good one. Someone at FMiranda BBS measured Raw file
sizes, this chart may discourage some but take it a grain of salt. Confused



PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I find that points like "sharpness" or "bokeh" are devoided of any meaning when they are not related to a subject.
I can have the sharpest lens in the world, but if my subject does not call for sharpness, it is useless. And I can have the best bokeh in the world, but if my subject does not need it, it is useless.
In other words, "sharpness for the sake of it" and "bokeh for the sake of it", are useless. A photographer should be driven by a concept, a need, a composition, or all of these components, and after that, all the elements (lighting, sharpness, bokeh, colours, et c.) must fall into place - or clash.

ricardovaste wrote:
Well, as Zeiss lenses are generally made for the charts, they would have to be the "sharper" if you mean higher resolution, higher micro contrast - "generall speaking". That's not personally "better" in my books, I prefer the look you get from Takumars, Rokkors, Minoltas etc.


Ricardo, don't you think this is a hasty generalization?
This picture has been taken with a Zeiss lens, and no postwork has been applied:



and I am sure that Pentax users can show pictures taken with Takumars that are surgically sharp.

Yes, in the world of saxophones, the brass, reed, mouthpiece, all have a character and play a role, but ultimately, it's in the throat and lips of the player. Give any saxophone assembly to David Sanborn, and he will make it sound magic; give it to me, and I will make you regret to have been born Laughing ...


PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
"Ricardo, don't you think this is a hasty generalization? "

Yes, hence I put "generally speaking" in quotation marks Smile


PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ricardovaste wrote:
Well, as Zeiss lenses are generally made for the charts, they would have to be the "sharper" if you mean higher resolution, higher micro contrast - "generall speaking".

I don't know how you got that idea. Many of Zeiss' lenses are optimized for infinity and logically perform worse on bench tests. Takumars tend to perform better up close so and not as well as Zeiss lenses at infinity.


koji wrote:
Someone at FMiranda BBS measured Raw file
sizes, this chart may discourage some but take it a grain of salt. Confused

Do you have a link to that thread, or is it in the archives (which are disabled now)? I would definitely take that chart with a grain of salt, because it's only valid for one scene (one focus distance) and the specific camera that was used.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 6:01 pm    Post subject: Re: Takumars vs Leica/Zeiss Reply with quote
dude163 wrote:
Hi all

Ive been taking lots of shots with my Pentax KX and the cool Takumars from the 60s and 70s, but I was wondering if anyone has a comparison between the Taks and the Leica and Zeiss lenses of the same era?


Hi!
I tested Taks vs Zeiss vs Rokkor and from close-up 45cm to 0,8-1m tak is sharpest wide open(rokkor is sharper when stopped down to f1.4) at 1-3m are equal(rokkor sharpest wo, at f1.4 clear advantage) at infinity leads rokkor and zeiss. Btw tak seems to be little darker than planar wo and rokkor is a lot lighter than both evenit still visible at f2(maybe is caused by little vignietting). Rokk is about 1/2 stop faster than tak and more than 1/3 than z50/1.4


PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
AhamB wrote:
......

koji wrote:
Someone at FMiranda BBS measured Raw file
sizes, this chart may discourage some but take it a grain of salt. Confused

Do you have a link to that thread, or is it in the archives (which are disabled now)? I would definitely take that chart with a grain of salt, because it's only valid for one scene (one focus distance) and the specific camera that was used.


I do not have the link, but I downloaded them all to my computer. If you want them I can upload them to here,
but the originals are not big as the above, I enlarged it.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
In other words, "sharpness for the sake of it" and "bokeh for the sake of it", are useless.


Bravo! Very well put! This sums up many looooong discussions. Very Happy


PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's hard to generalize. All three manufacturers have better and worse lenses.
Overall in my eyes Pentax lenses favor overall contrast, but the resolvance isn't on pair with Zeiss and Leica.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 7:14 pm    Post subject: Re: Takumars vs Leica/Zeiss Reply with quote
dude163 wrote:


IE which is *better* or sharper, I know thats a subjective question, but if anyone has any input/advice , feel free to chime in!

d163


Just to remind a few that I already know its not a quantative question with a simple answer , but I knew that some of the gang here have used them all.

The reason for my question is that I'm kind of at a junction here with my photography, its a great hobby, but Im not so sure where I want to go next, I'd [refer less collecting and more shooting to be honest , and I already have a tak 50 thats a bit yellowed, so I was thinking sending it off for a CLA would be a lot cheaper than grabbing an M8 Leica + lens Smile


PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Keep your tak, and get some Zeiss and Leica lenses. I know you don`t want to hear that but owning different lenses even with the same focal length gives you the opportunity to choose the right one for every purpose Wink
I alredy tried to compare Zeiss, Leitz and Pentax lenses a few times but I can`t tell which are the best in general. For sure Leitz & Zeiss are known to be world`s best but some taks and SMC Pentax are very good too.
Think about your 1,4/50 tak, the SMC 1,7/50 and the SMC 3,5/28 they are very good lenses and the best is you still could get them for a small fee.

I often change between SMC 1,7/50 and Summicron-R 2/50 many of my pics don`t really show the difference, because both of them give a very good IQ.

Timo

Last edited by timo832000 on Sat Jan 08, 2011 9:40 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
timo832000 wrote:
Keep your tak, and get some Zeiss and Leica lenses. I know you don`t want to hear that but owning different lenses even with the same focal length gives you the opportunity to choose the right one for every purpose Wink


Timo


+1 and I am pretty sure sure most TAK will left at home if you able to pickup up a Zeiss or Leica at least this did happen with me. I have pretty good experience with Taks and Zeiss and very limited with Leica.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
what i did was that i took a lot of time to look at the pictures on this forum and decide what i personally liked. to me, comparing work on this forum, it was no contest, the zeiss 50/1.4 beat the tak hands down. there is a 3d quality i personally see in the zeiss, a 'pop' that i do not see in the tak.

i was able to pick up a tak 50/1.4 cheap so i did, when i personally compared them on my 5d it just confirmed what i saw on this forum.

having said that, there are people on this forum who do great work with taks, really beautiful stuff. but to my eye, for sharpness, color and 3d its zeiss. take a look around and see what suits your eye!


PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 3:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sometimes I think the answer only comes in using the lenses in question. I have used the the Macro tak and the Biotar 2/58 and I love them equally for what they do...sure they are not the same focal range but one is Carl Zeiss and one is Pentax...and I like them both....If I ever get a leica I will be able to try that and see what it can do. Wink and no doubt I will love it as well.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very often a preference does not only depend on optical performance.
Haptics, look, feel, forum influence ... all those aspects play an important role.

And I also think that you can easily become a "fan-boy" if you have shot some very special shots with a certain brand. Suddenly, you transfer all positive character traits on those lenses which leaves no room for others. Wink


PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I tried the tak s-m-c 135:3.5 on the 5DII and the lens is sharp
but at infinite I found I could move the barrel quite a lot without differences in the viewfinder
that's a difference with a Zeiss, the focus is surgical and it show in the % of in focus shots
I had a lot of missed with the tak
same experience with the tak s-m-c 50:4 macro vs other macros


PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
koji wrote:
I do not have the link, but I downloaded them all to my computer. If you want them I can upload them to here, but the originals are not big as the above, I enlarged it.

Ah, no thanks then. I was more interested to read the discussion around it because many times there are people with some interesting input there.

LucisPictor wrote:
And I also think that you can easily become a "fan-boy" if you have shot some very special shots with a certain brand. Suddenly, you transfer all positive character traits on those lenses which leaves no room for others. Wink

On the other hand it's possible that you see the same characteristics of a lens in a great variety of shots taken with the same lens, logically making you a fan of that lens if you like those characteristics a lot... It's not unthinkable.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
AhamB wrote:

LucisPictor wrote:
And I also think that you can easily become a "fan-boy" if you have shot some very special shots with a certain brand. Suddenly, you transfer all positive character traits on those lenses which leaves no room for others. Wink

On the other hand it's possible that you see the same characteristics of a lens in a great variety of shots taken with the same lens, logically making you a fan of that lens if you like those characteristics a lot... It's not unthinkable.

Of course not. And I am somewhat of a Leica fan-boy myself. Wink They are just a little too expensive to built up a complete set of Leitz (had four, now have two).
What I meant is that sometimes, some guys are so convinced by a certain brand that they do not accept anything else any more. But this means restricting yourself and your possibilities too much IMHO.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hmm

the problem with lenses and photography Ive discovered is that its not binary , there is nothing to say that you cant have a good mix, because certain manufacturers have excellent lenses and they also make mediocre ones too, I think that once you get to the high dollar items, the chance of a mediocre lens becomes less

In addition, I have also come to the realisation that the most important lens is the one in the photographers eyeball!

( more foto less LBA!)


PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Phew , my LBA has abated

Takumars will be around for a while with the odd zeiss lens too, maybe a leica in the future


PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I love my Taks but dont think they are quite in the same leaugue as zeiss or Leica. But they are very good. They tend to lack flatness of field (and so have less definition in the corners) Either that or you need to stop down to get optimal results. The more expensive German lenses are better in this respect and can be shot wide open with better results. BUt for me that does not matter in 90% of my shots.

Have a look at the following thread where I have posted some results (scanned from old 1970s era magazines) showing test results for various loenses including Takumars. They are not to be sneezed at although in general not quite up to Leitz level.

http://forum.mflenses.com/lens-tests-for-you-leitz-lenses-pentax-takumars-and-nikkors-t4468.html


PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The only reason I don't use my Tak 50/1.4 more is because I paid so much more for everything else. Sad? True? Yes and yes.

I'll be adding a NEX-5 shortly though and have been admiring again how small the Taks are and how nicely I believe this will compliment the body. If I go out with the A900, I'm using the big glass. It's more about ergonomics and balance for me in the absence of glaring performance discrepancies. Sad? True? Maybe and yes, heh.

K.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Kelly

have you tried any Leica glass at all?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2