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

Asahi Super Takumar 55mm 1.8
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Esox lucius wrote:
Thank you.

Winter here has not started yet. We don't have any snow in Helsinki and it's still +1C... In January it will get much colder. Lucky for me I have a 1-month assignment in Asia for January Very Happy

Last summer I did a comparison between Ilford HP5 and Ilford Delta 400 films. I found the HP5 more contrasty (as in less shadow detail) and the Delta 400 to have finer grain. Delta 400 photos also look smoother when printed large (20x30 or bigger). Second test I developed at photostore developing machine, same results. Delta 400 also takes longer time to develop than HP5.

The green hue in the park photo is because of Velvia 50 characteristics. From the Velvia 50 technical data there is note that it is not calibrated for exposure times longer than 3-4 seconds. Any exposure longer than 3-4 seconds will gradually introduce a green hue (or sometimes red, depending on which color of light). This green hue can be disturbing in very long exposures. Sometimes it can look nice, like in the 16s exposure in the park photo: I think it works for the park photo which had green grass and blue/green street light.

If you want to do long exposures with Velvia I recommend you use the Velvia 100 (old or new recipe doesn't matter). Velvia 100 can take long exposure times much better than Velvia 50, without color hue.

EDIT: High Wycombe, whoa! My sister lives in your neighbour. Very nice area, I've been there many times.

Wow! Thanks for the info on the film, you confirmed what I felt too about HP5+ I'm trying PanF at the moment, but the days are too short and dark (not as dark as yours:)). I know it's very contrasty and fine grain, but maybe too limited at this time of the year. Next will be FP4.

That's a coincidence about your sister! Smile I live up on the hills at Hazlemere, about 4km north east of High Wycombe. Has she told you about our weather here? We've had snow three times so far this winter, starting in October, and 2 nights ago it was -5C!

I'd love to visit Helsinki. It was Veijo's pictures that I fell in love with first, but every pic of it I see makes me more keen to go. I'd like to tour all round the Baltic up to St Petersburg, via Denmark Sweden and Finland and then back via Latvia etc. I'd do it in summer to make the most of your lovely long days. But it will have to wait till I retire and have lots of time (and money!) Smile


PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Super-Takumar 55/1.8 at near focusing limit (52cm from sensor)
Nikon D3, mechanical (no glass) M42 to Nikon adapter

100% crop @ f/8



100% crop @ f/16



These and more samples in original size click here


PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Takumar rules the world Smile


PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

After all the praises of the Super-Takumar 55 I wanted a x/55 - got a 2.0/55 but was a litle bit disappointed because of the softness wide open. Especially the corners of the picture are soft and blurry.

So I gave the Super-Tak another try: 1.8/55. But again quite soft wide open, weak at the corners and not that extra grip with lens stopped down.

Just an explanation: I have to say that I compared the Taks with Olympus Zuiko 1.4/50 and Pancolar 1.8/50 at landscape (near infinity focus).

As you can imagine I am a little bit disappointed. Crying or Very sad

I consider to bring both Taks for sale again. Confused


PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I cannot relate to your experiences (I hardly shoot near infinity because of my photographic style) but did you know that the 55/1.8 and 55/2 from Pentax are EXACTLY the same lenses? Only the 55/2 has a fixed "waterhouse stop" built in to stop the 55/1.8 lens down to f/2. So actually for Pentax the 55/2 was more expensive to produce because of the extra part...


PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spotmatic wrote:
I cannot relate to your experiences (I hardly shoot near infinity because of my photographic style) but did you know that the 55/1.8 and 55/2 from Pentax are EXACTLY the same lenses? Only the 55/2 has a fixed "waterhouse stop" built in to stop the 55/1.8 lens down to f/2. So actually for Pentax the 55/2 was more expensive to produce because of the extra part...


Wow! Really? So why did they do f2?


PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cilinderman wrote:
Spotmatic wrote:
I cannot relate to your experiences (I hardly shoot near infinity because of my photographic style) but did you know that the 55/1.8 and 55/2 from Pentax are EXACTLY the same lenses? Only the 55/2 has a fixed "waterhouse stop" built in to stop the 55/1.8 lens down to f/2. So actually for Pentax the 55/2 was more expensive to produce because of the extra part...


Wow! Really? So why did they do f2?


Yes, really. They did this because they had to offer "cheaper" lenses to go with the Spotmatic SP1000 and Spotmatic SP500.

Likewise, the SP500 should have a 1/500s top shutter speed, but the shutter is exactly the same as in the models with 1/1000s. It won't then come as a suprise that the shutter speed dial does not show the 1/1000s setting on the SP500, but it does click in on the corresponding 1/1000s setting, giving the 1/1000s speed Smile


PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spotmatic wrote:
cilinderman wrote:
Spotmatic wrote:
I cannot relate to your experiences (I hardly shoot near infinity because of my photographic style) but did you know that the 55/1.8 and 55/2 from Pentax are EXACTLY the same lenses? Only the 55/2 has a fixed "waterhouse stop" built in to stop the 55/1.8 lens down to f/2. So actually for Pentax the 55/2 was more expensive to produce because of the extra part...


Wow! Really? So why did they do f2?


Yes, really. They did this because they had to offer "cheaper" lenses to go with the Spotmatic SP1000 and Spotmatic SP500.

Likewise, the SP500 should have a 1/500s top shutter speed, but the shutter is exactly the same as in the models with 1/1000s. It won't then come as a suprise that the shutter speed dial does not show the 1/1000s setting on the SP500, but it does click in on the corresponding 1/1000s setting, giving the 1/1000s speed Smile

Yes, but if you were Asahi Optical Co, with strict quality control, wouldn't you want to use the glass that didn't quite get through? In those days the production process threw up a lot more rejects than today's computerised machines. I'd expect a higher rate of f2 lemons.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

peterqd wrote:

Yes, but if you were Asahi Optical Co, with strict quality control, wouldn't you want to use the glass that didn't quite get through? In those days the production process threw up a lot more rejects than today's computerised machines. I'd expect a higher rate of f2 lemons.


Personally I've never encountered any Takumar lemons... But your own experiences may be different. Back in the day when I still shot film (digital was not there yet) I compared the 55/1.8 with the 55/2.0 (both on a different spotmatic) and I found *no* differences at all.

Computerized or not: I'm under the impression that today a lot more dud lenses are being produced. Take for instance the Pentax DA* 16-50/2.8: a lot of these have decentered elements. Likewise, Canon has its share of problems because of the large numbers of lenses produced

Believe me, back in the day all lenses were checked, one by one. QC really was more strict back then. They had to because they were still competing with the German makers.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spotmatic wrote:
peterqd wrote:

Yes, but if you were Asahi Optical Co, with strict quality control, wouldn't you want to use the glass that didn't quite get through? In those days the production process threw up a lot more rejects than today's computerised machines. I'd expect a higher rate of f2 lemons.


Personally I've never encountered any Takumar lemons... But your own experiences may be different. Back in the day when I still shot film (digital was not there yet) I compared the 55/1.8 with the 55/2.0 (both on a different spotmatic) and I found *no* differences at all.

Computerized or not: I'm under the impression that today a lot more dud lenses are being produced. Take for instance the Pentax DA* 16-50/2.8: a lot of these have decentered elements. Likewise, Canon has its share of problems because of the large numbers of lenses produced

Believe me, back in the day all lenses were checked, one by one. QC really was more strict back then. They had to because they were still competing with the German makers.

Well, there's no need to tell me about quality control and the Japanese competition with European industries the 60s and 70s - I remember it well! Smile

I agree you don't see many Takumar lemons, maybe I used too strong a word, but there is definitely inconsistency in quality. This is perfectly natural in lens manufacture, just like mixes of concrete or brews of beer. We have seen a few threads about misfocussing over the years, particularly with 1.4/50's, mainly due to decentering too I think. The consistency of some of the other focal lengths seems variable too, there are certainly very good and not so good copies. For instance my Super-Tak 3.5/35 has something strange going on inside.

I worked in a brewery for a number of years, serving on the tasting panel Smile The idea of the panel was to keep a consistency between brews of the same product, and if a particular batch didn't come up to scratch it was often used for a cheaper product. There is nothing illegal or morally wrong or with this - you get what you pay for. I'm sure a similar policy applies in many other industries, lens manufacture included.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spotmatic wrote:
I cannot relate to your experiences (I hardly shoot near infinity because of my photographic style) but did you know that the 55/1.8 and 55/2 from Pentax are EXACTLY the same lenses? Only the 55/2 has a fixed "waterhouse stop" built in to stop the 55/1.8 lens down to f/2. So actually for Pentax the 55/2 was more expensive to produce because of the extra part...

Thanks, Spotmatic.
Yes, I knew. They look near the same. Interesting: The filter mount of the 2.0 ist slightly longer. If you look through the front glass you can find the "step-down-ring" inside the 2.0/55, where you can not find that ring inside the 1.8.