View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Pii
Joined: 09 Sep 2011 Posts: 26 Location: United Kingdom
|
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:16 pm Post subject: SMC Pentax M 50mm f1.4 & SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4 Differenc |
|
|
Pii wrote:
Wondering about those two...
Can we say they are the same lenses image-wise?
Are there any differences in bokeh, sharpness, contarst, close focus, c/a, etc..? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
luisalegria
Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 6627 Location: San Francisco, USA
Expire: 2018-01-18
|
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
luisalegria wrote:
I have both.
The main difference seems to be the Takumar tends to yellow. Mine is still a bit yellow after the UV treatment.
Otherwise I can't tell them apart really.
I find them very similar, for that matter so is my 55/1.4 Sears/Ricoh. _________________ I like Pentax DSLR's, Exaktas, M42 bodies of all kinds, strange and cheap Japanese lenses, and am dabbling in medium format/Speed Graphic work. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pii
Joined: 09 Sep 2011 Posts: 26 Location: United Kingdom
|
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pii wrote:
luisalegria wrote: |
The main difference seems to be the Takumar tends to yellow. Mine is still a bit yellow after the UV treatment.
|
It could be a plus for B&W.
Btw I thought only Super Takumars were yellow. Am I wrong luisalegria? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
William
Joined: 26 Nov 2009 Posts: 489 Location: London
|
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
William wrote:
I am not sure about the SMC Tak because I stupidly "upgraded" my 8 element Super Tak to one, not realising that it wouldn't mount on a normal M42 adapter or camera so it was then sold. However I have used both the Super Tak and the SMC M a lot. In terms of sharpness they are similar: soft wide open, sharp at f2/2.8 and very very sharp from f5.6 so I would think that the SMC Takumar is the same. The change in rendering is different though. With the M lens the change in character is very abrupt, f1.4 looks like no other aperture whereas with the Takumars the change seems more gradual. It is very hard to explain.
Another thing to consider is the build quality. While the M series are still built far better than the average modern lens, the Takumars are really in a different league. There's a certain satisfaction in handling one and using those perfectly damped focusing rings and if the K-M42 adapter wasn't such a pain to take off the camera I'd be rebuilding my Takumar collection. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
indianadinos
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 Posts: 1310 Location: Toulouse, France
Expire: 2011-12-05
|
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
indianadinos wrote:
Pii wrote: |
Btw I thought only Super Takumars were yellow. |
No, even the SMC tend to be yellow if they don't see the daylight for a while ...
Just bring your lenses at work outside without an UV filter and in a few days they will be fine again ... _________________ Please visit my blogs Shooting with a Pentax K10D / FF Visions
Takumar: 24/3.5, 28/3.5, 35/2, 35/3.5, 50/1.4, 55/1.8, 85/1.8, 105/2.8, 120/2.8, 135/3.5, 150/4, 200/4
Pentax-K: M28/2.8, K28/3.5, M50/1.4, A50/1.7, M50/4 Macro, K85/1.8, K105/2.8, K135/2.5, M200/4, M70-150/4
Zeiss: Flektogon 20/2.8, 20/4, 35/2.4, 35/2.8, Tessar 50/2.8, Pancolar 50/1.8, Biotar 58/2, Sonnar 135/3.5, Sonnar 180/2.8
Meyer: Primagon 35/4.5, Domiplan 50/2.8, Oreston 50/1.8, Primoplan 58/1.9, Trioplan 100/2.8, Orestor 100/2.8, Orestor 135/2.8
Schacht/Steinheil: Travenar 90/2.8, Travenon 135/4.5, Quinar 135/2.8, Quinar 135/3.5
Russian: MIR 37B, Industar 50/3.5, Helios 44M & 44M-2, Jupiter 37A
P6: Flektogon 50/4, Biometar 80/2.8, Orestor 300/4
Nikkor: Nikkor-O 35/2, Micro 55/3.5, Nikkor-S 50/1.4, Nikkor-Q 135/2.8
Fuji: EBC 28/3.5, EBC 55/3.5 Macro, EBC 135/2.5
Misc Lenses: Kiron 105/2.8 Macro, Tamron SP90/2.5
... and a few other Vivitar, Tamron, Sigma and Soligor lenses ...
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
erkie
Joined: 08 Oct 2011 Posts: 308 Location: Missouri
|
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
erkie wrote:
William wrote: |
I am not sure about the SMC Tak because I stupidly "upgraded" my 8 element Super Tak to one, not realising that it wouldn't mount on a normal M42 adapter or camera so it was then sold. However I have used both the Super Tak and the SMC M a lot. In terms of sharpness they are similar: soft wide open, sharp at f2/2.8 and very very sharp from f5.6 so I would think that the SMC Takumar is the same. The change in rendering is different though. With the M lens the change in character is very abrupt, f1.4 looks like no other aperture whereas with the Takumars the change seems more gradual. It is very hard to explain.
Another thing to consider is the build quality. While the M series are still built far better than the average modern lens, the Takumars are really in a different league. There's a certain satisfaction in handling one and using those perfectly damped focusing rings and if the K-M42 adapter wasn't such a pain to take off the camera I'd be rebuilding my Takumar collection. |
I'm curious about your SMC Tak not mounting? I have the S-M-C 50 1.4 and it mounts fine with the original pentax m42 adapter and mounts fine to my pentax H3v and praktica FX3 . Was there a difference in the mount when they built the SMC version? I do have the SMC 55/2 again no problems in mounting.
I too find that wide open the Tak is different than the M version. Not sure if it's the coatings or something else. The layout of the lenses certainly looks the same to me though.
I like them both myself.
Eric _________________
I shoot film and meter with digital
Asahi H3v, Praktica FX3, Retina IIa, Spotmatic sp1000, Fujica V2, Yashica lynx5000, Pentax Sf1, Minolta SRT102, Minolta7000i, Pentax MX, Pentax ME, Pentax Kx
lensesM42- Isco Gottingen Westanar 50/2.8, Isco Gottingen Westron 35/2.8, Rikenon 35/2.8, Spiratone Tc 105/2.5, Spiratone Tc 200/4.5, Sankyo Kohki Komura 300/5, Sankyo Kohki Komura 135/3.5, Auto Tak 35/3.5, Super Tak 150/4, S-M-C Tak 50/1.4, S-M-C Tak 28/3.5, SMC Tak 55/2, Mamya Sekor 55/1.8
K- mount- Helios 44-K-4, Jc penny 28/2.8, Da 18-55, Da 55-300, Pentax F 35-70, SMCP M 50/1.4, SMCP M 50/1.7
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
peterqd
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 7448 Location: near High Wycombe, UK
Expire: 2014-01-04
|
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
peterqd wrote:
Maybe William was referring to a different type of camera. I had an M42>EOS adapter which wouldn't allow infinity with any of the Takumar 1.4/50s. The hole in the adapter was too small to allow the rear elelement to retract to the infinity stop.
The S-M-C versions and later have a lever to communicate the aperture setting to the camera. With some M42>EOS adapters and others, this lever jams on the flange which keeps the auto pin depressed and then either the lens won't screw right in or the aperture dial becomes jammed solid. This is one reason why I prefer the adapters without the flange. However, as you say, this shouldn't be a problem using the original Pentax K adapter as there's no flange, and there's no mirror problems (as on the FF Canons). Many of our members use the SMC 1.4/50 on Pentax DSLRs with no problems - Andreas (kuuan) for example.
William, removing the K adapter is very easy - just use a thumbnail to press the locking spring and turn the adapter in one go. _________________ Peter - Moderator |
|
Back to top |
|
|
William
Joined: 26 Nov 2009 Posts: 489 Location: London
|
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
William wrote:
Yes, I was referring to the EOS adapter and it wasn't clear. I had an adapter which jammed with that lever. Had I known that there were flange-less adapters then I may still have that SMC Tak.
I have a cheap K-M42 adapter and in time will get an original. While it isn't hard to remove the adapter, the lock on mine has a tendency to shift and I can't change lenses instantly in the field which is important. If I decide to keep the K-x long term and fix my Pancolar/buy Taks again then it may become a permanent M42 camera. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
erkie
Joined: 08 Oct 2011 Posts: 308 Location: Missouri
|
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
erkie wrote:
Thank you for the clarification. That makes perfect sense. I had simply looked at the pentax cameras in your signature and assumed too much ! If you stay with pentax bodies the original adapter is worth it in the aggravation saved. I use my fingernails to release the spring as I turn the adapter and it's quite quick and painless( Even with my oversize construction worker fingers ) . I do use a flanged adapter permanently attached to my bellows though.
Thanks again !
Eric _________________
I shoot film and meter with digital
Asahi H3v, Praktica FX3, Retina IIa, Spotmatic sp1000, Fujica V2, Yashica lynx5000, Pentax Sf1, Minolta SRT102, Minolta7000i, Pentax MX, Pentax ME, Pentax Kx
lensesM42- Isco Gottingen Westanar 50/2.8, Isco Gottingen Westron 35/2.8, Rikenon 35/2.8, Spiratone Tc 105/2.5, Spiratone Tc 200/4.5, Sankyo Kohki Komura 300/5, Sankyo Kohki Komura 135/3.5, Auto Tak 35/3.5, Super Tak 150/4, S-M-C Tak 50/1.4, S-M-C Tak 28/3.5, SMC Tak 55/2, Mamya Sekor 55/1.8
K- mount- Helios 44-K-4, Jc penny 28/2.8, Da 18-55, Da 55-300, Pentax F 35-70, SMCP M 50/1.4, SMCP M 50/1.7
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
abe in space
Joined: 24 Oct 2011 Posts: 40
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
abe in space wrote:
William wrote: |
Yes, I was referring to the EOS adapter and it wasn't clear. I had an adapter which jammed with that lever. Had I known that there were flange-less adapters then I may still have that SMC Tak.
I have a cheap K-M42 adapter and in time will get an original. While it isn't hard to remove the adapter, the lock on mine has a tendency to shift and I can't change lenses instantly in the field which is important. If I decide to keep the K-x long term and fix my Pancolar/buy Taks again then it may become a permanent M42 camera. |
Sorry to drift a bit OT, but wouldn't another solution be to just get multiple adapters, and keep them permanently on the lenses? They're not extraordinarily expensive. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
peterqd
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 7448 Location: near High Wycombe, UK
Expire: 2014-01-04
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
peterqd wrote:
abe in space wrote: |
William wrote: |
Yes, I was referring to the EOS adapter and it wasn't clear. I had an adapter which jammed with that lever. Had I known that there were flange-less adapters then I may still have that SMC Tak.
I have a cheap K-M42 adapter and in time will get an original. While it isn't hard to remove the adapter, the lock on mine has a tendency to shift and I can't change lenses instantly in the field which is important. If I decide to keep the K-x long term and fix my Pancolar/buy Taks again then it may become a permanent M42 camera. |
Sorry to drift a bit OT, but wouldn't another solution be to just get multiple adapters, and keep them permanently on the lenses? They're not extraordinarily expensive. |
You can't do that with the original Pentax M42 > PK adapter and its cheap clones. You have to mount the adapter separately and then mount the lens. Also the adapter locks into the camera when you mount it, and to unlock it you have to remove the lens first. Basically the adapter is part of the camera, not the lens - it converts the K mount camera into an M42 camera. _________________ Peter - Moderator |
|
Back to top |
|
|
peterqd
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 7448 Location: near High Wycombe, UK
Expire: 2014-01-04
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
peterqd wrote:
I just looked up what data I can find on the Pentax-M smc 1.4/50 and the SMC Takumar 1.4/50. I couldn't find diagrams straight off, but both lenses have 7 elements in 6 groups, similar minimum focussing distance, similar 49mm filter thread and similar weight. If they tweaked the design at all it would have been very minor. _________________ Peter - Moderator |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kukhuvud
Joined: 01 Sep 2011 Posts: 96 Location: Los Angeles, California
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kukhuvud wrote:
When I bought my Takumar 50mm 1.4, I did a lot of reading and research and did come up with the differentiation between the models:
- Super Takumar (8 elements)
- Super Takumar (7 elements)
- Super-Multi-Coated Takumar
- SMC Takumar
IIRC, the Super-Multi-Coated and SMC versions didn't have the issue with yellowing. It's possible that the 8 element version didn't yellow also, but I'm afraid that I don't remember. I do remember though, that the rear element of the 8 element version sticks out a bit and can hit the mirror on a 5D.
I ended up buying the S-M-C version and love it _________________
DSLR: Canon 5D MKIII
SLR: Voigtl�nder Bessaflex (Black), Pentax Spotmatic SP
Rangefinder: FED-2
Meyer: Oreston 50/1.8, Lydith 30/3.5, Orestegon 28/2.8
EOS: 24-70/2.8L, 85/1.2L II, 50/1.2L II, 100/2.8L Macro, 135/2.0L
Russians: Helios-40/1.5 (Silver), Mir 20M/3.5, Industar-26m 50/2.8
Takumar: S-M-C Takumar 50/1.4
Flickr: [url=http://www.envision.la[/url]
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
kuuan
Joined: 14 Jan 2008 Posts: 4572 Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:34 pm Post subject: Re: SMC Pentax M 50mm f1.4 & SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4 Diffe |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
Pii wrote: |
Wondering about those two...
Can we say they are the same lenses image-wise?
Are there any differences in bokeh, sharpness, contarst, close focus, c/a, etc..? |
M lens is shorter and lighter, close focus distance is the same, 45cm.
Optical construction is said to be the same, but on the net I get the impression that the S-M-C and SMC ( which should be 100% identical ) usually are preferred over the M lens. Differences, if existent, should be minor, maybe smoother transition from sharpness to unsharpness of the M42 versions?
kukhuvud wrote: |
...the Super-Multi-Coated and SMC versions didn't have the issue with yellowing... |
disagreed, verified by own experience _________________ my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections
Last edited by kuuan on Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:44 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nesster
Joined: 24 Apr 2008 Posts: 5883 Location: NJ, USA
Expire: 2014-02-20
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nesster wrote:
smc super ltd auto by Nesster, on Flickr
this was pre-windowsill de-yellowing. As you can see the SMC has also yellowed, though less than the Super, probably due to it being a younger lens. _________________ -Jussi
Camera photos
Print Photographica
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
kukhuvud
Joined: 01 Sep 2011 Posts: 96 Location: Los Angeles, California
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kukhuvud wrote:
Wow, consider me SCHOOLED! _________________
DSLR: Canon 5D MKIII
SLR: Voigtl�nder Bessaflex (Black), Pentax Spotmatic SP
Rangefinder: FED-2
Meyer: Oreston 50/1.8, Lydith 30/3.5, Orestegon 28/2.8
EOS: 24-70/2.8L, 85/1.2L II, 50/1.2L II, 100/2.8L Macro, 135/2.0L
Russians: Helios-40/1.5 (Silver), Mir 20M/3.5, Industar-26m 50/2.8
Takumar: S-M-C Takumar 50/1.4
Flickr: [url=http://www.envision.la[/url]
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
erkie
Joined: 08 Oct 2011 Posts: 308 Location: Missouri
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
erkie wrote:
Yes, I don't believe the radioactive element (which yellows) was discontinued until the K series. Although I have never handled one of the K's
Eric _________________
I shoot film and meter with digital
Asahi H3v, Praktica FX3, Retina IIa, Spotmatic sp1000, Fujica V2, Yashica lynx5000, Pentax Sf1, Minolta SRT102, Minolta7000i, Pentax MX, Pentax ME, Pentax Kx
lensesM42- Isco Gottingen Westanar 50/2.8, Isco Gottingen Westron 35/2.8, Rikenon 35/2.8, Spiratone Tc 105/2.5, Spiratone Tc 200/4.5, Sankyo Kohki Komura 300/5, Sankyo Kohki Komura 135/3.5, Auto Tak 35/3.5, Super Tak 150/4, S-M-C Tak 50/1.4, S-M-C Tak 28/3.5, SMC Tak 55/2, Mamya Sekor 55/1.8
K- mount- Helios 44-K-4, Jc penny 28/2.8, Da 18-55, Da 55-300, Pentax F 35-70, SMCP M 50/1.4, SMCP M 50/1.7
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
aoleg
Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1389 Location: Berlin, DE
|
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 2:21 am Post subject: Re: SMC Pentax M 50mm f1.4 & SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4 Diffe |
|
|
aoleg wrote:
kuuan wrote: |
M lens is shorter and lighter, close focus distance is the same, 45cm.
Optical construction is said to be the same, but on the net I get the impression that the S-M-C and SMC ( which should be 100% identical ) usually are preferred over the M lens. Differences, if existent, should be minor, maybe smoother transition from sharpness to unsharpness of the M42 versions?
|
I'll be the killjoy here. I used to have both lenses, the SMC Takumar 50/1.4 (with rubberized focusing ring) and the Pentax-M version. They are pretty different in pretty much everything except the focal length/aperture and the 49mm filter size. The M version is lighter and seems to have better coatings. At least my copy of the SMC Tak was yellow; de-yellowed nicely in 2 weeks under the sun. My copy of SMC Pentax M is sharper wide open; although both lenses have pretty low contrast at 1.4, the Takumar has the "glow" wide open, which characterizes that lens and makes it a love or hate affair. By f/2.8, they are undistinguishable. Also, their rendering is rather different; I do prefer the M's rendering, but know a lot of people who love what the Tak does to background blur.
Having said that, these ARE very different lenses, even if their optical construction appears similar on paper. To me, I'd take the M (actually, I sold the SMC Takumar... was too tempted with their going prices, got $140 for mine. Try getting that for an M!) _________________ List of lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
IAZA
Joined: 16 Apr 2010 Posts: 2587 Location: Indonesia
|
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
IAZA wrote:
Agree with aoleg
I compared my smc m with my friend's smc tak, beside what aoleg said. I found smc m little bit faster
I sell smc m here, but i forgot someone asked if the lens still available or not. I checked again, there's little see of fungus. so I reduce price to 50eur (it was 70eur) he never replied
still, this lens is my fave, to travel with my NEX _________________ nex5, Olympus EPM1, yashica half 14, Canon eos 650 want to see samples of mine? please click My lenses
and My gallery
~Suat~ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kuuan
Joined: 14 Jan 2008 Posts: 4572 Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:53 am Post subject: Re: SMC Pentax M 50mm f1.4 & SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4 Diffe |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
aoleg wrote: |
kuuan wrote: |
M lens is shorter and lighter, close focus distance is the same, 45cm.
Optical construction is said to be the same, but on the net I get the impression that the S-M-C and SMC ( which should be 100% identical ) usually are preferred over the M lens. Differences, if existent, should be minor, maybe smoother transition from sharpness to unsharpness of the M42 versions?
|
I'll be the killjoy here. I used to have both lenses, the SMC Takumar 50/1.4 (with rubberized focusing ring) and the Pentax-M version. They are pretty different in pretty much everything except the focal length/aperture and the 49mm filter size. The M version is lighter and seems to have better coatings. At least my copy of the SMC Tak was yellow; de-yellowed nicely in 2 weeks under the sun. My copy of SMC Pentax M is sharper wide open; although both lenses have pretty low contrast at 1.4, the Takumar has the "glow" wide open, which characterizes that lens and makes it a love or hate affair. By f/2.8, they are undistinguishable. Also, their rendering is rather different; I do prefer the M's rendering, but know a lot of people who love what the Tak does to background blur.
Having said that, these ARE very different lenses, even if their optical construction appears similar on paper. To me, I'd take the M (actually, I sold the SMC Takumar... was too tempted with their going prices, got $140 for mine. Try getting that for an M!) |
very interesting Aoleg and IAZA, I am very interested in any personal experience comparing M42 with later versions!
As mentioned I did not talk from personal experience but had resumed what I have gathered from opinions on the net.
I had wanted to do my own comparison and had bought a M lens once. The first test shots showed quite a difference in rendering and were not too favorable, but soon I discovered that the lens had a separation of cemented elements which certainly must influence it's performance negatively.
Still, from this experience I expect quite a noticeable difference in performance. From the extensive use of 'my' copy of the S-M-C I would disagree and say that it does not glow wide open
Some day I will get a M1.4/50 again, I have all earlier M42 versions and want to compare. I am absolutely unbiased as to which one I would find better and prefer, generally I love lenses to be small which could give the M lens an edge. On the net one finds the opinion that the later 'A' lens is the best of all and identical to the latest AF Pentax FA lens. Once I had planned to get the FA but then was told by two users with experience of S-M-C and FA that I would not gain anything but the AF... hm.. _________________ my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections |
|
Back to top |
|
|
vic
Joined: 24 Aug 2015 Posts: 16
|
Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2015 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
vic wrote:
I don't have any 50/1.4 takumar, unfortunately, I'm trying to cut down on lens buying addiction. I have pentax M50/1.4 and k50/1.4. The latter is said to be the same design as the last takumar smc, but I doubt it.
I have tried my two models, and I can say M50 and K50 render exactly the same, colours, sharpness wide open, at 2.8, 5.6 and 8. I didn't test bokeh, because I'm not skilled at that but the eight-blade diaphragm looks pretty much identical to me. I infer they are the same lens with different barrel.
Since the M version is smaller and lighter, I will get rid of the K version. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3669 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2015 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
I have the 8 & 7 element Super Tak 50/1.4's, the S-M-C Tak, the K and the A, I'm missing the Auto, the SMC Tak, and the M.
Of the ones I do have, I prefer the K 50/1.4, I just get more wow shots from it.
But then I do love the feel of the all metal Tak's.
William, your EOS adapter with the flange could have been fixed rather easily, and you could have continued to use your lenses, the flange opening just needed to be opened up a little bit, a round file would fix it in short order. _________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
FotoPete
Joined: 20 Nov 2012 Posts: 126
|
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2015 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FotoPete wrote:
Among hoarders here haha I have a few of the 1.4s and had wondered what differences were there beyond sharpness. I need to get around to testing them to see how they differ.
On a side note: I can confirm that the super tak (7 elements), SMC tak and the K had varying degrees of yellowing, mostly cured with several days under a jansjo LED lamp from IKEA. (you can also throw the super tak 35/2 in there as well)
http://www.ikea.com/ca/en/catalog/products/20169658/ _________________ My Gear and Other Ramblings :: http://filmlensaddict.blogspot.ca/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 2483
|
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2022 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
I think the M-version doesn't suffer from Yellowing. The K-version does. But maybe Pentax changed it somewhere in the K version. This one does have obvious yellowing but seems to have an early serial number. I thought I had won it but something went wrong in the auction.... (Edit: Oh well my money was refunded like I lost it, then an hour later I have won the auction and they deducted it again)
_________________ pentaxian |
|
Back to top |
|
|
titrisol70
Joined: 14 Dec 2021 Posts: 144 Location: State of Denial
|
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2022 3:28 am Post subject: Re: SMC Pentax M 50mm f1.4 & SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4 Diffe |
|
|
titrisol70 wrote:
Pii wrote: |
Wondering about those two...
Can we say they are the same lenses image-wise?
Are there any differences in bokeh, sharpness, contarst, close focus, c/a, etc..? |
The M series while having similar formula is smaller, lighter and has better coatings; and you know a micron here, a micron there, yields a lens that is similar but not the same.
M-lens will have much better contrast, and sharpness at the center. Bokeh is similar but not identical.
I had the M and the A for a while, but sold them and kept the Takumars and FA
With the exception of the 8 element 50/1.4 all the Takumars tend to yellow as the thorium element in the glass discolors, this can be cured by exposing it to UV or bright light for a few days (difference is very noticeable) http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Takumar#The_Takumar_50.2F1.4
The old Super-takumars make images which are nicer to my eye
Last edited by titrisol70 on Tue Jul 05, 2022 6:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|