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

Super-Takumar 50mm 1:1.4 Serial No. 3166621
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:35 pm    Post subject: Super-Takumar 50mm 1:1.4 Serial No. 3166621 Reply with quote

I am slightly not satisfied with performance of my Super-Takumar 50mm F1.4
I do not know if it is just me or I think that this lens should be sharper wide open at f1.4
I attached few pictures with some of them cropped to 1:1.
All pictures were taken hand-held with fill-in flash (except #4) mostly wide open at f1.4 but few of them stopped down (easily recognizable)
Please let me know what do you guys think!

01.
02.
03.
04.
05.
06.
07.
08.
09.
10.
11.
12.
13.


Here are cropped pictures (1:1)

01.
02.
03.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Frontal flash kills shadows and makes a lens look less sharp than it actually is.
Try with a lateral light scheme.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
Frontal flash kills shadows and makes a lens look less sharp than it actually is.
Try with a lateral light scheme.


This is largely true, but high-speed lenses are not as sharp close up as slower ones. The Takumar is a fairly good lens, but this application does not suit it best.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oreste wrote:
....this application does not suit it best.

I completely agree. With such a short depth of field, 3D subjects like this are always going to have a lot of out-of-focus areas and it's extremely difficult to focus precisely on the point you intend. The small areas that are in focus in the pictures seem quite sharp. Try a flat 2D subject and come back with the results.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

peterqd wrote:
Oreste wrote:
....this application does not suit it best.

I completely agree. With such a short depth of field, 3D subjects like this are always going to have a lot of out-of-focus areas and it's extremely difficult to focus precisely on the point you intend. The small areas that are in focus in the pictures seem quite sharp. Try a flat 2D subject and come back with the results.


Fast 50mm lenses are best used for intermediate-distance photographs of larger objects where the depth of field is not so shallow, and the lens is performing better.


Last edited by Oreste on Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:41 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

f/1.4 will give a very shallow depth of field. Looking at those photos, the sharp bits look sharp to me. Perhaps they are not the bits you intended to be sharp though Smile


PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ManualFocus-G wrote:
f/1.4 will give a very shallow depth of field. Looking at those photos, the sharp bits look sharp to me. Perhaps they are not the bits you intended to be sharp though Smile


+1
The perfectly focused bits seem to me definitely sharp enough for a 1.4/50 at such close focus distance.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yep, it's not the lens... Wink


PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aanything wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:
f/1.4 will give a very shallow depth of field. Looking at those photos, the sharp bits look sharp to me. Perhaps they are not the bits you intended to be sharp though Smile


+1
The perfectly focused bits seem to me definitely sharp enough for a 1.4/50 at such close focus distance.

Agreed. Smile


PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

While I was testing the lens, here is explained "point of focus" or where I tried to focus:

Img 01: the last of the bigger petals next to the center

Img 02: the center of the flower

Img 03: in the second row of closest "whatever it is" (counted from left)

Img 04: closest petals to the center of the flower (foreground) (no flash in this photo has been used)

Img 05: This one I tried to get it right for testing purpose and paid attention that I focus on tip of 3 leafs closest to me, tips slightly pointing towards me (group of 3)

Img 06: the stem of the last leaf

Img 07: the leafs on the left (last 3 on the top of the stem)

Img 08: center of the flower and first petals after

Img 09: the center of the flower on the left

Img 10: the center of the flower (green)

Img 11: the crocked ones (yellow) in the center of the flower

Img 12: the green tips closest to me.

Img 13: the same focus point but stopped down (I do not remember exactly how far I stopped down)

While pictures were taken in the evening/midnight I used built-in Olympus Pen E-PL1 flash (not very powerful) but with this lens even low settings of Fill-in was enough to well lit the object. I was always at least 50-60cm (around 2 feet) away from the subject.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

After de-yellowing the super-tak with Ikea Jansjo LED lamp I decided to take some pictures at workplace (anyway need them to make Christmas card for my coworkers) and thought to be a nice idea to post them here.

They are slightly PP with Olympus Master 2 (sharpness: +5 and contrast: +20)
Re-sized with IrfanView to long side set at 1200pix.
All hand-held (forget tripod at home) wide open with ISO1000, around 03:00am.



























PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just don't understand why you would want to judge the performance of a lens wide open. It looks pretty good to me, but it would be miles better closed down a little.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

peterqd wrote:
I just don't understand why you would want to judge the performance of a lens wide open. It looks pretty good to me, but it would be miles better closed down a little.


While I like to experiment with low light photography... or maybe better to say photos taken overnight.
Looking for a sharp lens wide-open.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

While I just walked to local supermarket and had the camera with me, here are some samples at F4 without any PP just resizing with IrfanView.













PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

peterqd wrote:
I just don't understand why you would want to judge the performance of a lens wide open. It looks pretty good to me, but it would be miles better closed down a little.


In my view, if you have a fast lens, you may WANT to use it a maximum aperture at some stage. Therefore, it makes sense to test its capabilities and find its strengths and weaknesses.
e.g. F1.4 is not ideal for macro, as can be seen from those photos. F5.6-F8 is more useful for macro.

As for the Super Tak itself, I have quite a few of these (repairing and reselling) and they are reasonably sharp in the centre, and a little soft in the corners. Generally a nice lens, the SMC Takumar is the same optical formula, but but the coatings improve the contrast quite a lot.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dnas wrote:
In my view, if you have a fast lens, you may WANT to use it a maximum aperture at some stage.

I would never WANT to (unless I was after a special shallow DOF effect). There could feasibly be a situation where I was FORCED to, but I've never come across it yet. That would be my final option after running out of slow shutter speeds and higher ISO settings.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

shallow DOF effect? I was looking for sharpness at 1.4...

No PP at all in this sample... not re-sized either.



PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pentax K10D, s1/20th iso800 f1.4 Super Tak

I took a pimple out from under her nose Laughing otherwise It's outa-da-camera.

Sharp, couldn't really call it sharp, but for the subject I wouldn't want it to be Wink



She plays with her hair a lot Confused


PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

peterqd wrote:
dnas wrote:
In my view, if you have a fast lens, you may WANT to use it a maximum aperture at some stage.

I would never WANT to (unless I was after a special shallow DOF effect). There could feasibly be a situation where I was FORCED to, but I've never come across it yet. That would be my final option after running out of slow shutter speeds and higher ISO settings.


But then by that logic, YOU would not buy an F1.4 lens. But if you personally DO HAVE an F1.4 lens, then wouldn't it be better to test the lens, so you know its exact capabilities if you are FORCED to use it at F1.4?


PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

For wide open sharpness, My Topcor RE 58/1.8 is my best, but it can produce glow and CA in high contrast lighting.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just tried tonight a Canon FD 50mm 1.8 and I like it better...

ISO: 1600 at 2.8 taken hand-held with some minimal PP during RAW development (less then Pentax)
Re-sized with IrfanView, long side set to 1200pix

Some samples here that can be compared (same subject)...

































PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dnas wrote:
peterqd wrote:
dnas wrote:
In my view, if you have a fast lens, you may WANT to use it a maximum aperture at some stage.

I would never WANT to (unless I was after a special shallow DOF effect). There could feasibly be a situation where I was FORCED to, but I've never come across it yet. That would be my final option after running out of slow shutter speeds and higher ISO settings.


But then by that logic, YOU would not buy an F1.4 lens. But if you personally DO HAVE an F1.4 lens, then wouldn't it be better to test the lens, so you know its exact capabilities if you are FORCED to use it at F1.4?

That's a jump too far, I can't follow you. A 1.4 lens is still faster than a 2.8 when they're both stopped down 1 stop? I don't understand why you're arguing with me, what's your angle? And can we stop shouting please?


PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think I lost myself during the running of this thread.
I'm not sure what the op is trying to say/ask.

The wide open pics look decently sharp to me (especially considering the max aperture vs price of this lens); the stopped down ones are sharper, but that happened with every single lens I tried, so I don't think it's an issue.
That behavior reflects perfectly my experience with various versions of this lens: It is unarguably from usable to quite sharp wide open, so you will get decent pics even in those situations in which you are forced to shoot at f1.4 (you have to be really careful with focus, though, I always miss some when I shoot that open), and if you want to get the best from this, just find a way to shoot stopped down a little.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry people, I tried something but I think I just confused everyone... I will try to explain...

While Pentax is faster I was surprised when at the same focal length and f-stop the Canon was having faster aperture time. To compensate for this I just closed 1 stop but boosted ISO to have same aperture time but somehow escaped my attention that sharpness will change.

Anyway, I simulated at home in a dark corner, low-light situation on some decorative chrome metal flowers.

Pictures were taken hand-held and during RAW Development I had following settings:
Exp. Comp: 0.2EV
Sharpness: +1
Contrast: +5

then I had them re-seized with IrfanView.

Pentax pictures:
1. at 1.4; ISO1600; 1/40 sec
2. add half-stop (I guess, just dot there); ISO1600; 1/20 sec
3. at 2.8; ISO1600; 1/15 sec

Canon pictures:
1. at 1.8; ISO1600; 1/30 sec
2. add half-stop; ISO1600; 1/25 sec
3. at 2.8; ISO1600; 1/20 sec

here can be seen variation in exposure time, and what I tried to achieve.

here are the samples (first Pentax, then Canon):







----------








PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

peterqd wrote:
dnas wrote:
peterqd wrote:
dnas wrote:
In my view, if you have a fast lens, you may WANT to use it a maximum aperture at some stage.

I would never WANT to (unless I was after a special shallow DOF effect). There could feasibly be a situation where I was FORCED to, but I've never come across it yet. That would be my final option after running out of slow shutter speeds and higher ISO settings.


But then by that logic, YOU would not buy an F1.4 lens. But if you personally DO HAVE an F1.4 lens, then wouldn't it be better to test the lens, so you know its exact capabilities if you are FORCED to use it at F1.4?

That's a jump too far, I can't follow you. A 1.4 lens is still faster than a 2.8 when they're both stopped down 1 stop? I don't understand why you're arguing with me, what's your angle? And can we stop shouting please?


Hey, slow down... You are too aggressive, or have anger management issues... He just try to highlight some of the words you said and he used CAPITOL letters instead of "quotation marks"...

IMO his logic is perfectly fine, otherwise why people should purchase fast lens or please explain why you purchased F1.4 lens if you don't use it? For shallow depth of field? Everyone knows that fast lenses are generally made for low-light condition/photography.

Do you agree with this? Cool