View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
fikkser
Joined: 09 Aug 2014 Posts: 22 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 8:53 pm Post subject: Super-Takumar 28mm f3.5 |
|
|
fikkser wrote:
Using my Takumar 28 3.5 today I noticed it's very soft at infinite at f3.5 but it's much sharper at about f8 (looks good in fact). I'm no expert in optics but it looks too soft. Perhaps it worth mentioning that it looks good at short distances, thats what makes me wonder. I've used other glass at infinity with the same camera + adapter setup without problems.
Took this with my EOS 5Dc at infinity - 100% crop at f3.5. The fence is about 15-20 meters away. Is that normal behavior?
[/img] _________________ Pentaxian |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7785 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
Yeah......I think it should be better than that. It's not a perfect lens wide open, and I rarely use mine wide open. Show us some shots stopped down a couple of stops, and some uncropped. _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
luisalegria
Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 6627 Location: San Francisco, USA
Expire: 2018-01-18
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
luisalegria wrote:
Not too rare problem with Takumars (and many others too) is the optical block may have slipped and is no longer quite reaching infinity.
A bit of adjustment may fix this. _________________ 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 |
|
|
fikkser
Joined: 09 Aug 2014 Posts: 22 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fikkser wrote:
Thanks for the replies!
Got some uncropped pics too. Sorry about the quality of them, just did some dumb shots wile going to the store - noticing the problem during the trip. Could take new pictures but dont know if it would help.
Would a 28mm be more sensitive to a faulty adapter than a 50 or 100mm lens?
anyway
http://www.likstoff.se/bilder/f35.jpg uncropped f3.5 close up
http://www.likstoff.se/bilder/f35b.jpg f3.5 from car window. looks sharper closer to car.
http://www.likstoff.se/bilder/f8.jpg f8 at infinity _________________ Pentaxian |
|
Back to top |
|
|
luisalegria
Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 6627 Location: San Francisco, USA
Expire: 2018-01-18
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
luisalegria wrote:
Maybe.
Wide angles have very small focus travel and tend to be factory adjusted to be spot on at infinity. There is no leeway.
A bit off on the adapter and its noticeable at infinity.
You could stop down of course, that will extend DOF and make the infinity results acceptable.
Long lenses/telephotos are different.
If I had a $ for every long focus/telephoto lens I have seen that focuses beyond infinity, well, I could buy a pretty nice lens! That makes a lot of adapter problems moot. _________________ 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 |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6008 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
There might not be much wrong with your lens.
100% crop @ f3.5 doesn't look much good on my copy either.
By f8 - everything is fine.
Realistically, no one shoots distance shots on these lenses wide open as it is not what they were designed for.
Here are a couple of snaps to illustrate.
First two at f3.5 and next two at f8. The second each time is a near 100% crop.
OH
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10539 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
My 5Dc mirror hits this lens when infinity focus. So I think adapter might be a little too thick. As Luis says, wide angle lenses are more sensitive to accuracy of adapter thickness. _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3669 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
Which 28/3.5 do you have, Early 55mm filter or the later 49mm?
This is my Early 28/3.5 on 1DIII, My later S-M-C 28/3.5 is much sharper.
_________________ 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 |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6008 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
Lightshow wrote: |
Which 28/3.5 do you have, Early 55mm filter or the later 49mm?
This is my Early 28/3.5 on 1DIII, My later S-M-C 28/3.5 is much sharper.
|
Early 55mm Super-Takumar
OH |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fikkser
Joined: 09 Aug 2014 Posts: 22 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
fikkser wrote:
Thanks for your answers! Will update if I find something new.
I think it's the early version, f22 and looks like 55mm filter, cant measure it now.
visualopsins wrote: |
My 5Dc mirror hits this lens when infinity focus. So I think adapter might be a little too thick. As Luis says, wide angle lenses are more sensitive to accuracy of adapter thickness. |
It did hit the mirror before I showed the mirror what a diamond file can do. _________________ Pentaxian |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tromboads
Joined: 29 May 2012 Posts: 1782 Location: Melbourne AU
Expire: 2015-10-01
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
tromboads wrote:
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 2491
|
Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2022 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
Lightshow wrote: |
Which 28/3.5 do you have, Early 55mm filter or the later 49mm?
This is my Early 28/3.5 on 1DIII, My later S-M-C 28/3.5 is much sharper.
|
It's actually 58mm not 55 _________________ pentaxian |
|
Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008 Posts: 6943 Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2022 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
Another old thread brought back to life
I always found the later SMC lenses to be better; this may just have been because of the coatings though. _________________ Casual attendance these days |
|
Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 2491
|
Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2022 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
martinsmith99 wrote: |
Another old thread brought back to life
I always found the later SMC lenses to be better; this may just have been because of the coatings though. |
The second version is better behaved, but I wanted to see what the bad behavior of this one was like. Bokeh is certainly more interesting.
Prickleh by The lens profile, on Flickr
They are very different lenses so worth having both.
_________________ pentaxian |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10539 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2022 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Both, yes! Super-Multi-Coating and SMC do increase contrast and flare reduction. _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008 Posts: 6943 Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2022 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
I'm not sure there is anything bad about a lens; it's more about its character. _________________ Casual attendance these days |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|