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

Which prime lens?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Which prime lens is better quality (glass & image)
Porst Color Reflex MC Auto 55mm f1:1.2
9%
 9%  [ 2 ]
Asahi Pentax-M SMC 50mm f1:1.4
71%
 71%  [ 15 ]
Asahi Pentax-A SMC 50mm f1:1.7
9%
 9%  [ 2 ]
Asahi Super Takumar SMC 50mm f:1.8
9%
 9%  [ 2 ]
Total Votes : 21



PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:32 pm    Post subject: Which prime lens? Reply with quote
Hi,

Could you all tell me what prime lens would be better (glass & image quality) ranging from good to best? Or give comment on one of these lenses?

I just bought the porst, super takumar, and pantax-a but an original asahi pentax-m seems also interesting..
Should I go for the asahi or is Porst blowing them miles away regarding IQ and glass quality?

- Porst Color Reflex MC Auto 55mm f1/1.2
- Asahi Pentax-M SMC 50mm f1/1.4
- Asahi Pentax-A SMC 50mm f1/1.7
- Asahi Super Takumar SMC 55mm f/1.8

(the super takumar is 55mm, not 50mm as in the poll.. mistake)

And what would be better?:
pentax-M smc 50mm 1.4 or Super Takumar 50mm 1.4
Or are they the same but rebranded?

I know, there are a lot of questions, but I really need to know this..
I just can't buy every lens on ebay Smile I'm hesitating now between
pentax-m 50mm 1.4 and super takumar 50mm 1.4.

But I also started this poll because I won't keep all these lenses.
Except the Porst 1.2, but I'll also keep/buy another one.
So that's why I wanted to know which is good-better-best..

I found part of answers on the forum or answers like "test yourself" but I didn't received the other lenses yet and 1.4 asahi are getting rare these days (except direct buy)..
Thanks a lot!
(moderator, sorry if this post is not on the right section.. )

Last edited by ezechiel on Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:55 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If you need sharpness, don't take the Porst Smile


PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi, welcome to the forum ...

I don't have the Porst, but i have the M/1.4 and the A/1.7 ...
Personally, i prefer the M/1.4 wrt the A/1.7 because of the extra half stop (i use MF even with my AF lenses, so an extra half stop means being able to focus in low light) ...
I have found the M/1.4 a little better wrt the A/1.7 in terms of sharpness and bokeh, but i didn't perform any "scientific" test to verify the IQ of the two lenses, and the quality of the bokeh is highly subjective ...

What kind of pictures are you aiming for ?

Cheers


PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had Porst and M-1.4 from above lenses. Porst not bad at all if you need 1.2 if don't need I prefer M-1.4.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm missing the SMC Pentax 50mm f/1.4 in the list. I'd actually recommend this version as it is better built than the M version.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Welcome!

I think I cannot answer your question, since these lenses are very different. I would not want to compare them.

If you need a very fast lens, go for the f1.2... and so on...


PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
SMC M 50/1.4
SMC M 50/1.7
SMC M 50/2
Compared here Wink


PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'd say get the Porst f/1.2 only if you absolutely need that last half-stop, otherwise all other choices are better in my opinion. For a fast lens I'd pick the 50mm f/1.4, but if you don't mind a slightly slower lens, the 55mm f/1.8 may be better value since it's often cheaper than the f/1.4.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
well, the pimary use would be nature (normal + reverse macro) and lightnings. secondary use: portraits and others

so i guess i should keep the porst 1.2

but then, what is the difference between the:
- 50mm 1.4 super takumar
- 50mm 1.4 takumar smc
- 50mm 1.4 pentax-m smc

? I read the story about Mr. Takuma, but didn't find any info wether Pentax-M is before or after the Takumar series. But THE question now:

which one should I get? pentax-m, Super Takumar or takumar smc (first called super-multi-coated, later just smc).


PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi,

ezechiel wrote:
well, the pimary use would be nature (normal + reverse macro) and lightnings. secondary use: portraits and others

so i guess i should keep the porst 1.2

but then, what is the difference between the:
- 50mm 1.4 super takumar
- 50mm 1.4 takumar smc
- 50mm 1.4 pentax-m smc

? I read the story about Mr. Takuma, but didn't find any info wether Pentax-M is before or after the Takumar series. But THE question now:

which one should I get? pentax-m, Super Takumar or takumar smc (first called super-multi-coated, later just smc).


The Super Takumar has a lighter coating wrt the SMC lenses, which means that the SMC lenses have a better contrast and are less prone to flare ... And, for the story, the Takumars were made before the Pentax-M lenses (Takumar first, then Super Takumar, and finally the SMC Takumar) ...

For portraits, both the 55/1.8 and the 50/1.4 are fine (i suppose you are using a Pentax digital camera, with a crop factor of 1.5, which means that the 50mm will behave like a 75mm, and the 55mm like an 80mm) ...

If i remember well, the SMC Takumar and the Pentax-M 50/1.4 share the same optical design. In such a case, i would prefer the Pentax-M, because you can use it wide open while shooting (i.e. you are not forced to stop-down the lens before shooting) ...

Hope this helps.

Cheers


PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
indianadinos wrote:
In such a case, i would prefer the Pentax-M, because you can use it wide open while shooting (i.e. you are not forced to stop-down the lens before shooting) ...


You can also use the Takumar in Av mode at all apertures, you can't with the K mount on DSLR Wink


PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ezechiel wrote:
well, the pimary use would be nature (normal + reverse macro) and lightnings. secondary use: portraits and others

which one should I get? pentax-m, Super Takumar or takumar smc (first called super-multi-coated, later just smc).


You got a problem here sir! The 55/1.8 will beat the 50/1.4 any day of the week in nature/landscape. The 50/1.4 will however beat the 55/1.8 any day of the week on portraits.

I would get the S-M-C Takumar versions of the 55/1.8 and 50/1.4. Completly different character of the lenses. Cannot be compared, because they both have very distinct uses.

Why the Taks? They are M42 and can be used on all systems. And they are bloody sexy. I have yet to find another lens brand that have the same feel and quality in the build.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 7:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
second the words of zewrak 100%


PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:
second the words of zewrak 100%


Well, then I'll keep the 55mm 1.8 anyway..

So the smc tak would be better than pentax-m?

And what is wrong with the Porst? It is rather hard to find on *bay and rather expensive (ca 180€). Would it be selling more than its value?

Now, just have to find a smc tak 50mm 1.4..
I should have put this lens in the poll too Smile

Oh, before I forget. I saw a 'super multi coated' and and 'smc' but the design of the 'smc' is rather new (serial nr is 7.69x.xxx) while the other one is 2.8xx.xxx with a design that I prefer. Is there any other difference except the design? Better take an older series or a newer one?


PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The lens which says SMC has a rubberized focus ring
the one which says Super Multi Coated written out ( short referred to as S-M-C ) just like the Super Takumar is all metal and therefore often preferred.

There is an early version of the Super Tak with 8 elements, later version have the same optical design as S-M-C and SMC which have superior coating, and I believe the M 1.4/50 is identical optically to S-M-C and SMC.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
zewrak wrote:
ezechiel wrote:
well, the pimary use would be nature (normal + reverse macro) and lightnings. secondary use: portraits and others

which one should I get? pentax-m, Super Takumar or takumar smc (first called super-multi-coated, later just smc).


You got a problem here sir! The 55/1.8 will beat the 50/1.4 any day of the week in nature/landscape. The 50/1.4 will however beat the 55/1.8 any day of the week on portraits.

I would get the S-M-C Takumar versions of the 55/1.8 and 50/1.4. Completly different character of the lenses. Cannot be compared, because they both have very distinct uses.

Why the Taks? They are M42 and can be used on all systems. And they are bloody sexy. I have yet to find another lens brand that have the same feel and quality in the build.


I don't discuss about your opinion, Zewrak, but I think that the S-M-C 1,4 has a touch of quality (subjetive preference) that I don't find in the 1,8/55, and that touch expands on all the subjects (specially on near subjects, not only people).

In the 50-55/1,8 world, I chose the pancolar 1,8/50 (I prefer here the CZJ IQ)


PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:

I don't discuss about your opinion, Zewrak, but I think that the S-M-C 1,4 has a touch of quality (subjetive preference) that I don't find in the 1,8/55, and that touch expands on all the subjects (specially on near subjects, not only people).


Exactly my point. For landscape work, 50/1.4 is not as good as the 55/1.8. For portraits and closer work, 50/1.4 is better then 55/1.8. I just limited to landscape/portraits since that what the original poster asked for. Smile


PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes.

Better then!

Rino.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
zewrak wrote:
For landscape work, 50/1.4 is not as good as the 55/1.8. For portraits and closer work, 50/1.4 is better then 55/1.8.


Out of curiousity (not disagreement) – what is it that makes the 55mm f/1.8 better for landscapes in your opinion?


PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hello,

i've got the Porst MC 1.2/55mm and this lens is fantastic, if you can find it in good condition.

First of all, do you plan using it on a crop Cam or a FF Body?

My opinion as a user of a FF EOS 5D, keep the Porst. I've got a lot of
Lenses with 1.4. Most of them are very soft and the behavior from edge to edge was not really good.
The Porst as a 1.2 is nearly as good as any 1.4 lens i know. A bit softer at 1.2, but good from edge to edge.

Here are some examples.. with open aperture

Supermarket, max aperture



2. Taken on SIFNOS "greek island)



3. Taken on SIFNOS (greek island)


Picture 3 was taken under very intensiv sunlight in greek wide open.. an astouning lens.. this lens is a "keeper".

Greetz
Hinnerker


PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow, incredible shots hinnerker! The first one is superb, looks like it's been shot in a casino / wind tunnel or something Shocked


PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
zewrak wrote:
For landscape work, 50/1.4 is not as good as the 55/1.8. For portraits and closer work, 50/1.4 is better then 55/1.8.


Out of curiousity (not disagreement) – what is it that makes the 55mm f/1.8 better for landscapes in your opinion?


Not sure really. The 50/1.4 never impressed me on infinity or close to it. None of the copies I tried. The 55/1.8 all of my copies (had 4 by now) have always performed well on distant objects with more vivid colours and more local contrast some how. Hard to explain, but it always outperformed the 50ies (tried 2 of them, might been unlucky with both).


PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Shrek wrote:
Wow, incredible shots hinnerker! The first one is superb, looks like it's been shot in a casino / wind tunnel or something Shocked


Yes, the Porst 1.2 has a very interesting Bokeh and sometimes exciting "swirly" effects. In the dark this lens is a very good performer and used as a normal Lens, stopped down to 2.8 oder 4, this lens is very sharp.

The Bokeh is nearly as nice as the legendary Minolta Rokkor 1.2/58.
In a german Forum we did a comparison of some 1.2 lenses and the Porst was my favorit. Sharper than the Rokkor, especially when stopped down to f2.0 or 2.8 with a very nice bokeh.

This lens is a keeper.

Thats why i vote for the Porst.

KEEP IN MIND..
Open aperture in heavy sunlight with a 1.2 lens.. this is great.
(Greek Islands)




This one is stopped down to f2
(greek island also)



greetz
Hinnerker


PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hallo Hinnerker,

really nice shots. Is the Porst a TOMIOKA ?


PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hallo Rolf,

nobody knows this exactly. You can find this lens under different brands as chinon, Porst and Tomioka.

The lens.. Multi Coating.. (i thought the original Tomioka Lens was single coated) but it could be. that the lens was later produced with the same formula as the Tomioka and did get a MC.. !?!?




Greetz
Hinnerker
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2