Non-Takumar lenses with mechanics as good

calvin83 · Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7581 Location: Hong Kong

For Japanese lenses I tried, my vote goes to the early preset Komura, Minolta MC, Topcor RE, early Vivitar series 1 and Super Takumar.
For Germany lenses I tired, my vote goes to the chrome Steinheil, zebra Rodenstock, Schneider QBM and Leica R.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

visualopsins · Expire: 2025-04-11

jamaeolus · Expire: 2015-08-20

I agree on the Takumar being the standard bearer. Ergonomically Super Multi Coated Takumar era are my all time favorite. They still have all metal construction and the "look" of the knurled aluminum focus and diaphragm rings is hard to beat. Mechanically they just work. Optically they are right up against the best available at that time. I mentioned in another thread about my opinion regarding Asahi products of that era. They are nearly bulletproof. I never hesitate on an auction for lenses listed untested from asahi and have only had one minor fail. One lens, a 24mm came in with a rather stiff region in the focus throw. My take: Topcon RE are optically stellar but mechanically can have problems. I have a 50mm 1.8 a 50mm 1.4 and 200mm 5.6 that all have mechanical issues. In a rather small topcon collection. Carl Zeiss Jena are optically excellent but many of my purchases have stiff spots in the focus throw. You frequently see them in the for parts or repair for one reason or another. Olympus are probably second in my book overall. Optically excellent, small package size, and pleasant operation the focus throw and diaphragm are well designed from an ergonomic standpoint. The only downsides are price and that they seem to be extra prone to fungus. Minolta and Konica are both very good. Yashica and Mamiya Sekor are nicely completed as well. Rollei, Carl Zeiss are both excellent but you definitely pay a premium for them. Schneider/Isco are generally good. Optically and mechanically they are pretty well done. Prices can be good, or not, you really have to pay attention. I don't have enough experience with Meyer, Enna, Schact, or Steinhiel to make an assessment of their overall ergonomic/optic/value milieu.

luisalegria · Expire: 2018-01-18

I have dealt in some Topcors.
I have also repaired a few - 55 Macro, 100/2.8, 135/3.5
My general impression, considering my limited experience with them, so this is just from a limited perspective -
They are rather lightly built internally and externally, and mechanically are far from ideal.
Twice I have seen bent aperture linkages (a truly awful case with the macro, long unsupported linkages bent like spaghetti ) and helical guide displacement, due I think to light construction/weak materials and designs that make it possible for these failures.
This sort of thing doesn't happen, or rather cant happen on a Takumar - there's no room in there to bend an aperture linkage, to start with, on the Takumar macro or PentaxM macro.
Nikkor macro has lots of room inside, but it is very sturdy.
Of course this hasn't got a lot to do with optical results.

calvin83 · Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7581 Location: Hong Kong

Yes. I forget the aperture linkages is the weakest link of the RE Topcors. It seems they are not very good at designing those parts. Rolling Eyes

glaebhoerl · Joined: 03 May 2014 Posts: 100 Location: Hungary

Thanks everyone, this is useful information. It's really the case that none of my other lenses are as good as my two Takumars; it's not that the others are bad, the Takumars are just superlatively good. My Minoltas are all MD, so that explains part of it (I had been going for newer versions: smaller bodies, newer formulas, improved coatings, ...). I will have to try some MCs as well.

Just to confirm that I'm not imagining things, I took out the 57/1.4 (all-metal) Hexanon and 58/1.8 Topcor (I haven't actually used this one for photos yet as the adapter is still in the mail), which people have mentioned, to compare against the 50/1.4 S-M-C Tak directly (several times, to be really sure). The aperture rings on both are very obviously flimsier so that's not really worth discussing. The focus rings are quite good (and I would never think to level a complaint if just using them on their own), but I wasn't imagining things: the Takumar is, not dramatically, but perceptibly nicer. Its designers have somehow found the perfect level of effort (or lack of it) for turning the ring (I wouldn't be sure that such a "perfect level" even exists if the lens weren't evidence of it), and it is completely smooth no matter how slowly or suddenly I try to do it. The Topcor is very slightly harder to turn, and the Hexanon is very slightly stickier and uneven especially with faster movements. (I need to emphasize, again, that I would never think these things about these lenses on their own if I weren't comparing them against the Takumar.) For some reason these rather small objective differences cause a big difference in the enjoyment of use: when using the Hexanon (again I haven't used the Topcor yet) I don't have any thoughts about the focus ring (it's just "normal"), and when using the Takumar I think "woah this is smooth". I encourage anyone with both a Takumar and one of the other candidate lenses to try this experiment (comparing them side-by-side) as well.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Such a comparison is meaningless unless all the lenses involved have been recently CLA'd so they have fresh lubricants.

People complain about Zeiss Jena lenses, it's not the lenses, it's the lubricants that are at fault. Properly lubricated, they are perfectly smooth.

Dirt getting inside is another major factor. I recently took apart the helicoid of a TT&H anamorphic lens from the 1960s, it had been very stiff and notchy, but after a good clean and relube it is as smooth as you could ever ask for. In this case, it was more dirt that had got inside than deteriorated lubricants.

jamaeolus · Expire: 2015-08-20

See tho, thats the thing. The implementation by Asahi some 40-50 years ago still holds up. We weren't asking about refurbished lenses. A CLA'd lens is way more expensive. The grease for the focus throw still moves properly, the apertures function as they should. There is no rubber pieces to degrade and fall off as in Topcon and others. Ergonomics, value and dependability of those lenses is nonpariel.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

I don't agree they are nonpareil, there are lots of lenses that are just as good. Perhaps, as Gerald says, Pentax used better lubricants?

luisalegria · Expire: 2018-01-18

The advantage of the Takumars helicals is almost perfect damping.
This was true even when all these lenses were new.

I agree there was some better functioning grease on these - the long life of this stuff is probably one indicator.

I also suspect that the Takumar helicals were more precisely machined to closer tolerances. This creates a greater effective bearing surface.

The whole thing is probably an old Asahi trade secret.

In many cases its clear that some of the roughness on some lenses is because there is some play/backlash on the screw because its a bit loose.

JJB · Joined: 02 Oct 2014 Posts: 424 Location: USA

For what it's worth, I have been out shooting in temperatures ranging from 5-15 degrees Fahrenheit with a KH 50/1.7 EE, a Topcor 35/2.8 and a SMC Takumar 35/3.5, the latter two being new to me. In these extremes the Takumar is smooth as can be, the Topcor also handles well, and the KH is a bit stiffer in its handling (although the aperture ring is always a bit resistant regardless of temperature)

in terms of image quality, I like them all, although maybe the Tak gets the edge in handling detail in snowy landscapes.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

jamaeolus · Expire: 2015-08-20

As u can tell I likes me sum Taks. There are other great lenses as well, of course. I have the Carl Zeiss Ultron which is really nice but I have so few of the Oberkochen products I can't really say anything about overall quality. I have no doubt they are all stellar. I just can't speak from experience. Leica and Angenieux also are out of my price range, I have none.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

The Ultron is a Voigtlander production, designed by Voigtlander and built in their factory; the reason it carries the Zeiss name is that Voigtlander were taken over by the Zeiss Ikon corporation. The contemporary Oberkochen product was the Planar 2/50 for Contarex.

visualopsins · Expire: 2025-04-11

pathdoc · Joined: 11 Jul 2015 Posts: 11

Next to my Takumars, the nicest lenses I have are my Rikenon P 55mm/1.2 and RMC Tokina 17/3.5. The build quality of both is exquisite. Next, a long way back overall but still feeling nice on the focus, is the Rikenon XR 28/2.8. My SMC-M 80-200/4.5 is nice, and the quality is excellent, but it somehow just doesn't feel as sublime as the leaders, possibly because of the one touch zoom/focus mechanism; it's being asked to do too much at once?

Gardener · Joined: 22 Sep 2013 Posts: 950 Location: USA

Takumars' mechanical design is excellent but when in similar condition they feel no better or worse than Canons, or Zuikos, or Nikkors or Rokkors. They are just more likely to be found in better condition.

visualopsins · Expire: 2025-04-11

True, yes, but that says nothing about what it takes to get a Takumar into "similar condition". Wink

Due to Takumar superior design and construction, much more use is required to wear out the mechanics.

jamaeolus · Expire: 2015-08-20

The whole package is what you got with asahi, back in the day. Other manufacturers made some excellent product as well, but a super multi coated tak, barring abuse will likely just work.

wildlight images · Joined: 27 Aug 2013 Posts: 56

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

jamaeolus · Expire: 2015-08-20

Minoltas also seem to be good though I personally have not had as much experience with them. Also, optically they are generally excellent. OP doesn't mention what he's using these on, but the short flange distance limits wide adoption in the manual forum community.

Nordentro · Expire: 2015-01-29

Soligor C/D lenses are very good mechanicly. I have had many and all of them have been nice!