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

Sigma 50 1.4 HSM and Takumar 50mm 1.4 bokeh test
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:53 am    Post subject: Sigma 50 1.4 HSM and Takumar 50mm 1.4 bokeh test Reply with quote
I just bought the Sigma and wanted to find out the differences between these two lenses. Takumar is sharper wide open but Sigma produces smoother bokeh. However I find that Takumars bokeh is better in real life photos...

Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM


Takumar 50mm 1.4


Maybe I'll take more samples later...

Here's another pic 100% crop:

SIGMA


TAKUMAR


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
To my eyes, the Sigma looks better in both photos posted. It has higher contrast, so the in focus subject looks sharper. In the last two, the Sigma background is smoother, and I se glow in the Takumar shot.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
From your results I choose the Sigma.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
What are these lenses? 50-60 years apart? And the Super-Tak is a tiny little thing that if you are lucky you can pick up for under $100.

Did you use the regular version or the early 8-element one?


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Did you use the regular version or the early 8-element one?


You should add the S-M-C Takumar to this question too. The design also changes from the transition to the Super-Tak to the S-M-C/SMC.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
while I like how sigma renders the background a weak point of this lens is the foreground rendering - see how smooth the takumar is in the first example.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
themoleman342 wrote:
Quote:
Did you use the regular version or the early 8-element one?


You should add the S-M-C Takumar to this question too. The design also changes from the transition to the Super-Tak to the S-M-C/SMC.

Other than coatings, what changes to the optics of the 7 element versions are you referring to?


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have this 7 element version.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Other than coatings, what changes to the optics of the 7 element versions are you referring to?


To my understanding, the design was tweaked. It's still a very very similar double-gauss scheme but the construction of both lenses is slightly different. The S-M-C version is about 30g heavier than the Super-Tak. The S-M-C is also sharper and has less glow wide-open (and this would be beyond variation. I had, at one time, about 6 of each version), a phenomenon I don't think could be explained through just a coating. My belief is that some minor design change was employed to better optimize it for wide-open.

Whether you believe that there was an alteration or not, I do think it's worth differentiating the lenses for the purpose of this thread.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
anscochrome wrote:
To my eyes, the Sigma looks better in both photos posted. It has higher contrast, so the in focus subject looks sharper. In the last two, the Sigma background is smoother, and I se glow in the Takumar shot.


Here too!!!


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
anscochrome wrote:
To my eyes, the Sigma looks better in both photos posted. It has higher contrast, so the in focus subject looks sharper. In the last two, the Sigma background is smoother, and I se glow in the Takumar shot.


Here too!!!


I agree as well. I can understand how difficult it is to really make shapness/contrast differentiations based on the re-sized images shown in forum posts. Do the Pentax results you are seeing on your monitor at full size really look sharper? It seems to my eyes, on my computer monitor that the Sigma (top samples) images are noticably sharper. Were the images mislabelled perhaps?

Paul


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
anscochrome wrote:
To my eyes, the Sigma looks better in both photos posted. It has higher Were the images mislabelled perhaps?

Paul

No they are correctly labeled.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
anscochrome wrote:
To my eyes, the Sigma looks better in both photos posted. It has higher contrast, so the in focus subject looks sharper. In the last two, the Sigma background is smoother, and I se glow in the Takumar shot.


All there is to say. This is not the ideal post to be read by someone considering buying an "old ass" Takumar instead of a modern AF Sigma.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Sigma has got an aspherical lens inside so it MUST be a better lens, even if you consider the price they're asking for it.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I also think that the Sigma looks better in terms of sharpness, contrast, background bokeh and glow. And as someone else stated, worse in foreground OOF rendering. I'm more interested in the edge performance of the lenses, does any of the lenses have any significant drop off?

/T


PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Bokeh test continues Smile
I like Takumar 50 1.4's bokeh but one must be carefull about the background. It works best in closeups and simple backgrounds.

SIGMA 50mm 1.4HSM


TAKUMAR 50mm 1.4


TAKUMAR 50mm 1.4 closeup picture


SAMYANG 85 1.4


There is a big difference in these lenses! Samyang is very smooth but Takumar has the most character. This Samyang lens is amazing!


PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Bokeh is not a mathematical formula. You like it or not - it is a question of personal preferences.

I sold for example the Canon EF 1.4/50 and bought instead for the 1DsMkIII the 1.4/50 Sigma because I like the Sigma bokeh better. But again - only my personal point of view.

And yes the Samyang 85mm is a nice lens too. But the main application of these type of lenses are the portrait shots, smooth, soft wide open etc. - totally different to a standard 50mm lens.

Wink


PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I would add, let's not forget that the main point of an image is the subject and not the bokeh Wink


PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes of course it's a matter of personar taste. Subject is of course the most important point but the bokeh is very close to that Wink I would say 70% subject, 30% bokeh.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
mikkokan wrote:
...I would say 70% subject, 30% bokeh.

% bokeh depends on subject - boring subject needs interesting bokeh and the other way round


PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
mikkokan wrote:
...I would say 70% subject, 30% bokeh.

% bokeh depends on subject - boring subject needs interesting bokeh and the other way round


Boring subject better needs no photo taken Razz


PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
mikkokan wrote:
...I would say 70% subject, 30% bokeh.

% bokeh depends on subject - boring subject needs interesting bokeh and the other way round

This is well said!
Nevertheless bokeh is always important especially in portraits. Unfortunately Takumars bokeh is in some situations too nervous but then again very interesting in some situations.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I would add, let's not forget that the main point of an image is the subject and not the bokeh Wink


+100


PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
ForenSeil wrote:
mikkokan wrote:
...I would say 70% subject, 30% bokeh.

% bokeh depends on subject - boring subject needs interesting bokeh and the other way round


Boring subject better needs no photo taken Razz


+200


PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sometimes you need to take a picture and you cannot choose the subject. This is where you need to think these things. For example you are hired to take portraits in certain location and you cannot choose the subject or location, then you need to think what lens you choose from your bag.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2