| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:00 pm Post subject: SMC and S.T. 1,4 aperture ring |
 |
|
estudleon wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/carpents/nlsr1m6images
There you can note that in the S.T. 1,4/50, the aperture ring has the 1,4 setting to close to the point that main F/2. It seems to be a F/1,8 setting more than the 1,4 (but it's 1,4 one, ins't it?). I read posts where the ST owners said that their lens not so luminous than others 1,4 lenses. In facts one of them said that his planar 1,7 let pass more light than his takumar 1,4.
Beside it, the S-M-C 1,4. The last has the F/1,4 setting so near to the F/2 one like the F/2 is close to the F/2,8 and so.
Is the last element of the hot ST more hot than the S-M-C ones and let, in the 1,8 setting, pass the light like a common 1,4 lens?
I don´t think so.
But then why that difference?
Rino.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Keysersoze27
Joined: 19 Feb 2009
Posts: 466
Location: Greece
Expire: 2012-12-24
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 6:18 pm Post subject: Re: SMC and S.T. 1,4 aperture ring |
|
|
Keysersoze27 wrote:
| estudleon wrote: |
... said that his planar 1,7 let pass more light than his takumar 1,4.
|
Just to point out that a Contax 1.7/50 is actually equal to f1.5 in luminosity.... 
Also he should test his tak 1.4/50 after he bleached the lens... yellowing leaves less light pass through... I gained nearly 1 stop after bleaching mine...
After examining my S-M-C 1.4/50, the blades moves much further from f2---> f1.4 than between the other stops.. so it seem normal
_________________
Canon EOS 5D MkII , EOS 50E, Contax RTS, Olympus OM2n, Nikon Z6ii
28mm: Zeiss Distagon 2.8/28 MMJ
35mm: CZ Distagon 2/35 ZE , S-M-C Takumar 3.5/35
40mm: CZJ Tessar T 4.5/40 1Q
50mm: CZ Planar 1.4/50 MMJ,CZ Planar 1.7/50 AEJ+MMJ,Leica Summicron 2/50 v3,S-M-C Takumar 1.4/50,Pentax SMC 1.4/50 K,Pentax SMC 1.8/55 K,Nikkor 1.8/50 ,CZJ Tessar T 3.5/50 1Q , CZ Planar 1.8/50 (QBM),Zuiko 1.4/50, Zuiko 1.8/50, Icarex Tessar 2.8/50, Nikkor 2/50 Ai,Schneider Kreuznach Xenar 2.8/50 Preset, Pentacon Prakticar 2.4/50 MC v1, CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50 Zebra , Rikenon 1.4/50 P
55mm: Fujinon 1.8/55 EBC
58mm: Helios MC 44-3 2/58
85mm: Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/85 AEJ
90mm: Voigtl�nder APO-Lanthar 3.5/90 SLII , Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/90 v2
100~105mm:Zeiss Sonnar 3.5/100 MM, Nikkor 2.5/105 AiS, S-M-C Takumar 2.8/105
135mm: Leica Elmarit R 2.8/135 v2, S-M-C Takumar 3.5/135, CZJ 4/135 Sonnar Exakta leatherette (1963),CZJ 4/135 Triotar
Macro:Leica Macro-Elmarit R 2.8/60, Micro-Nikkor Auto 3.5/55 Compensating type (1964) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aoleg
Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 1387
Location: Berlin, DE
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:31 am Post subject: Re: SMC and S.T. 1,4 aperture ring |
|
|
aoleg wrote:
| Keysersoze27 wrote: |
Also he should test his tak 1.4/50 after he bleached the lens... yellowing leaves less light pass through... I gained nearly 1 stop after bleaching mine... |
I gained 0.3 stops, but mine wasn't terribly yellow in the first place.
| Keysersoze27 wrote: |
| After examining my S-M-C 1.4/50, the blades moves much further from f2---> f1.4 than between the other stops.. so it seem normal |
Same here, so I guess this is normal behavior.
_________________
List of lenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
Thanks guys.
It seemed very rare that the movement in a linear aperture mechanism the ring can be not linear in the 1,4 to 2 setting.
But then it is common.
Rino.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kuuan
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 4569
Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
Rino I just compared my Super and S-M-C Takumar f1.4/50mm
I was very surprised that the S-M-C is quite a bit 'deeper' than the Super Tak. So many times I have read that they are optically the same and only differ in coating.
Could the difference in size suggest that they differ in optical construction also?
both have 2 steps in between f1.4 and f2.8, their location is illustrated by the added red points:
( my S-M-C is quite damaged, but the one on the right IS a S-M-C 1.4/50 )
on the Super Takumar the 3 throws between the four settings are about the same, possibly the first is a bit shorter than the next two between the white point and f2.8
on the S-M-C the first throw between f1.4 and f2 is quite a bit longer than the 2 following throws from f2 to f2.8.
both have half stop clicks between all the following f stops but not between the last two, f11 and f16.
If they are 'real' f1.4 I cannot say.
With the same light / ISO my Pentax *istDs meters 1/125 sec for the Nikkor-S 1.4/50 @f1.4 but 1/100 sec. for both 1.4/50 Taks.
However the camera does meter M42 and the Nikkors quite differently ( more consistantly with M42 )
I have not yet checked histograms / exposure of photos to find out if the Nikkor really can do with a shorter exposure time / is faster @ f1.4 ( but may do that tomorrow with daylight )
_________________
my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
| kuuan wrote: |
Rino I just compared my Super and S-M-C Takumar f1.4/50mm
I was very surprised that the S-M-C is quite a bit 'deeper' than the Super Tak. So many times I have read that they are optically the same and only differ in coating.
Could the difference in size suggest that they differ in optical construction also? |
Excelent!! Thank you, very much.
If I can do anythikg, it would be:
Yes, the S.T. focused to infinite (well, near ) seems to be shorter than the SMC
Probably when added the MC, the Asahi co. must reformulated the lens to maintain it as 1,4/50. Or the S-M-C is a definitively different lens than the S.T.
| kuuan wrote: |
| both have 2 steps in between f1.4 and f2.8, their location is illustrated by the added red points... |
I don´t know why the step in the ST from 1,4 to 2 is shorter that the same apertures step in the SMC.
| kuuan wrote: |
If they are 'real' f1.4 I cannot say.
With the same light / ISO my Pentax *istDs meters 1/125 sec for the Nikkor-S 1.4/50 @f1.4 but 1/100 sec. for both 1.4/50 Taks.
However the camera does meter M42 and the Nikkors quite differently ( more consistantly with M42 )
I have not yet checked histograms / exposure of photos to find out if the Nikkor really can do with a shorter exposure time / is faster @ f1.4 ( but may do that tomorrow with daylight )[/list] |
Nice to see it.
Thanks.
Rino.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keysersoze27
Joined: 19 Feb 2009
Posts: 466
Location: Greece
Expire: 2012-12-24
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Keysersoze27 wrote:
Kuan,
Your Super Takumar is not positioned in the infinity mark when you tried to compare their height....unless you have corrected the infinity position on the aperture ring of the S-tak...  ...also the nose is longer in the S-M-C
It is obvious that they have increased the width of the focusing ring between the lens but they didn't change the len's weight (255gr). That will justify the reports that the S-tak is better build (denser metal) than the newer version.
_________________
Canon EOS 5D MkII , EOS 50E, Contax RTS, Olympus OM2n, Nikon Z6ii
28mm: Zeiss Distagon 2.8/28 MMJ
35mm: CZ Distagon 2/35 ZE , S-M-C Takumar 3.5/35
40mm: CZJ Tessar T 4.5/40 1Q
50mm: CZ Planar 1.4/50 MMJ,CZ Planar 1.7/50 AEJ+MMJ,Leica Summicron 2/50 v3,S-M-C Takumar 1.4/50,Pentax SMC 1.4/50 K,Pentax SMC 1.8/55 K,Nikkor 1.8/50 ,CZJ Tessar T 3.5/50 1Q , CZ Planar 1.8/50 (QBM),Zuiko 1.4/50, Zuiko 1.8/50, Icarex Tessar 2.8/50, Nikkor 2/50 Ai,Schneider Kreuznach Xenar 2.8/50 Preset, Pentacon Prakticar 2.4/50 MC v1, CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50 Zebra , Rikenon 1.4/50 P
55mm: Fujinon 1.8/55 EBC
58mm: Helios MC 44-3 2/58
85mm: Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/85 AEJ
90mm: Voigtl�nder APO-Lanthar 3.5/90 SLII , Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/90 v2
100~105mm:Zeiss Sonnar 3.5/100 MM, Nikkor 2.5/105 AiS, S-M-C Takumar 2.8/105
135mm: Leica Elmarit R 2.8/135 v2, S-M-C Takumar 3.5/135, CZJ 4/135 Sonnar Exakta leatherette (1963),CZJ 4/135 Triotar
Macro:Leica Macro-Elmarit R 2.8/60, Micro-Nikkor Auto 3.5/55 Compensating type (1964) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kuuan
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 4569
Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
| estudleon wrote: |
.........
| kuuan wrote: |
.......
I have not yet checked histograms / exposure of photos to find out if the Nikkor really can do with a shorter exposure time / is faster @ f1.4 ( but may do that tomorrow with daylight ) |
Nice to see it. Thanks.
Rino. |
hope I shall have time tomorrow Rino
| Keysersoze27 wrote: |
Kuan,
Your Super Takumar is not positioned in the infinity mark when you tried to compare their height....unless you have corrected the infinity position on the aperture ring of the S-tak... ...also the nose is longer in the S-M-C
It is obvious that they have increased the width of the focusing ring between the lens but they didn't change the len's weight (255gr). That will justify the reports that the S-tak is better build (denser metal) than the newer version. |
yes, I also had noticed ( after taking the pics ) that the S.T is not focused to infinity, but of course at infinity it is even shorter.
at closer inspection it looks as if the changes are the wider focus ring and the somewhat longer 'nose' only.
The front lens on the S-M-C simply is more recessed!
- so I am quite sure that the optics themselves have the same width. ( I just tested with a self made 'tapered spool' made out of carton )
_________________
my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kuuan
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 4569
Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
see histograms of photos taken of the same object with Nikkor-S 1.4/50 and S-M-C 1.4/50, same lighting ( tried to change lens very fast ), ISO200, 1/40 sec. @f1.4
I did the same thing about 10 times over, the Nikkor consistently just noticably was exposing more bright, here examples of two sample pics:
_________________
my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
Thank you, Andreas.
Sharing very useful information.
Rino.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keysersoze27
Joined: 19 Feb 2009
Posts: 466
Location: Greece
Expire: 2012-12-24
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Keysersoze27 wrote:
| kuuan wrote: |
see histograms of photos taken of the same object with Nikkor-S 1.4/50 and S-M-C 1.4/50, same lighting ( tried to change lens very fast ), ISO200, 1/40 sec. @f1.4
I did the same thing about 10 times over, the Nikkor consistently just noticably was exposing more bright, here examples of two sample pics:
|
Kuan,
Is your test Tak bleached?
_________________
Canon EOS 5D MkII , EOS 50E, Contax RTS, Olympus OM2n, Nikon Z6ii
28mm: Zeiss Distagon 2.8/28 MMJ
35mm: CZ Distagon 2/35 ZE , S-M-C Takumar 3.5/35
40mm: CZJ Tessar T 4.5/40 1Q
50mm: CZ Planar 1.4/50 MMJ,CZ Planar 1.7/50 AEJ+MMJ,Leica Summicron 2/50 v3,S-M-C Takumar 1.4/50,Pentax SMC 1.4/50 K,Pentax SMC 1.8/55 K,Nikkor 1.8/50 ,CZJ Tessar T 3.5/50 1Q , CZ Planar 1.8/50 (QBM),Zuiko 1.4/50, Zuiko 1.8/50, Icarex Tessar 2.8/50, Nikkor 2/50 Ai,Schneider Kreuznach Xenar 2.8/50 Preset, Pentacon Prakticar 2.4/50 MC v1, CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50 Zebra , Rikenon 1.4/50 P
55mm: Fujinon 1.8/55 EBC
58mm: Helios MC 44-3 2/58
85mm: Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/85 AEJ
90mm: Voigtl�nder APO-Lanthar 3.5/90 SLII , Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/90 v2
100~105mm:Zeiss Sonnar 3.5/100 MM, Nikkor 2.5/105 AiS, S-M-C Takumar 2.8/105
135mm: Leica Elmarit R 2.8/135 v2, S-M-C Takumar 3.5/135, CZJ 4/135 Sonnar Exakta leatherette (1963),CZJ 4/135 Triotar
Macro:Leica Macro-Elmarit R 2.8/60, Micro-Nikkor Auto 3.5/55 Compensating type (1964) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kuuan
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 4569
Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
| Keysersoze27 wrote: |
Kuan,
Is your test Tak bleached? |
it was quite yellow when I had bought it abt. 18 months ago
now it looks clear to me, see the lens / glass in the pics in my first post, the lens on the right side, the one without the 'lettering'
( I never had 'bleached' it on purpose, but had been using the lens extensively in countries with much sunlight. Over the time the originally quite strong yellow cast on the photos also had gone away )
_________________
my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
I add another question to the Keysersoze27 ones.
Seeing the Andrea's pic of the taks, where they are by the side, I noted that the exit pupil of the SMC is greater? Measured both from the screw M42 of each lens to the beginning of the last element.
Yes, you can say that the rear element of the ST, like the lens isn't focused to infinite, is not so back like the SMC one. But I think that focused to infinite, the rear element of the ST isn't so great like the SMC.
Rino.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kuuan
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 4569
Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
Rino from visual examination of my two lenses I'd say:
when focused to infinity both rear classes extend equally far
the rear glass of the S-M-C has almost 1 mm bigger diameter than the rear glass of the S.T.
more comparison shots to come tomorrow 
_________________
my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
