View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
davoodt
Joined: 30 May 2012 Posts: 20 Location: Potomac, MD
Expire: 2014-11-24
|
Posted: Sat Dec 12, 2015 7:24 pm Post subject: Takumar, Canon, Zeiss and Leica Normal Lenses Compared |
|
|
davoodt wrote:
The arrival of the my Leica Summicron-R finally gave me the motivation to compare my nicer Normals again. The link below contains a comparison of Leica Summicron-R 2.0 Version I, Canon EF 50mm 1.8 STM, Contax Zeiss Planar 50mm 1.7, Fujinon 55mm 1.8 (non-EBC), Fujinon EBC 50mm 1.4, Pentax Super Takumar 55mm 1.8, Pentax SMC Takumar 50mm 1.4, Topcor RE 58mm 1.8, Helios 44-2 58mm 2.0 and last but certainly not least the monster Nikkor-S 55mm 1.2.
http://abbynormallenses.com/normal-lenses-compared-at-f2-0/
I had done a similar comparison with my Canon 5DII earlier, but due to a bad USB port on my old camera, I could not use Canon’s Remote Utility. This time around, I used my newer Canon 5DIII with Canon Remote Utility so that I can confirm the focus at 10x on my 22″ computer monitor. Although still not completely scientific, I feel the comparison below is a better representative of the actual performance of these lenses.
The Takumars, Canon, Zeiss and Leica certainly performed above average.
Nikkor-S performed surprisingly well.
Must note that the Canon benefited from camera’s built-in Peripheral Illumination and Chromatic Aberration Correction where the other lenses have to live or die on their own merits.
The Fujinon 1.4 was below average, a bit of disappointment given all the hype on the web. Nevertheless, I still like the colors of Fuji.
The worst performing lens in this admittedly tough group was the Helois _________________ Davood Tash
http://abbynormallenses.com/category/reviews/ |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
cooltouch
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sat Dec 12, 2015 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
The Helios looks as if it might be out of collimation. Its photo was not just the worst, it was way worse. I own a 58/2 44-M Helios. Bought it because it is generally thought to be a good lens. But I compared it against another M42 lens I own, a Yashica DS 50mm f/1.7. The Helios was noticeably less sharp than the Yashica. But the images weren't blurry by any means.
I found your test subjects to be not very easy to examine for evaluation. Eventually what I did was concentrate mostly on the center binder (?), looking at its texture, which ended up giving me a pretty good idea of each lens's performance. To me, the best lenses were the Canon, Zeiss, and Pentax 50/1.8, but the 1.4 was only a touch less sharp -- and that might be because contrast was lower. The Leica's corner sharpness was excellent, but it just wasn't as sharp as the above lenses in the center. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
kuuan
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 14 Jan 2008 Posts: 4569 Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2015 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
I put the images in the order of how I would judge sharpness first, and checked which images belongs to which lens after. I really must say that because I am a confessed Takumar fan
1: Super Takumar 1.8/55
2: S-M-C Takumar 1.4/50
3: Nikkor-S 1.2/55
4: Fujinon f1.8/55
5: Zeiss 1.7/50
6: Canon 1.8/50
7: Topcor 1.8/58 and Leica 2/50
9: Fujinon 1.4/50
10: Helios 2/58
btw. I think you never told which aperture you were using. _________________ my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
glaebhoerl
![Level 1 Level 1](rating1.gif) Joined: 03 May 2014 Posts: 100 Location: Hungary
|
Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2015 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
glaebhoerl wrote:
I did a similar thing except I gave each one a letter grade and only checked which lenses they were afterwards. I was only looking at the center of the image. (This was just a quick impression and I would probably come up with different ones if I tried it again, not meant to be authoritative or anything.)
C 50/2.0 Summicron
A 50/1.8 Canon EF
A 50/1.7 Planar
B 55/1.8 Fujinon
D 50/1.4 Fujinon
A 55/1.8 Takumar
B 50/1.4 Takumar
C 58/1.8 Topcor
F 58/2.0 Helios
B 55/1.2 Nikkor
It was mentioned somewhere that they were all at f/2. _________________ use: 40/1.4 Zuiko; 50/1.4 Takumar; 85/2 Rokkor; 105/2.5 Nikkor; 200/5 Zuiko.
have: Lens Turbo II; 20/2.8 Flektogon; "25/1.4 APS-C"; 28/2.8 Industar; 35/1.8 Rokkor; 35-70/3.5 Rokkor; 50/1.4 Prakticar; 50/1.7 Zenitar-M; 50/1.8 Pancolar; 50/2 Jupiter; 55/2.8 Industar; 57/1.4 Hexanon; 58/1.8 RE.Auto-Topcor; 58/2 Helios; 100/2.8 Zuiko; 135/2.8 Pentacon, Yashica ML; 135/3.5 Pentax-M, Rokkor, Fujinon; 180/5.6 Sigma; 200/5.6 Tele-Takumar.
want: 12/2 Samyang; 20/4 Pentax-M; 24/2.8 Zuiko; 28/3.5 Pentax; 35/2.4 Prakticar; 35/3.5 Takumar; 50/1.5 Sonnar; 58/2 Small Biotar; 75/1.8 Fujinon-TV; 100/3.5 Canon (LTM); 135/2.5 Takumar; 135/3.5 Prakticar.
in my dreams: 80/1.8 Prakticar; 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit-M; 180/4 APO-Lanthar; 250/5.6 Rokkor.
reviews flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
cooltouch
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
glaebhoerl, your letter grade assignments agree exactly with my impressions! We must have similar eyesight. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
vanylapep
![Level 2 Level 2](rating2.gif) Joined: 03 Jan 2014 Posts: 312
|
Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2015 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
vanylapep wrote:
Any difference between the Super-Multicoated-Takumar 55 and Super-Takunar 55 and SMC Takjmar 55? |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
kuuan
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 14 Jan 2008 Posts: 4569 Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2015 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
vanylapep wrote: |
Any difference between the Super-Multicoated-Takumar 55 and Super-Takunar 55 and SMC Takjmar 55? |
Optically they are identical, Super Takumar is the ealiest version ( well, there are even earlier, two versions of Auto Takumar 1.8/55 and one version of 2.2/55 and 2/55 that all have the same optical construction ) and has single coating ( not true for all, but generally they have simpler coating than the later versions S-M-C and SMC ), S-M-C has the same, all metal body but has Super Multi Coating, so does the SMC which has a slightly different body, it's body isn't all metal but has a rubberized focus ring. _________________ my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections
Last edited by kuuan on Sun Dec 13, 2015 4:28 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
vanylapep
![Level 2 Level 2](rating2.gif) Joined: 03 Jan 2014 Posts: 312
|
Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2015 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
vanylapep wrote:
kuuan wrote: |
vanylapep wrote: |
Any difference between the Super-Multicoated-Takumar 55 and Super-Takunar 55 and SMC Takjmar 55? |
Optically they are identical, Super Takumar is the ealiest version ( well, there are even earlier Auto Takumar 2.2/55 and 2/55 that have the same optical construction ) and has single coating ( not true for all, but generally they have simpler coating than the later versions S-M-C and SMC ), S-M-C has the same, all metal body but has Super Multi Coating, so does the SMC which has a slightly different body, it's body isn't all metal but has a rubberized focus ring. |
Ok thanks. Which one do you prefer? |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
kuuan
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 14 Jan 2008 Posts: 4569 Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2015 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
personally I love the Auto Takumar 2/55 for it's smaller size and different color rendition, generally I believe that either S-M-C and SMC should be the most recommended _________________ my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
fwcetus
![Level 2 Level 2](rating2.gif) Joined: 12 Jun 2015 Posts: 303 Location: New England
|
Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2015 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fwcetus wrote:
I know that, at least in the K-mount versions, the SMC 55/1.8 and the SMC 55/2 lenses were exactly the same, ~except~ that Pentax put a restrictive baffle into some of the 55/1.8's (destined for being the kit lenses on the entry-level K1000 body) to "magically" turn them into slower 55/2 lenses. (At that time, the 55/1.8 was "reserved" for some of the upscale K bodies.)
Perhaps someone will know if this was the case with some of the m42 Takumar 55/2 versions... _________________ Fred
If you saw a fellow drowning, and you could either save him or photograph the event . . . What lens would you use ? |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
luisalegria
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 6602 Location: San Francisco, USA
Expire: 2018-01-18
|
Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2015 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
luisalegria wrote:
The screwmount Takumar 55/2 also had the limiting aperture baffle.
This was a Pentax marketing idea that continued into the first K series.
In the M series they introduced an actual cheaper lens, the five element 50/2
All the 55's were six elements, and their components are interchangeable. _________________ 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 |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
caledonia84
![Level 1 Level 1](rating1.gif) Joined: 06 Feb 2013 Posts: 203 Location: Glasgow
|
Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2015 10:37 pm Post subject: Re: Takumar, Canon, Zeiss and Leica Normal Lenses Compared |
|
|
caledonia84 wrote:
davoodt wrote: |
The arrival of the my Leica Summicron-R finally gave me the motivation to compare my nicer Normals again. The link below contains a comparison of Leica Summicron-R 2.0 Version I, Canon EF 50mm 1.8 STM, Contax Zeiss Planar 50mm 1.7, Fujinon 55mm 1.8 (non-EBC), Fujinon EBC 50mm 1.4, Pentax Super Takumar 55mm 1.8, Pentax SMC Takumar 50mm 1.4, Topcor RE 58mm 1.8, Helios 44-2 58mm 2.0 and last but certainly not least the monster Nikkor-S 55mm 1.2.
http://abbynormallenses.com/normal-lenses-compared-at-f2-0/
I had done a similar comparison with my Canon 5DII earlier, but due to a bad USB port on my old camera, I could not use Canon’s Remote Utility. This time around, I used my newer Canon 5DIII with Canon Remote Utility so that I can confirm the focus at 10x on my 22″ computer monitor. Although still not completely scientific, I feel the comparison below is a better representative of the actual performance of these lenses.
The Takumars, Canon, Zeiss and Leica certainly performed above average.
Nikkor-S performed surprisingly well.
Must note that the Canon benefited from camera’s built-in Peripheral Illumination and Chromatic Aberration Correction where the other lenses have to live or die on their own merits.
The Fujinon 1.4 was below average, a bit of disappointment given all the hype on the web. Nevertheless, I still like the colors of Fuji.
The worst performing lens in this admittedly tough group was the Helois |
nice website and thanks for the reviews I too worry about your copy of the Helios, I have 2 and both would appear much sharper than yours wide open. I read your review on the Fuji 50mm f1.2 I have the porst version of that lens but wide open I get internal reflections and flaring
does your's exhibit this sort of thing? just trying to figure out if its a problems with my lens or its just the design. _________________ http://www.flickr.com/photos/caledonia84/
Current cameras
Sony A7riii, fuji x100t.
Lenses
M42 - Helios 44m x 2 44m-4, Helios 40 - 2, Mamiya Sekor 55mm f1.8, Super Takumar 50mm f1.4, Soligor 400mm f6.3, Zeiss Flektogon 35mm f2.4 Soligor 300mm f5.6, pancolar, 50mm f1.8, Orestor 135mm f2.8.
OM - Zuiko 50mm f1.8, Zuiko 50mm f1.4 x2
m39 - Jupiter 8 50mm f2
C/Y ML 50mm f1.4. DSB 28mm f2.8
Minolta MD - 35-70mm f3.5, Minolta 50mm f1.7 100mm f3.5.
Canon - 50mm f1.8, Elicar 90mm f2.5 macro
C Mount - Fujian 35mm f1.7
Fujica X - Porst 50mm f1.2, porst ww macro 28mm f2.8
Pentax K - Porst 50mm f1.4, Ricoh Rikenon 28mm f2.8.
Raynox DCR 150 & 250 |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
davoodt
Joined: 30 May 2012 Posts: 20 Location: Potomac, MD
Expire: 2014-11-24
|
Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2015 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
davoodt wrote:
Michael:
I am impressed with the amount of time you (and others) have spent on the pictures. I was surprised with the performance of the Helios as well. In day to day usage, my Helios performs fine.
This subject works very well for looking at the chromatic aberrations of wide angle lenses. I looked at the bottom left corner of my test shot, where it seemed to me that Nikkor was the best followed by the Takumar 1.4 and Zeiss. That did not make any sense to me. Surely Nikkor can not superior to Topcor or Zeiss or Summicron. So I decided to stick with my standard bottom right corner. Previous to this test, I used to think my 55mm Takumar is superior to my SMC 1.4 but my observations from left corner convinced me so to think of Takumar 1.4 as the better of the two Takumars. I am happy to post the bottom left corner if your are interested.
Kuuan:
I dont disagree with your lineup. Except for Summicron. Even though the Summicron is not spectaular it is good all the way to the bitter corner. I also thought that Zeiss was better than Fuji. Dont take me wrong Fuji is (for that matter all these lenses are) a brilliant lens in daily use.
By the way my almost mint SMC 1.4 is all metal without the rubberized focus ring.
Vanylapep:
I am sure there is a difference between SMC and Super (similarly between EBC and non-EBC) but I dont see them in daily use. The Super and non-EBC 55s are both amazing. Super Takumar 55mm 1.8 is not only an amazing lens, it is the best value anywhere. The pictures at times resemble those from medium format cameras. Please see the sample pictures on my site: http://abbynormallenses.com/super-takumar-55mm-1-8/
Happy to send you the full res versions.
Caledonia84:
It is possible that our cleaning ladies have performed extra service on my Helios recently. As I said I did not notice any deficiencies in the past daily usage.
I dont have the Fuji 1.2 any more. Mine was terrible at 1.2 as well. It was one of my best lenses (amongst amazing bunch lenses) between f2.0-5.6. Now the Nikkor 1.2 does have any contrast at 1.4 (My Fuji did not have a 1.4 click stop) or 1.2 but is still produces nice and usable images. Nikkor is like a tank compared to Fuji. I sold my EOS adapted Fuji X for $850 and bought the Nikkor-S for $175. _________________ Davood Tash
http://abbynormallenses.com/category/reviews/ |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
titrisol70
![Level 1 Level 1](rating1.gif) Joined: 14 Dec 2021 Posts: 177 Location: State of Denial
|
Posted: Fri Jul 26, 2024 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
titrisol70 wrote:
Site is down now, but the archived version is here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160207033738/http://abbynormallenses.com/normal-lenses-compared-at-f2-0/ _________________ Pentaxian and proud
Cameras: Spotmatic, I and F, Pentax ME, MESuper, ME-F, P30t, K-x, MZ-5, Mz-7 // K100D, Kx, K5IIs, K3-iii
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Lenses:
Super Takumar 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/28, 1:1.8/55, 1:1.4/50 (7-element), 1:3.5/135
Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17
Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/55, 1:1.4/50, 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:4/200
Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50
Lots of M, A, F, FA, DA series lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
caspert79
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3112 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Sat Jul 27, 2024 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
Thanks for the link.
The very high price of the Summicron-R 50mm f/2 still stops me from buying one. If anyone in the middle of the Netherlands wants to borrow me one, I’m happy to test it against some other vintage standard lenses. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
|
|
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
|