Takumar, Canon, Zeiss and Leica Normal Lenses Compared

davoodt · Expire: 2014-11-24

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 Canonâ€™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 22â€³ 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 cameraâ€™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

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

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.

kuuan · Expire: 2014-12-26

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 Smile

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.

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

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.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

glaebhoerl, your letter grade assignments agree exactly with my impressions! We must have similar eyesight.

vanylapep · Joined: 03 Jan 2014 Posts: 312

Any difference between the Super-Multicoated-Takumar 55 and Super-Takunar 55 and SMC Takjmar 55?

kuuan · Expire: 2014-12-26

vanylapep · Joined: 03 Jan 2014 Posts: 312

kuuan · Expire: 2014-12-26

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

fwcetus · Joined: 12 Jun 2015 Posts: 303 Location: New England

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...

luisalegria · Expire: 2018-01-18

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.

caledonia84 · Joined: 06 Feb 2013 Posts: 203 Location: Glasgow

davoodt · Expire: 2014-11-24

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.

titrisol70 · Joined: 14 Dec 2021 Posts: 177 Location: State of Denial

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/

caspert79 · Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3112 Location: The Netherlands

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.