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

Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 4/150 vs EF 2/135L
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2009 2:20 pm    Post subject: Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 4/150 vs EF 2/135L Reply with quote
Hi all,

some days ago I could buy for a couple of Euros (less 25,oo) a Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 4/150 in near unused condition.

Today I would like to show 2 pictures from this afternoon across my garden to compare this lens with the Canon EF 2/135L which is I believe one of the best Canon prime lenses for at present round about 950.oo Euros here in Germany.

Here the Canon EF 2/135L



And here the Takumar 4/150



All picures with EOS 5DMkII and ISO 400. On a raw file basis the pictures looks much similar than here.

If I wouldn´t own the Canon lens several years I´m not sure to buy it again.


PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2009 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The 135/2L photo looks a lot better (in my opinion) when it comes to color and sharpness.. Smile

I know what you mean, though. The image is not 38x better although the Canon lens is 38x more expensive :p


PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2009 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think the main difference (to my eye from this photo) is in the coating. The improved saturation and contrast is I think mainly due to that factor.


patrickh


Certainly is a case of diminishing returns in terms of money (the 80/20 rule is well shattered as well - more like 95/5) Smile Smile


PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2009 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Try to use CPL filter on Takumar next time, it suppose to be much better


PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2009 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I would like to see an OOF highlight comparison.. the 135/2L is supposed to be one of Canon's best in terms of bokeh as well.


PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2009 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree. The shot with the 2/135 is much better.
Did you use the same f-stop?
It seems to me that the EF lens was wider open than the Tak, since the twigs of that little bush/tree right front are more blurred in the FE shot.

But with some PP you won't see such a difference any more. (I hope you din't mind.)


P.S.: Congratulations for your great bargain! This Tak for under 25€ is fantastic!


PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2009 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Based on my reading of the histograms in photoshop, there is a difference in exposure of about 0.6/0.7 f/stop between the two (Takumar's being the brightest).
This difference of +0.6/0.7 for the Takumar happens on top of a shot (that of the Canon L) which is already overexposed.
Therefore the Takumar shot is damaged by really an excessive overexposure that prevents it from being judged well.
If you set the exposure of the two shots to be the same, you will see that the results are more similar
The Takumar has a colder image tone than the Canon. Or is it the Canon to be warmer? I was not there, so I can not tell for sure, but based on my experience with Canon lenses, I would say that it's more likely that the Canon is warmer than reality.


PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2009 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
orio is right, i was going to say similar, but not as eloquent and precise Smile

the Taks tend to need exposure compensation (less exposure) otherwise the brights wash out to pastel; note the bright fence -- the Tak photos don't show the shawdows because the exposure level was too high.


PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2009 7:59 pm    Post subject: Re: Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 4/150 vs EF 2/135L Reply with quote
Rolf wrote:
If I wouldn´t own the Canon lens several years I´m not sure to buy it again.


You are comparing an f/2 lens with an f/4 lens. Try shooting a portrait with the Tak at f/2, and then we're talking Smile Stopped down, most good lenses look about the same.

I think it would be better to compare, say, Canon's 135/2.8 SF with SMC Takumar 135/2.5. At least here we would have the same focal length, similar maximum apertures, and even similar prices on the used market.


PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2009 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aoleg
I think the point being made was that the quality available from the Tak was considerably better than the price difference would indicate. Of course you are right about the f2 vs f4, but a lot of people would go along with the premise that the extra speed + quality did not get close to the cost differential for value.

This is equally true with many expensive lenses, where the quality difference can be described as marginal (eg nikkor 85/1.8 vs 85/1.4). Much of the character of this forum is based on the idea that we can get superlative results from lenses that are older and cheaper than their modern AF counterparts. Smile Smile Smile


patrickh


PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2009 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
patrickh wrote:

This is equally true with many expensive lenses, where the quality difference can be described as marginal (eg nikkor 85/1.8 vs 85/1.4). Much of the character of this forum is based on the idea that we can get superlative results from lenses that are older and cheaper than their modern AF counterparts. Smile Smile Smile
patrickh


Well said ! Smile

(aside from the fact that my Planar 2/135 will blow away the Canon L 2/135 anytime) Wink Laughing Razz


PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2009 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
patrickh wrote:

This is equally true with many expensive lenses, where the quality difference can be described as marginal (eg nikkor 85/1.8 vs 85/1.4). Much of the character of this forum is based on the idea that we can get superlative results from lenses that are older and cheaper than their modern AF counterparts. Smile Smile Smile
patrickh


Well said ! Smile

(aside from the fact that my Planar 2/135 will blow away the Canon L 2/135 anytime) Wink Laughing Razz



Your Planar blow any lens what I know Smile such an amazing lens


PostPosted: Fri May 08, 2009 3:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Naughty Ones
I stopped short of saying that there are older lenses that will blow away mmost modern lenses made by the majors - but Orio's planar sure fits that bill. And there are others - I think Orio and Andy have most of them between them, but many of our members have lenses that they have demonstrated quite conclusively can at the very least hold their own with the best of today's production. Smile Smile


patrickh

We also have a host of examples of lenses like the 105/4 Tak in this thread that deliver a quality/price ratio that can completely blow away essentially all the modern competition. Nor did I even mention the "character" issue Embarassed Embarassed Embarassed


PostPosted: Fri May 08, 2009 6:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
(aside from the fact that my Planar 2/135 will blow away the Canon L 2/135 anytime) Wink Laughing Razz


Talking about the price differential, would you mind enlightening the audience as to the cost of said Planar? Wink Compare that with 135L, and then we're talkin Smile


PostPosted: Fri May 08, 2009 6:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
patrickh wrote:
aoleg
I think the point being made was that the quality available from the Tak was considerably better than the price difference would indicate.


Fine, compare Canon's own 135/2.8 with 135/2L. Both native to Canon mount, both AF, just ONE STOP difference (as opposed to two stops between the L and the Tak), and still there are lots of those paying the differential.

patrickh wrote:
Of course you are right about the f2 vs f4, but a lot of people would go along with the premise that the extra speed + quality did not get close to the cost differential for value.


There are still those who prefer Canon 85L to 85/1.8 at four times the price. That last mile takes the tall, a classic 80/20 rule where you can get 80% of performance for 20% the price, and the other 20% of performance for 80% of the money.

patrickh wrote:
This is equally true with many expensive lenses, where the quality difference can be described as marginal (eg nikkor 85/1.8 vs 85/1.4). Much of the character of this forum is based on the idea that we can get superlative results from lenses that are older and cheaper than their modern AF counterparts. Smile Smile Smile


By all means! But in order to get comparable (or superior) quality out of a MF lens, one often has to fetch some very comparable money. It's not fair comparing an old f/4 lens with an f/2 lens and woving the price differential *before* you are prepared to do the same in the Canon's own system (e.g. comparing 135/2.8 vs. 135/2). Comparing CZ Sonnar 135/2.8 and Canon 135/2.8 SF would be valid. Comparing CZ Planar 135/2 vs. Canon 135/2 is a valid thing, too. But Tak 150/4 vs. Canon 135/2? By no means!

Last edited by aoleg on Fri May 08, 2009 7:33 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri May 08, 2009 7:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
aoleg wrote:
...... But Tak 150/4 vs. Canon 135/2? By no means!


Hi aoleg and all other fellows,

you are complete right. It wasn´t fair to compare these 2 lenses.

This comparison should only show how a 40 years old lens can perform against a present top prime lens on a head-to-head record basis.

The result was a surprise for me and I also wrote that on the raw file basis the quality is closer than here with 900 px. Not more and not less.

It is absolutely clear if you need f/2 for portrait or available light or whatever that you have with the Tak no chance.

And it is absolutely undoubted that the last mile in our life costs the money.

Rolf


PostPosted: Fri May 08, 2009 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
the current Sony 135/1.8 Planar is about $1600. Vs $1100 for the Canon 135/2L.

I did try the Sony Planar for a few minutes, the highlight bokeh is very neutral. Haven't tried a Canon though..

Although for the money I think the Canon is a more practical buy -- the Sony Planar does not have an ultrasonic motor, focuses slowly, is not weather sealed, and weighs a ton.


PostPosted: Fri May 08, 2009 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
orly_andico wrote:
the current Sony 135/1.8 Planar is about $1600. Vs $1100 for the Canon 135/2L.

I did try the Sony Planar for a few minutes, the highlight bokeh is very neutral. Haven't tried a Canon though..

Although for the money I think the Canon is a more practical buy -- the Sony Planar does not have an ultrasonic motor, focuses slowly, is not weather sealed, and weighs a ton.


Sony Planar is Sony Planar. Contax Planar is Contax Planar Wink


PostPosted: Fri May 08, 2009 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just to be annoying, let me repeat: no-one is suggesting that the Tak 150/4 is better than the brand new grossly over-priced Canon L. The point that was being made was that the additional quality you gain for an extra $1500 is relatively marginal. That means the average enthusiast with a very limited budget can obtain a tool almost as good as the pro or rich enthusiast who both can and is willing to pay that premium. There was no knocking of the Canon. And why can you not compare the two? They are both designed to take pictures. Both had very similar FL, so that did not come into it. Or is it somehow unfair to compare a Canon with another brand?

And Orio is right - that Contax planar is virtually unbeatable at any price by a modern lens. Smile Smile Smile


patrickh
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1