a passel of 35s and 28s

[Nesster]

a much larger image available http://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/2563898209

I played around with some old lenses over the weekend. They all have their good points, but the two Pentaxes are clearly the sharpest / most defined. Won't bore everyone with endless test shots....

I set up the Pentax K100D on a solid tripod, focused both to infinity and to 10 feet, and examined the resulting images at 100%. All shots were at f/5.6 for simplicity's sake. These observations together with other experience and more ad-hoc comparisons have given me the following impressions:

Hanimex Automatic 28mm f/2.8: clean, well defined, very natural oof, but isn't in the top tier resolution wise. This one's a birthday gift for the brother in law, with the Praktica I got it with. Despite the poor definition this is a good, even performing lens. And it focuses very close!

Vivitar 28mm f/2.5 (TX): slightly better resolution than the Hanimex, and the bohkeh is swirly and the color better. The aperture shape on this is interesting, with sort of mandelbrot horns - I think this does something kind of cool. I find the images tend to have a '70s feel to them, a kind of graininess and color. Focuses close. (This is NOT the same lens as the 2.8 versions, including the TX 2.8 I saw this weekend.)

auto Tamron-f 35mm f/2.8: old dedicated mount Tamron, even with the Yashinon, sometimes ahead of it, a very old fashioned look to the images, wonderful swirlies. Doesn't focus very close. Can produce impressionistic effects.

Auto Yashinon-DX 35mm f/2.8: good bokeh. this, the Tamron 35 and the Tamron SP 35-80 I'm taking this photo with are neck and neck, one is better one way / one day, till the next one does something nice too. Focuses close. This lens is capable in some situations of matching the Takumar for resolution and image solidity.

Super Multi Coated Takumar 35mm f/3.5: very sharp and well defined, dense color, great definition. This lens has a rep and I agree.

SMC Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8: again very sharp and great definition, this one is quiet, ie. doesn't hit you over the head with contrast and color, but really gets all the detail.

While the two Pentaxes are the best performers, I have a soft spot for the old Tamron, the Yashinon, and the Vivitar TX. With each I can get pleasing effects depending on aperture, lighting conditions, and so on.

[LucisPictor]

I agree about the Tak 3.5/35 - a very nice lens!

[luisalegria]

Well done !

I like the definite conclusions, very often I can't tell one result from another, or it seems so minor as to not make an impression on me.

You are also right about the multiple qualities of lenses.

[Nesster]

A little update - I seem to use the Yashinon 35 most of all, a combination of the f/2.8, small size and light weight, and good 'street' IQ.

I'm on my second copy now of the Viv Tx 28, still a lovely lens but large-ish. The second copy doesn't feel as special as the first (weird) one. I think someone had taken the first apart and hadn't put it back right. All of a sudden it stopped focusing... which some day I'll attempt to fix. The second copy has a normal diaphragm shape, and the loose rubber focus ring. This lens offers a different take on the world than the Pentax 28's: more saturated and lush.

The two Takumars are stellar still, and now that I have my ES-II running, I get full aperture auto exposure with them. Drawbacks still remain: the f/3.5 speed. The SMC-A offers slightly better detail but at a faster speed.

Tamron-f I'm now thinking much less of, I haven't managed a good worthwhile sharpness and contrast out of it. Plus it really doesn't focus very close. Its one allure is that bokeh swirl.

Have I really managed not to get more 28's and 35's in a year? Hard to believe...

what am I saying!! Of course I got more - two Takumar 28's in one week in fact, a Super and a S-M-C. They are equivalent and bear a strong resemblance to their grand daughter, the SMC-A.

[casualcollector]

A interesting comparison Nesster. Thanks for taking the time to pst your thoughts. I have this ongoing project of trying to determine who made what lenses for whom in the Japanese optical industry. Do you have some more images of the Tamron and Hanimex that I can add to my image bank?

Bill

[Nesster]

Thanks, Bill. I gave the Hanimex to my brother in law, but will do a portrait of the Tamron-F. Based on further research, seems the -f line coexisted with the Adaptall-2, at a lower price point.

[Nesster]

Here you go, detail on the Tamron-F

[ManualFocus-G]

That looks like a Tamron Adaptall 1 with a fixed mount...

Maybe that's what the "-F" means?

[casualcollector]

[Keysersoze27]

I agree too about the S-M-C Tak 3.5/35 , it's a little gem ...

[Nesster]

Thanks for the info - I've wondered about these Tamrons.

[Attila]

I did modified a bit your small image I did linked higher resolution image from flickr. Please click on it to get result! I love these old Tamrons.

[Nesster]

I may be selling it at cost to someone local via flicr. Hate to see it go but it is #3 on my depth chart of 35's. I could give it to daughter, but I'd rather give her the Super Tak 28.