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

SMC Tak vs Super Tak vs Domiplan vs Tessar
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 6:49 am    Post subject: SMC Tak vs Super Tak vs Domiplan vs Tessar Reply with quote
I have done some sample comparisons between a few of my favourite lenses. The photos are from:
Tessar 50mm f2.8

SMC Tak 55 f1.8

Super Tak 35 f3.5

Domiplan 50 f2.8

I have tried to take the same picture with each lens, aiming for lowest f stop. Also I took only two shots per lens and then I had to choose the best – a sort of “ease of use” indicator.
To my eyes the SMC has the nicest look, but none are too shabby.
Interesting that the much maligned Domi did a nice job.
Comments?


PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 7:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Repeat with all lenses on 5.6 Smile. My favourite is a mix between the tessar and the smc. Id want the back of the flower from the SMC and the front from the tessar.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 8:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
...and choose the same focus point, the Tak shot was focussed way back!


PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
<snip>...and choose the same focus point, the Tak shot was focussed way back!</snip>
I don't disagree, but in a way that was kind of the point - I did not spend a lot of time on each shot, only took 2 and focusability of the lens came into play.
One of the reasons I like the Tessar is it's ease of focus on my rig (A350+focus confirm M42 adapter).


PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
the 55 is known to be quite soft wide open (though still sharp enough) thats part of the appeal of the 55. it has a wonderful bokeh. wide open is where most people love to use this lens. the older Auto-Takumar versions are even better (particularly the "zebra" 1.8/55 as those have 10 aperture blades, as opposed to the later 6 of the Super and onward variants. I own the 2/55 Auto (also with 10 blades) and its a little gem. though all my Takumar 55's are gems.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 1:05 pm    Post subject: Re: SMC Tak vs Super Tak vs Domiplan vs Tessar Reply with quote
lens-o-matic wrote:
To my eyes the SMC has the nicest look, but none are too shabby.
Interesting that the much maligned Domi did a nice job.
Comments?


Yes, lens-o-matic.

It's very difficult to find any lens that do badly this job.

And the domiplan (so-so to minor lens to me), like others triplets lenses, is a good close up lens when not need sharp corners (specially in digital no FF).

It's certain that you have to close the aperture to F/8-11 to domiplan gives a reasonable sharp center and that you have to do this with all the lenses in close up focus image, but with good lenses you do because the DOF and not necessary to have a good quality center image.

Another pretends benefit : As it has few elements to be prone to flare, seems to be OK although not MC, but Koji shows to us the importance of the MC in the rendering of the tessar MC 2,8/50. And the domiplan, till I know, never was MC. The tessar C/Y was the only "normal lens" triplet (or it's derivate) with MC (perhaps newer nikon 45 and elmar M 50 too).

Excuse me, but my experience with domiplan lens and film (that I use only ) not good.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Séamuis wrote:
the 55 is known to be quite soft wide open (though still sharp enough) thats part of the appeal of the 55. it has a wonderful bokeh. wide open is where most people love to use this lens. the older Auto-Takumar versions are even better (particularly the "zebra" 1.8/55 as those have 10 aperture blades, as opposed to the later 6 of the Super and onward variants. I own the 2/55 Auto (also with 10 blades) and its a little gem. though all my Takumar 55's are gems.


I see among your lenses my favorite (although I never use it) 11/18. I love "her" design, lightness. Not so sharp? No matter to me.

And see that you have a S-M-C 1,4/50. I have it too. Did you compare it with the 55 tak lenses. What do you think about them?

Thank. Rino.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
Séamuis wrote:
the 55 is known to be quite soft wide open (though still sharp enough) thats part of the appeal of the 55. it has a wonderful bokeh. wide open is where most people love to use this lens. the older Auto-Takumar versions are even better (particularly the "zebra" 1.8/55 as those have 10 aperture blades, as opposed to the later 6 of the Super and onward variants. I own the 2/55 Auto (also with 10 blades) and its a little gem. though all my Takumar 55's are gems.


I see among your lenses my favorite (although I never use it) 11/18. I love "her" design, lightness. Not so sharp? No matter to me.

And see that you have a S-M-C 1,4/50. I have it too. Did you compare it with the 55 tak lenses. What do you think about them?

Thank. Rino.


its a love/hate relationship with the 18mm. im not sure what Asahi Optical was thinking with that one, but it is indeed fun to use and show off. not so sharp indeed. not sharp at all really unless you stop down pretty much all the way, but then you can barely see out of the viewfinder. basically a P&S at that point. no matter to me either. its just a cool lens.

I have never compared them side by side, but I would imagine that it would be no competition for sharpness. the macro-takumar is the sharpest lens I have ever used. (I own the original preset aperture 1:1 version, not the later 1:2 version) certainly the sharpest Takumar that I know of. I have been able to find no faults with it at all (other than being f4, but that's not really fair I suppose.) its colour seems more contrasty than any of the 55's (probably due to the small deep recessed front element) and the preset aperture is a dream. I find it works very well in most situations for a walk-around lens, that can go from portraits to 1:1 macros. (a real plus in my book) but since im not really into testing things like sharpness, CA, light fall-off, etc, etc I cant really give much in the way of a comparison between the 4/50 and the 1.8/55.

for everyday use, as far as Im concerned, there is no better 'normal' lens than the 1.8/55. creamy bokeh, beautiful colour rendition and fast enough for just about all but the poorest lit situations. a I stated above, the Auto-Takumar's (not counting the 'super' version of the Auto) has 10 blades and gives much better oof highlights. plus its tiny! with a 46mm filter thread. out of all of my 55's I find that I like the photos from my Auto-Takumar "super" 1.8/55 the best, but for a reason unknown to myself I use the SMC version the most. I have the 1.4/50 and to be completely honest I have always found it lacking compared the the 55. this is something not unique to myself however, as a number of guys on the PentaxForums feel the same way I do.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Séamuis wrote:
estudleon wrote:
Séamuis wrote:
the 55 is known to be quite soft wide open (though still sharp enough) thats part of the appeal of the 55. it has a wonderful bokeh. wide open is where most people love to use this lens. the older Auto-Takumar versions are even better (particularly the "zebra" 1.8/55 as those have 10 aperture blades, as opposed to the later 6 of the Super and onward variants. I own the 2/55 Auto (also with 10 blades) and its a little gem. though all my Takumar 55's are gems.


I see among your lenses my favorite (although I never use it) 11/18. I love "her" design, lightness. Not so sharp? No matter to me.

And see that you have a S-M-C 1,4/50. I have it too. Did you compare it with the 55 tak lenses. What do you think about them?

Thank. Rino.


its a love/hate relationship with the 18mm. im not sure what Asahi Optical was thinking with that one, but it is indeed fun to use and show off. not so sharp indeed. not sharp at all really unless you stop down pretty much all the way, but then you can barely see out of the viewfinder. basically a P&S at that point. no matter to me either. its just a cool lens.

I have never compared them side by side, but I would imagine that it would be no competition for sharpness. the macro-takumar is the sharpest lens I have ever used. (I own the original preset aperture 1:1 version, not the later 1:2 version) certainly the sharpest Takumar that I know of. I have been able to find no faults with it at all (other than being f4, but that's not really fair I suppose.) its colour seems more contrasty than any of the 55's (probably due to the small deep recessed front element) and the preset aperture is a dream. I find it works very well in most situations for a walk-around lens, that can go from portraits to 1:1 macros. (a real plus in my book) but since im not really into testing things like sharpness, CA, light fall-off, etc, etc I cant really give much in the way of a comparison between the 4/50 and the 1.8/55.

for everyday use, as far as Im concerned, there is no better 'normal' lens than the 1.8/55. creamy bokeh, beautiful colour rendition and fast enough for just about all but the poorest lit situations. a I stated above, the Auto-Takumar's (not counting the 'super' version of the Auto) has 10 blades and gives much better oof highlights. plus its tiny! with a 46mm filter thread. out of all of my 55's I find that I like the photos from my Auto-Takumar "super" 1.8/55 the best, but for a reason unknown to myself I use the SMC version the most. I have the 1.4/50 and to be completely honest I have always found it lacking compared the the 55. this is something not unique to myself however, as a number of guys on the PentaxForums feel the same way I do.


Thank you, very, very much, for your answer and for your time.

I use S-M-C 1,4/50 because it remind me my old summilux M 1,4/50 (of 1956 that I have to sell because need the money).

I read a lot of people that are very satisfied with the 1,8/55. Sure it's a great lens too.

Regards.

Rino.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
Séamuis wrote:
the 55 is known to be quite soft wide open (though still sharp enough) thats part of the appeal of the 55. it has a wonderful bokeh. wide open is where most people love to use this lens. the older Auto-Takumar versions are even better (particularly the "zebra" 1.8/55 as those have 10 aperture blades, as opposed to the later 6 of the Super and onward variants. I own the 2/55 Auto (also with 10 blades) and its a little gem. though all my Takumar 55's are gems.


I see among your lenses my favorite (although I never use it) 11/18. I love "her" design, lightness. Not so sharp? No matter to me.

And see that you have a S-M-C 1,4/50. I have it too. Did you compare it with the 55 tak lenses. What do you think about them?

Thank. Rino.


I have the 18mm and the later 17mm - the latter one is a huge improvement over that early Pentax 18mm lens. Sharpness and contrast are much higher; teh 18mm is more for collectors, although very hard to find one without lens delamination.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
estudleon wrote:
Séamuis wrote:
the 55 is known to be quite soft wide open (though still sharp enough) thats part of the appeal of the 55. it has a wonderful bokeh. wide open is where most people love to use this lens. the older Auto-Takumar versions are even better (particularly the "zebra" 1.8/55 as those have 10 aperture blades, as opposed to the later 6 of the Super and onward variants. I own the 2/55 Auto (also with 10 blades) and its a little gem. though all my Takumar 55's are gems.


I see among your lenses my favorite (although I never use it) 11/18. I love "her" design, lightness. Not so sharp? No matter to me.

And see that you have a S-M-C 1,4/50. I have it too. Did you compare it with the 55 tak lenses. What do you think about them?

Thank. Rino.


I have the 18mm and the later 17mm - the latter one is a huge improvement over that early Pentax 18mm lens. Sharpness and contrast are much higher; teh 18mm is more for collectors, although very hard to find one without lens delamination.


the funny thing is, (well maybe not so funny) that I have been wanting the 17mm Takumar for the longest time, and when I had a chane to get one I paid more for the 18mm instead. I still don't know why. but I can say that this lens has an appeal all its own. most takumar users have no idea this lens even exists. its always fun when I get to out-pancake the 40mm 2.8 pancake. a perfect combo with my MX.

what I really need to do is use the lenses shortcomings to create some unique photos that can be attributed only to the 18mm. turn its faults into 'art' if you will. I just have a very strong comfort zone with the 55, that I seem to rarely step out of.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Séamuis wrote:
the 55 is known to be quite soft wide open (though still sharp enough) thats part of the appeal of the 55. it has a wonderful bokeh. wide open is where most people love to use this lens. the older Auto-Takumar versions are even better (particularly the "zebra" 1.8/55 as those have 10 aperture blades, as opposed to the later 6 of the Super and onward variants. I own the 2/55 Auto (also with 10 blades) and its a little gem. though all my Takumar 55's are gems.

I've had 2 versions of the 55; the SMC & the S-M-C. Both were sharp wide open. Sharper than any of my other normal lenses.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 9:46 pm    Post subject: Re: SMC Tak vs Super Tak vs Domiplan vs Tessar Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
lens-o-matic wrote:
To my eyes the SMC has the nicest look, but none are too shabby.
Interesting that the much maligned Domi did a nice job.
Comments?


Yes, lens-o-matic.

It's very difficult to find any lens that do badly this job.

And the domiplan (so-so to minor lens to me), like others triplets lenses, is a good close up lens when not need sharp corners (specially in digital no FF).

It's certain that you have to close the aperture to F/8-11 to domiplan gives a reasonable sharp center and that you have to do this with all the lenses in close up focus image, but with good lenses you do because the DOF and not necessary to have a good quality center image.

Another pretends benefit : As it has few elements to be prone to flare, seems to be OK although not MC, but Koji shows to us the importance of the MC in the rendering of the tessar MC 2,8/50. And the domiplan, till I know, never was MC. The tessar C/Y was the only "normal lens" triplet (or it's derivate) with MC (perhaps newer nikon 45 and elmar M 50 too).

Excuse me, but my experience with domiplan lens and film (that I use only ) not good.


Thanks for your comments, estudleon!
I did not relaize that this was a shot that would deliver similar results on each lens. I will add more background on my next and try to calibrate all lenese to f5.6.
No real point to my comparisons, but I am finding it interesting. I have other lens (Helios, Revenue) but I dont enjoy using them like I do these... I am trying to understand if it is the unusual lens mechanics (I mean you! Helios 44M!!) or the images that set these apart from the rest.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
Séamuis wrote:
the 55 is known to be quite soft wide open (though still sharp enough) thats part of the appeal of the 55. it has a wonderful bokeh. wide open is where most people love to use this lens. the older Auto-Takumar versions are even better (particularly the "zebra" 1.8/55 as those have 10 aperture blades, as opposed to the later 6 of the Super and onward variants. I own the 2/55 Auto (also with 10 blades) and its a little gem. though all my Takumar 55's are gems.

I've had 2 versions of the 55; the SMC & the S-M-C. Both were sharp wide open. Sharper than any of my other normal lenses.


none of my 55's have ever been sharper wide open than my 1.4 50. not soft enough to be a defect in any way as they are plenty sharp, but they have a specific kind of softness that has a real appeal. this is why a lot of people like the 55, because at 1.8 its just outstanding and fun to use.

on the PentaxForums, among the Takumar users the 55 is kind of the 'baby'. just about everyone has one and its kind of the best kept secret of the Takumar lineup. most people swoon over the 50 and ignore the 55.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
I have the 18mm and the later 17mm - the latter one is a huge improvement over that early Pentax 18mm lens. Sharpness and contrast are much higher; teh 18mm is more for collectors, although very hard to find one without lens delamination.


Thanks Klauss.

I know that the 11/18 isn't a very good (perhaps nor good) lens. But I love her from 1960's. what can I do ? When the heart says YES . . . . . .

Rino.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
What is noteworthy is how passable the image is from the much maligned Domiplan. The Tessar has an edge in detail rendition over the SMC, but I wonder how much that is due to post-capture processing that gives that attractive glow to the SMC image. I had a Domiplan a long time ago, decades indeed, and my negatives from then show a remarkably sharp lens that belies its mediocre reputation, so it's nice to see pleasant images from it in spite of its reputation.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
So I had only bad copies, and that could occur (so-so QC)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1