View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Spotmatic
Joined: 18 Aug 2008 Posts: 4045 Location: Netherlands
|
Posted: Fri May 07, 2010 12:20 pm Post subject: Comparison 58mm f/2 Takumar against CZJ 5,8cm f/2 Biotar |
|
|
Spotmatic wrote:
A short and quick comparison between:
- Asahi 58mm f/2 Takumar (Sonnar-type, very rare)
- Carl Zeiss Jena 5,8cm f/2 Biotar (early postwar type in heavy chromed brass, not aluminium)
Photos were converted from RAW; I did some highlight repair but not contrast enhancement etc. Also the pictures were not sharpened after resizing them. All photos wide open. Hoods were fitted to the lenses.
BTW: I take back my words that the Biotar is sharper than the Takumar. It's the other way round!
_________________ Peter - Moderator
Pentax K-5 + Pentax 645 + Canon 5D + Bessa RF 10,5cm Heliar, and a 'little' bag full of MF lenses. The lens list is * here *.
My fast 80s: Asahi-Kogaku Takumar 83mm f/1.9 - Super-Takumar 85mm f/1.9 - FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited - Cyclop 85/1.5 (Helios-40 innards) - Komura 80mm f/1.8 - Meyer Görlitz Primoplan 7,5cm 1:1.9 - Carl Zeiss Jena 80mm f/1.8 Pancolar - Canon 85mm f/1.8 S.S.C. - Canon 85mm f/1.2 S.S.C. Aspherical |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RenseH
Joined: 13 Jun 2009 Posts: 570 Location: Zetten - The Netherlands
Expire: 2013-01-14
|
Posted: Fri May 07, 2010 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RenseH wrote:
Peter, you're right, the Takumar is sharper indeed, at least in these photos....
Nice wheather
I love the first one with the Tak! _________________ Rense
My Blog - My Website - My PPG |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nesster
Joined: 24 Apr 2008 Posts: 5883 Location: NJ, USA
Expire: 2014-02-20
|
Posted: Fri May 07, 2010 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nesster wrote:
They both do out of focus, and subject glow, verry verry well. You, sir, are a fortunate man, though I know collecting is work. _________________ -Jussi
Camera photos
Print Photographica
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
djmike
Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 930 Location: Taiwan
|
Posted: Sun May 09, 2010 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
djmike wrote:
Tak won here at F2, IMO. But I would like to see at F4 or F5.6. Mike _________________
DSLR: Canon 400D
SLR: Nikon FM2 + Canon A-1 + Canon AE1-P + Praktica MTL-5B + Pentax Spotmatic F + Fujica ST801 + Voigtlander Bassematic + Voigtlander Vito + Rollei 35S + Rolleiflex SL35 ME + Canon QL17 GIII + Olympus Pen EE-3
Lenses
M42: CZJ Flektogon 35/2.4 + CZJ Flektogon Zebra 35/2.8 + CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 + CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5 + CZJ Tessar 50/2.8 Chrome + Pentacon 135/2.8 + Pentacon 50/1.8 + SMC Takumar 50/1.4 + SMC Takumar 55/2 + SMC Takumar 135/3.5 + Fujinon 55/1.8 + Jupiter-9 85/2 + Jupiter-37A 135/3.5 + Helios 44-6 58/2
Nikor: Nikkor 50/1.4 + Nikkor 28/3.5 + Nikkor 35-105 Zoom + 36-72 Series E Zoom
Canon: Canon FD + 28/2.8 + 50/1.8 + Canon 35-105 Macro Zoom
Other: Rollei Planar HFT 50/1.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Scheimpflug
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1888 Location: New Zealand / USA
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Sun May 09, 2010 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Scheimpflug wrote:
Looking at these photos, I can't help but think that these two lenses have slightly different depth of field... and that there may have been slight focus differences between them as well. Certainly not a criticism of the test, just a fact of life with manual focus lenses.
In the first shots of the plants in the window, look at the leaves on the right side of the left plant, paying attention to the veins that run lengthwise in the leaves. In the Tak, all are in focus. In the Biotar, some are quite visible (almost as good as the Tak), while others (such as the lowest "big" leaf) are not discernible at all.
In the second set of shots, look at the leaves in the upper left corner. In the Biotar image, you can clearly see the veins in the leaves - detail that is not present in the Tak's image...
The third set of images have some heavy JPEG artifacts... would you be able to post those two with less compression? _________________ Sigma DP1, Nikon D40 (hers ), Polaroid x530, Pentax P30t, Pentax P50, (P30t/P50 K-A to Nikon F body mount conversion)
Nikon: 18-55/3.5-5.6 "G ED II DX" (F) Soligor: 28/2.8 (FL->F converted), 135/3.5 (F), 3x TC (F, modified) Kalimar: 28-85/3.5 (F)
Vivitar: 70-210/2.8-4.0 Version 3 (F), Tele 500/6.3 Preset (F), 19/3.8 (F) Minolta: 300/5.6 (SR/MC/MD pending F conversion)
Tamron: 28/2.8 (Adaptall) Panagor: 28/2.5 (FD) Aetna: 300/5.6 (F) Osawa: MC 28/2.8 (F)
Vintage Lenses: Dallmeyer: 1940s A.M. 14in 356mm f4 (ULF->M42) 1930s Adon Telephoto Taylor, Taylor & Hobson: 1880s Rapid Rectilinear 8 1/2 x 6 1/2 11.31in f/8 (LF->?)
Parts Lenses: Nikon 35-135/3.5-4.5 (F), Sigma 70-210/4.5 (F), Nikon 50/1.8 Series E (F) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fish4570
Joined: 06 Jan 2010 Posts: 4514 Location: At the confluence of the Locust Fork of the Warrior River and Black Creek, Alabama
Expire: 2012-03-21
|
Posted: Sun May 09, 2010 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fish4570 wrote:
Agreed. That Takumar is sharp as a Tak ... _________________ Paul
I chase Light
http://blackcreekjournal.blogspot.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|