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

What's the best version of the Takumar 1.4/50?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 9:22 am    Post subject: What's the best version of the Takumar 1.4/50? Reply with quote
and by "best" i suppose i mean "what are the differences in terms of IQ between the different versions of this lens?".
So how about it? which version do you like best and why?


PostPosted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is the best one: http://web.aanet.com.au/bayling/repair.html Twisted Evil Wink


PostPosted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 11:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
AhamB wrote:
This is the best one: http://web.aanet.com.au/bayling/repair.html Twisted Evil Wink

That website is BANNED on this forum! Twisted Evil

There are only two optical versions of the lens, the original non-thoriated Super Tak was 8 elements in 7 groups, and then all the other versions were thoriated and had 7 elements in 6 groups. I have no experience of the original version as they're quite rare, but I'm pretty sure the thoriated element made a big improvement. CarbonR or Spotmatic will know about that better than me. The only other advance to the design after that was the introduction of Super Multi-Coating which improved light transmittance and contrast. The S-M-C and SMC versions have better coatings than the Super-Taks, but there's not a lot of difference in my experience.

One important point - if you're using a Spotmatic F then you definitely need the S-M-C or SMC versions with the lever in the mount in order to make use of the camera's open aperture metering function, but you can use a S-Tak in stop-down mode. The SP and SPII have stop-down mode only.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
AhamB wrote:
This is the best one: http://web.aanet.com.au/bayling/repair.html Twisted Evil Wink

That website is BANNED on this forum! Twisted Evil


+1 Razz

thanks for the info peterqd!


PostPosted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
S-M-C and SMC Takumar versions...


PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Super-Takumar early version optical formula difference noted 8/7 vs 7/6 elements/groups. There are conflicting stories. Some say early lens was best on planet at the time, better than Zeiss best, too expensive to produce, Asahi changed it. Some say lens performance was so bad Asahi changed it. Three coatings.

Super-Multi-Coated adds four coatings (7 total) for more contrast, better flare control.

It is said Asahi kept improving coating chemistry, the best being the Pentax SMC Takumar. There is controversy (nobody knows Laughing) if there is any difference between coatings on M42 and PK mount versions. Both were produced during the same period.

I personally see no results differences between S-M-C and SMC M42 versions. The S-M-C version loos way cooler imho Laughing


PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
Super-Takumar early version optical formula difference noted 8/7 vs 7/6 elements/groups. There are conflicting stories. Some say early lens was best on planet at the time, better than Zeiss best, too expensive to produce, Asahi changed it. Some say lens performance was so bad Asahi changed it. Three coatings.

Super-Multi-Coated adds four coatings (7 total) for more contrast, better flare control.

It is said Asahi kept improving coating chemistry, the best being the Pentax SMC Takumar. There is controversy (nobody knows Laughing) if there is any difference between coatings on M42 and PK mount versions. Both were produced during the same period.

I personally see no results differences between S-M-C and SMC M42 versions. The S-M-C version loos way cooler imho Laughing


I currently have a Super-Tak (and it's currently my favorite lens. it's wonderful) , but i've heard the SMC and/or S-M-C versions were better, so i plan on picking one of those up one day, i was just curious as to which one to hunt down, or if there is a difference at all.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 3:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The best Takumar 50/1.4 is the one that you are using Smile

Last edited by dude163 on Sun Jan 30, 2011 3:23 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 3:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
dude163 wrote:
The beat Takumar 50/1.4 is the one that you are using Smile


i like the way you think Wink


PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
We can say that the best tak is the one that you have not try yet.

The first 8 elements is very prone to flare and less contrast lens. Different rendering in bokeh.

The SMC (S-M-C) is a bit different lens than the Super Tajumar, and less radioactive one, so less yellowish too.

The rendering is different too. The SMC has more contrast and a bit sharper (perhaps because less yelowish).

The colors are more real in the SMC.

My option? My lens, the metal and glass S-M-C.

Rino.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
gearsNcogs wrote:
dude163 wrote:
The beat Takumar 50/1.4 is the one that you are using Smile


i like the way you think Wink


No...it's the I'm using. Very Happy


PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi,

estudleon wrote:
We can say that the best tak is the one that you have not try yet.


Well, LBA symptoms Wink ? This thread is pushing me to find a Super-Takumar 50/1.4, to complete the series and trying it Laughing ...


PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
indianadinos wrote:
Hi,

estudleon wrote:
We can say that the best tak is the one that you have not try yet.


Well, LBA symptoms Wink ? This thread is pushing me to find a Super-Takumar 50/1.4, to complete the series and trying it Laughing ...


I know how you feel! only for me its getting a S-M-C tak. Razz


PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dude163 wrote:
The best Takumar 50/1.4 is the one that you are using Smile

With a sledgehammer? Razz


PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I notice some are saying the 8-element Super Takumar is radioactive, but other sources, including other threads on this forum, say it is not (And that the 7-element versions are). Which is it?


PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The difference between the 8 element and 7 element Super Takumars is very small and any preference for one or the other would be subjective. There is no "best", just favorites.

I did a quick comparison and the 7 element did appear to be a bit sharper and the 8 element had a rendering just a bit different, but would I be able to recognize each lens if someone would show me photos taken with them? Nope, I don't think so.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike Deep wrote:
I notice some are saying the 8-element Super Takumar is radioactive, but other sources, including other threads on this forum, say it is not (And that the 7-element versions are). Which is it?

Mike, I gave you this info in my first post above! Shocked


PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
To be honest the 55mm is probably better value.

The 1.4 is softer wide open, but may render better when stopped down. If I have a 1.4 that I can't use at 1.4 then it's rather pointless IMO.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
To be honest the 55mm is probably better value.

The 1.4 is softer wide open, but may render better when stopped down. If I have a 1.4 that I can't use at 1.4 then it's rather pointless IMO.


+1 about the 1:1.8/55 and 1:2/55 probably better value.

The 1.4 isn't THAT soft. The 'soft'-ness is the perfect amount for portraiture imho. Also imho, the 1:1.4/55 gives better results at infinity,the 1:1.4/50 gives better results at closer distance. I like the bokeh of 1:1.8/55 more, but it is unclear how much is the effect of different focal length on bokeh.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
Mike Deep wrote:
I notice some are saying the 8-element Super Takumar is radioactive, but other sources, including other threads on this forum, say it is not (And that the 7-element versions are). Which is it?

Mike, I gave you this info in my first post above! Shocked

I was confused a bit by the posts that followed. I'll take your post to be the correct explanation, thanks.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 4:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
martinsmith99 wrote:
To be honest the 55mm is probably better value.

The 1.4 is softer wide open, but may render better when stopped down. If I have a 1.4 that I can't use at 1.4 then it's rather pointless IMO.


+1 about the 1:1.8/55 and 1:2/55 probably better value.

The 1.4 isn't THAT soft. The 'soft'-ness is the perfect amount for portraiture imho. Also imho, the 1:1.4/55 gives better results at infinity,the 1:1.4/50 gives better results at closer distance. I like the bokeh of 1:1.8/55 more, but it is unclear how much is the effect of different focal length on bokeh.


with my copy, i find the lens to still be sharp at 1.4 (although, i am using it on a cropped sensor). my biggest problem with the lens at 1.4 is the CA, which is only bad depending on what i'm shooting.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1