I don't get it - what are these old lenses good for?

[madsenandersc]

I've been lurking in this forum for quite a while and I've finally taken the plunge and spent a significant amount of money (we are talking upwards 30 GBP including postage) for what is probably a 50-something years old Super Takumar 135 mm f/3.5 with an unhealthy amount of fine fungus in it. I really did not want to spend too much, because - let's get serious here, folks, these old geezers is really nothing but an old-timey hobby and it's not possible to get results from them that can match a new lens. But hey, it's all good, y'know, and if someone has fun running around playing photographer with one of these relics, all the power to them, right?

Anyway, this weekend we had a bit of good weather in Denmark and I thought it would be a good chance to do a bit of testing so I mounted the 135 on my trusty old Canon 1Ds MKMII and snapped some pictures at the west coast.

And, well - yeah, my worst fears were confirmed. Look, this is what you get straight out of the camera when processed through Capture One using the "Film - high contrast" setting:



And this lens is supposed to be sharp when used wide open? Ha! Just look at this 100% crop - really, just look at it:



Man - but I guess that is what you get, fungus and all. And manual focus! OK, it may do for a stationary object, but the moment things start to move just the slightest you will be so thoroughly hosed - like this, for instance:



Clearly, anyone using this lens for anything faster than a snail-race must be severely delusional.

OH! - and the flare! Glass that has never seen a computer design program, coated by just about nothing - it's a recipe for flaring all over the place once you point your camera even in the general direction of the sun. Put the sun in the frame and you are asking for it - seriously, this is where you end up:



- and while we are at it, we might as well touch on the last thing that you will see with these ancient designs: The abberations. Oh my - don't get me started on the abberations. You put some semi-high contrast subject in your image and you will see those pesky green and red stipes lining everything - this is a 100% crop from the scene above:



I mean, seriously people - I have Canon L-glass that performs almost as well!

So, like I said, I really don't see what anyone could expect these old lenses to be good for, and it is obvious to me that there is no way anyone could ever hope to use them for anything even slightly important - you'd have to be crazy to even consider it...



Regards,
Anders

[madsenandersc]

- and I guess a second post is needed for the images to show up? BTW, all images are straight out of the camera, all processed in Capture One using the high contrast setting.

[Billou]

Very nice pictures.

[ManualFocus-G]

Chuck it in the bin Thanks for sharing

[jjphoto]

Ixnay on the old enslay!

[rbelyell]

better to chuck the L's!
tony

[Lloydy]

Yeah....I'm crazy and loving it. I love the challenge of getting good pictures from old lenses, and better still; I love the pictures I get from the old lenses. I also love the most expensive lens I own, a very nice auto focus lens. But they are worlds apart, that modern AF marvel will produce an image that is hard to tell apart from old classics that are in some cases 50 years older. And that's OK, the image is the important thing. But..........getting that image is also important. When I use my old lenses I can't just point and shoot, I slow down and think about what I want and how to achieve it, the lens sets the pace. And that's a good thing.
I think the old Takumar set the pace for you as well.

[SonicScot]

[inombrable]

How could you spend 30 significant pounds on a lens???? You must be rich !!!! (and crazy)

Nice eyelashes by the way!!!

[eddieitman]

Why would you buy a lens covered in Fungus for that much money, but they look nice to me when processed.
If you dont mind i ran those through Aperture and i think they look a lot better with pop

[iangreenhalgh1]

That Takumar looks excellent, congrats. I really enjoyed how you approached the review, very funny but also very informative, thanks.

[poilu]

welcome Anders, nice demo with the takumar

[madsenandersc]

[madsenandersc]

[mackeral]

[inombrable]

[Ultron]

Great first post, Anders!

But be careful pointing lenses to the sun, especially tele lenses. I understand the bundled infrared light can make you blind!

Best to use live view for that!

[Lloydy]

I like the picture with the flare, because of its circular shape it looks natural, as though it should be there.

[madsenandersc]

[madsenandersc]

[madsenandersc]

[diddy]

If the lens was not as described, you could have just returned it (the seller is supposed to cover the return costs then) ... or at least ask for a refund!
Cleaning a lens yourself is only something you should do if you are really comfortable with it and have some experience, otherwise it is best to have it professionally cleaned. If you have a look around, you will find someone who cleans the lens for an acceptable price.

Very nice pictures overall! Good to hear that you enjoy this lens.

[Ultron]

I don't have live view either, but if I had it I would use it for shots into the sun.
For now, I am just careful with it, and I never use long lenses anyway.

I guess the best way to tell if there is any risk is to check if you can feel the warmth of the sun, because it is not the visible light to worry about (too much visible light will make you look away) but the infrared.

I think IR-blocking sunglasses could also make some difference, though I wouldn't rely on it but only use it as an extra precaution. But most ssunglasses that claim to have IR-blocking Revo-coating block only very little IR-light, you can test it by shooting a remote control through it.
I have a pair of very old genuine Revo-glasses that seem to block most of the infrared. They are in bad shape with scratches on the coating but when using my remote through it I have to be about one meter from the tv to operate it.