| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3209
Location: The Netherlands
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 4:18 pm Post subject: Comparison: Tak 135/2.5 v2, Pentacon 135/2.8, Viv 70-150/3.8 |
 |
|
caspert79 wrote:
Because I received my Vivitar 70-150/3.8 yesterday, I decided to test whether it holds up against my 135mm primes. The lenses involved are:
- Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135mm f/2.8 (2nd version)
- Pentacon 135mm f/2.8 MC
- Vivitar 70-150mm f/3.8 MC (one-touch version) @ 135mm
To eliminate inaccurate focus, I took each picture 4 times, and focused again before each picture. Only the sharpest pictures are included in the test. Furthermore: heavy tripod, timer on 2 sec/ anti shock.
Enjoy!
Conclusions:
Wide open:
The Takumar is sharper and much more contrasty than the Pentacon. Both lenses show quite some chromatic aberration (look at the branch in front of the sky).
@2.8:
The Takumar is sharper and more contrasty than both other lenses. Still, chromatic aberration is most prominent in the Takumar's picture. In terms of sharpness, the Vivitar and Pentacon perform equally IMO. The sense of sharpness is greater in the Pentacon, because its contrast is better. I think that, in general, this is where primes excel over zoom lenses. Slightly different lighting conditions may also have had some influence.
@5.6
Similar findings as @2.8, only the Tak's chromatic aberrations are now under control.
I also did a test at closer distance:
Conclusion:
Not too interesting results I think at close focus. The Vivitar is slightly less contrasty than the primes. All lenses have nice bokeh in this test.
General conclusion:
Does the Vivitar 70-150/3.8 holds up against the primes in this test? Not really. Contrast in both primes is, not surprisingly, clearly better. Still, the Vivitar is a very fine zoom lens which is able to render plenty of detail. Contrast can be compensated for in Photoshop.
Here are 2 test shots I made with the Vivitar.
Feel free to add comments. Have a nice weekend! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CarbonR
Joined: 31 Dec 2008
Posts: 1969
Location: Clermont-Ferrand, France
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
CarbonR wrote:
I'm used with a bit more sharpness, especially for close up with the Takumar, but I have bodies that are not that demanding (6Mpix APS-C and 13 MPix 24x36). Anyway, that confirms what I know from the two primes, the Takumar is very sharp, the Pentacon has an excellent quality/price ratio 
_________________
Cameras : Canon 5D, Pentax K100D, Pentax 6x7, Spotmatic
Lenses : 15mm to 1000mm (24x36)
My websites : [FR & ENG]Takumar - the eyes of the Spotmatic : info about all Takumar lenses // Kogaku - My photo site
I am selling : Takumar lenses and rare Pentax bodies, pm me if you're interested in something [MFLenses feed-back]
Information on Takumar lenses with samples :
Wide angle : Takumar 15/3.5 15mm, Takumar 17/4 17mm, Takumar 18/11 18mm, Takumar 20/4.5 20mm, Takumar 24/3.5 24mm, Takumar 28/3.5 V1 28mm, Takumar 28/3.5 V2 28mm, Takumar 35/2 V1 35mm, Takumar 35/2 V2 35mm, Takumar 35/2.3 35mm, Takumar 35/3.5 35mm, Takumar 35/4 35mm
Standard : Takumar 50/1.4 V1 50mm, Takumar 50/1.4 V2 50mm, Takumar 50/3.5 50mm, Takumar 50/4 50mm, Takumar 55/2 55/1.8 55mm, Takumar 55/2.2 V1 55mm, Takumar 55/2.2 V2 55mm, Takumar 58/2 58mm, Takumar 58/2.4 58mm
Short tele : Takumar 83/1.9 83mm, Takumar 85/1.8 85/1.9 85mm, Takumar 85/1.8 85mm, Takumar 100/2 100mm, Takumar 100/3.5 100mm, Takumar 100/4 100mm, Takumar 105/2.8 V1 105mm, Takumar 105/2.8 V2 105mm, Takumar 120/2.8 120mm
Telephoto : Takumar 135/2.5 V1 135mm, Takumar 135/2.5 V2 135mm, Takumar 135/3.5 V1 135mm, Takumar 135/3.5 V2 135mm, Takumar 150/4 V1 150mm, Takumar 150/4 V2 150mm
Long tele : Takumar 200/3.5 200mm, Takumar 200/4 200mm, Takumar 200/5.6 200mm, Takumar 300/4 V1 300mm, Takumar 300/4 V2 300mm, Takumar 300/4 V3 300mm, Takumar 300/6.3 300mm, Takumar 400/5.6 400mm, Takumar 500/4.5 500mm, Takumar 500/5 500mm, Takumar 1000/8 V1 1000mm, Takumar 1000/8 V2 1000mm
Zoom : Zoom-Takumar 45~125/4 , Zoom-Takumar 70~150/4.5 , Zoom-Takumar 85~210/4.5 , Zoom-Takumar 135~600/6.7
Achromatic : Ultra-Achromatic-Takumar 85/4.5 , Ultra-Achromatic-Takumar 300/5.6 300mm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3209
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
I agree, m4/3 has too many pixels on a relatively small sensor, so the 100% crops don't look that spectacular. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 6950
Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
I prefer the Pentacon images TBO. This has shown me that the Tak isn't worth the money for my tastes.
_________________
Casual attendance these days |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
The pentacon has less CA at F/2,8 (The SMC was used at 2,5 not 2,8, that is almost half aperture).
At F/ 4 are similar to my eyes, concern to CA.
At F/5,6 the SMC present best correction for the CA, I guess.
IN contrast the SMC win, for me.
At close focus, the pentacon seems top be the sharp, but, again, the SMC was used at wide opne too (F/2,5 not 2, .
I like the SMC more.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3209
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
| estudleon wrote: |
The pentacon has less CA at F/2,8 (The SMC was used at 2,5 not 2,8, that is almost half aperture).
At F/ 4 are similar to my eyes, concern to CA.
At F/5,6 the SMC present best correction for the CA, I guess.
IN contrast the SMC win, for me.
At close focus, the pentacon seems top be the sharp, but, again, the SMC was used at wide opne too (F/2,5 not 2,.
I like the SMC more. |
Yep, I agree. For me, the Tak wins hands down, despite the CA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008
Posts: 2495
Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
The second test appear to me like there's slight shake on Takumars picture...
_________________
(almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
I think that it's a bit OOF.
See the leaf in our right down side of the crop pic of the tak. That leaf is in focus (more than the object). And now look at the pentacon crop, and that leaf is oof. There is a difference in focus point. But is minimal.
I forgot to ask the distance of the close focus taken. Doesn't seem very close.
Rino.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dsmlogger
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 178
Location: Athens, Greece
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dsmlogger wrote:
| martinsmith99 wrote: |
| I prefer the Pentacon images TBO. This has shown me that the Tak isn't worth the money for my tastes. |
+1
The Pentacon clearly has less CA wide open and the "lack" of contrast shows up more detail and more "balanced" images than th Takumar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nordentro
Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Posts: 4713
Location: Lillehammer, Norway
Expire: 2015-01-29
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nordentro wrote:
Interesting test, thx for sharing 
Which Pentacon did you use? MC is the 6 blade version and not the 15?
_________________
Lars | Manuellfokus.no |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3209
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
| Nordentro wrote: |
Interesting test, thx for sharing
Which Pentacon did you use? MC is the 6 blade version and not the 15? |
Welcome. The 6 blade version indeed. I also own the 15 blade version, but it suffers from terrible haze 
@no-x & estudleon: I'm afraid the close focus test is not very reliable, for the subject is in fact moving (in the wind). That might also have caused a slight OOF.
@dsmlogger: I think CA is actually a typical Takumar-problem. In my 50&55mm field test that I did one day earlier I also found that the Takumars showed most CA:
http://forum.mflenses.com/several-50-55-mm-primes-compared-in-the-field-t34237.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
Yes, I watched your test of 50-55 mm lenses.
The takumars suffer from CA. But the quantum decrease from F/4. There are two apertures with strong CA wide open and F/2.
In 135 mm lenses, which have not CA at wide open? Only some apochromat ones of nearest focal lenght (apo voigtlander, kinoptic 100 or 150, etc).
With the very good 2,5/135, I saw a lot of pics showed in the forum where the CA existent (like in all the lenses not apo ones) is minimal, very little and only wide open. At F/4 is gone in the facts.
My MC CZJ 3,5/135 had more CA than the 2,5/135 (my son of law's one).
I fell in love with this lens (because not mine?  ). It's a great lens. The first great 135 mm that I try since my elmarit M. (and my apo kinoptic 2/100 that was out of any competence).
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3209
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
| estudleon wrote: |
Yes, I watched your test of 50-55 mm lenses.
The takumars suffer from CA. But the quantum decrease from F/4. There are two apertures with strong CA wide open and F/2.
In 135 mm lenses, which have not CA at wide open? Only some apochromat ones of nearest focal lenght (apo voigtlander, kinoptic 100 or 150, etc).
With the very good 2,5/135, I saw a lot of pics showed in the forum where the CA existent (like in all the lenses not apo ones) is minimal, very little and only wide open. At F/4 is gone in the facts.
My MC CZJ 3,5/135 had more CA than the 2,5/135 (my son of law's one).
I fell in love with this lens (because not mine? ). It's a great lens. The first great 135 mm that I try since my elmarit M. (and my apo kinoptic 2/100 that was out of any competence). |
I think you're right. Besides: usually you don't use a microscope to look at an image. The Takumar delivers very contrasty pictures wide open (in fact more contrasty than the Pentacon @ 5.6). This makes it a very usefull telelens, because (especially on my E-P1), I can use very fast shutter speeds while the images still look nice, contrasty and with nice warm colors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paul_sub2000@yahoo.com
Joined: 29 May 2013
Posts: 2
Location: India
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 01, 2013 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
paul_sub2000@yahoo.com wrote:
It seems that the reviewers for this topic are biased for SMC Tak. None of them notice chromatic aberration in the Takumar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
