50mm f1.4 SMC Takumar at full aperture tests.

[pentaxpete]

I thought I would test my lovely ( but RADIO-ACTIVE !! ) 50mm f1.4 SMC Takumarat FULL APERTURE again on some subjects I had tested my 50mm f1.4 Carl Zeiss Planar and 50mm f1.4 G.Zuiko -- well I reckon the SMC Takumar BEATS the Carl Zeiss Planar and is about the SAME as the 50mm f1.4 G . Zuiko . I used outdated Ilford HP5+ and this time I processed the short length of film in Promicrol liquid 1+14 to see if it was any different to my home-made ID11 1+1 -- the negs were 'thinner' suprisingly as Promicrol is supposed to up the film speed . I rated the film at 400 ASA -- 'Fog Level' was about the same as ID11.

[scsambrook]

Now, that's my kind of testing -outdated film and a developer whose chemistry dates back to the late 1950s. Not a pixel in sight and a grainy image that actually looks the photos I used to print Good for you. Why not do some more, developing HP5 or Tri-X in an acutance developer? That graveyard shot would look even grittier then. More, please! (Before the Ninja Zeiss Protection Service comes and takes you away for experiments to see how you could possibly say a Super Tak's better than a Planar !!!)

[visualopsins]

He said a SMC Tak is better than a Planar, not a Super-Tak. And I agree. (testing T* & SMC might reveal something entire different!!!)

The SMC coatings are better. I would expect that film that exhibits contrast best (B&W) would show off the coatings contrast difference best. Here we are!

[pentaxpete]

Thanks for your interest Gents --my 'testing'is NOT under 'Lab Conditions' but I can get a good idea on 'real subjects' viewing the negatives under a x6 Leitz Magnifier. On this occasion I took a few on the 'SMC Takumar' as MARKED on lens -- NOT the 'S-M-C or Super-Multicoated' markings, then took out the flim and re=loaded into my Contax RTS II Quartz with the 50mm f1.4 Carl Zeiss Planar T*-- I took the SAME building at full aperture on both lenses but have not scanned those negs as it would NOT show much on a Computer screen, so I showed only these two which might look better on a computer screen .