Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 vs. Pentacon 50 mm f/1.8
 

In article ,
says...
I am getting one of these old M42 manual lenses for use on a slightly
newer 1.3x crop DSLR via an adapter. The price for the Super Takumar
is considerable higher than the price of the Pentacon - but neighter
will break the bank - so the price doesn't matter. The Pentacon is
mint, the Super Takumar shows some wear, but the glass is in good
shape and the controls are smooth.

Which one is the best (resolution, contrast, colour)? I am aware
that the Super Takumar is almost one stop faster, so I am leaning
towards that one - but would like to hear from someone that has
actually used either lens.

I understand that the old lenses have some limitations compared to
modern lenses - e.g. that there is no aperture coupling, and that they
won't meter on a modern camera. But how do these 30 year old (?)
lenses compare /optically/ to modern 50 mm lenses such as a Canon or
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4?

From experience I would go with the super tak. Check to see if it has
yellowed which can be fixed but is time consuming.

Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
I am getting one of these old M42 manual lenses for use on a slightly
newer 1.3x crop DSLR via an adapter. The price for the Super Takumar
is considerable higher than the price of the Pentacon - but neighter
will break the bank - so the price doesn't matter. The Pentacon is
mint, the Super Takumar shows some wear, but the glass is in good
shape and the controls are smooth.

Which one is the best (resolution, contrast, colour)? I am aware
that the Super Takumar is almost one stop faster, so I am leaning
towards that one - but would like to hear from someone that has
actually used either lens.

I understand that the old lenses have some limitations compared to
modern lenses - e.g. that there is no aperture coupling, and that they
won't meter on a modern camera. But how do these 30 year old (?)
lenses compare /optically/ to modern 50 mm lenses such as a Canon or
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4?

I also agree in this case that the Takumar is likely to be bettere than
the Pentacon lens (but not necessarily better than the "Carl Zeiss
Jena", "Aus Jena" or "CZJ" lenses)

The main *improvement* in most prime lenses (unless they are Asph, Apo,
or of extreme speed or focal length) is that they are cheaper to make
than those of 30 years ago.
Many of my favorite lenses are over 30...

In article , says...
Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
I am getting one of these old M42 manual lenses for use on a slightly
newer 1.3x crop DSLR via an adapter. The price for the Super Takumar
is considerable higher than the price of the Pentacon - but neighter
will break the bank - so the price doesn't matter. The Pentacon is
mint, the Super Takumar shows some wear, but the glass is in good
shape and the controls are smooth.

Which one is the best (resolution, contrast, colour)? I am aware
that the Super Takumar is almost one stop faster, so I am leaning
towards that one - but would like to hear from someone that has
actually used either lens.

I understand that the old lenses have some limitations compared to
modern lenses - e.g. that there is no aperture coupling, and that they
won't meter on a modern camera. But how do these 30 year old (?)
lenses compare /optically/ to modern 50 mm lenses such as a Canon or
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4?

I also agree in this case that the Takumar is likely to be bettere than
the Pentacon lens (but not necessarily better than the "Carl Zeiss
Jena", "Aus Jena" or "CZJ" lenses)

The main *improvement* in most prime lenses (unless they are Asph, Apo,
or of extreme speed or focal length) is that they are cheaper to make
than those of 30 years ago.
Many of my favorite lenses are over 30...

I here that. My faves at the moment are a Yahsinon 50 1.4 DX and an old
Nikor 180. I also have some Super Takumars, 50, 28 and 105 that are nice.
Use them on EOS bodies. Ooops, I said a dirty word.

Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
I am getting one of these old M42 manual lenses for use on a slightly
newer 1.3x crop DSLR via an adapter. The price for the Super Takumar
is considerable higher than the price of the Pentacon - but neighter
will break the bank - so the price doesn't matter. The Pentacon is
mint, the Super Takumar shows some wear, but the glass is in good
shape and the controls are smooth.

Which one is the best (resolution, contrast, colour)? I am aware
that the Super Takumar is almost one stop faster, so I am leaning
towards that one - but would like to hear from someone that has
actually used either lens.

I understand that the old lenses have some limitations compared to
modern lenses - e.g. that there is no aperture coupling, and that they
won't meter on a modern camera. But how do these 30 year old (?)
lenses compare /optically/ to modern 50 mm lenses such as a Canon or
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4?

I have both the Super Takumar 50/1.4 and the Pentacon 50/1.8. The
Pentacon is decent (I've always suspected I have a bad copy), but the
Takumar is nothing short of amazing. That extra 2/3rds of a stop has
saved many of my shots from blur in low light; I'm allergic to flash. I
don't have an EF or Nikkor 50/1.4, and I've never done any scientific
tests, but my Takumar is at least as good as my EF 50/1.8 and Series E
50/1.8.

One thing to be careful of on EOS bodies (which I assume the 1.3x crop
DSLR is) is that on some wide and normal M42 lenses, the rear lens
element is so far back that the mirror will actually collide with it
when it's near or at infinity. I can't use my wide and normal super taks
on my EOS film bodies because of this. I don't know if this will happen
to you, but it's something to watch for.

- Matt

Matt White wrote:

Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

I am getting one of these old M42 manual lenses for use on a slightly
newer 1.3x crop DSLR via an adapter. The price for the Super Takumar
is considerable higher than the price of the Pentacon - but neighter
will break the bank - so the price doesn't matter. The Pentacon is
mint, the Super Takumar shows some wear, but the glass is in good
shape and the controls are smooth.

Which one is the best (resolution, contrast, colour)? I am aware
that the Super Takumar is almost one stop faster, so I am leaning
towards that one - but would like to hear from someone that has
actually used either lens.

I understand that the old lenses have some limitations compared to
modern lenses - e.g. that there is no aperture coupling, and that they
won't meter on a modern camera. But how do these 30 year old (?)
lenses compare /optically/ to modern 50 mm lenses such as a Canon or
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4?


I have both the Super Takumar 50/1.4 and the Pentacon 50/1.8. The
Pentacon is decent (I've always suspected I have a bad copy), but the
Takumar is nothing short of amazing. That extra 2/3rds of a stop has
saved many of my shots from blur in low light; I'm allergic to flash. I
don't have an EF or Nikkor 50/1.4, and I've never done any scientific
tests, but my Takumar is at least as good as my EF 50/1.8 and Series E
50/1.8.

One thing to be careful of on EOS bodies (which I assume the 1.3x crop
DSLR is) is that on some wide and normal M42 lenses, the rear lens
element is so far back that the mirror will actually collide with it
when it's near or at infinity. I can't use my wide and normal super taks
on my EOS film bodies because of this. I don't know if this will happen
to you, but it's something to watch for.

- Matt

You make a very common mistake.in your expectations. Compare the two
lenses at f8 and f11 - typical optimal settings.

I believe the Pentax will sell itself.

(The mistake - wider openings are for focus, being the most shallow in
DOF. Narrower openings are for shooting. Unless you buy a really big
bucks lens, don't expect wide open shots to represent what the glass
really can do.)

Jan

JMW wrote:
Matt White wrote:

Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

I am getting one of these old M42 manual lenses for use on a slightly
newer 1.3x crop DSLR via an adapter. The price for the Super Takumar
is considerable higher than the price of the Pentacon - but neighter
will break the bank - so the price doesn't matter. The Pentacon is
mint, the Super Takumar shows some wear, but the glass is in good
shape and the controls are smooth.

Which one is the best (resolution, contrast, colour)? I am aware
that the Super Takumar is almost one stop faster, so I am leaning
towards that one - but would like to hear from someone that has
actually used either lens.

I understand that the old lenses have some limitations compared to
modern lenses - e.g. that there is no aperture coupling, and that they
won't meter on a modern camera. But how do these 30 year old (?)
lenses compare /optically/ to modern 50 mm lenses such as a Canon or
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4?



I have both the Super Takumar 50/1.4 and the Pentacon 50/1.8. The
Pentacon is decent (I've always suspected I have a bad copy), but the
Takumar is nothing short of amazing. That extra 2/3rds of a stop has
saved many of my shots from blur in low light; I'm allergic to flash.
I don't have an EF or Nikkor 50/1.4, and I've never done any
scientific tests, but my Takumar is at least as good as my EF 50/1.8
and Series E 50/1.8.

One thing to be careful of on EOS bodies (which I assume the 1.3x crop
DSLR is) is that on some wide and normal M42 lenses, the rear lens
element is so far back that the mirror will actually collide with it
when it's near or at infinity. I can't use my wide and normal super
taks on my EOS film bodies because of this. I don't know if this will
happen to you, but it's something to watch for.

- Matt


You make a very common mistake.in your expectations. Compare the two
lenses at f8 and f11 - typical optimal settings.

I believe the Pentax will sell itself.

(The mistake - wider openings are for focus, being the most shallow in
DOF. Narrower openings are for shooting. Unless you buy a really big
bucks lens, don't expect wide open shots to represent what the glass
really can do.)

Jan
Comparing at f8 or f11 doesn't make sense if he's looking for a fast
lens for low light shooting. If I was looking for a fast lens, I'd be
comparing the images taken with the lens wide open.

Stacey wrote:
wrote:



From experience I would go with the super tak. Check to see if it has
yellowed which can be fixed but is time consuming.

I agree. The "pentacon" branded lenses were the bargain ones for that
camera, the good ones were Carl Zeiss Jena or CZJ.

Pentacon branded lenses were mostly made by the remains of
Hugo Meyer Goerlitz. They had been a fine lens company
(though not as celebrated as CZJ) in the pre-communist era.
The communists appear to have decided that Meyer should be
a second-tier maker, not necessarily bad, but not intended
to be the very best.

Still, I'm always looking out for a Meyer-Goerlitz or Pentacon
100/2.8.

Peter.
--

JMW wrote:

You make a very common mistake.in your expectations. Compare the two
lenses at f8 and f11 - typical optimal settings.

Both the Super-Takumar 50/1.4 and and the 55mm/1.8 will be
at their best in the centre of the image at f/4 or f/5.6.

I really like my SMC Takumar 55mm/1.8. These were first-class
lenses when made, and in those days Kodachrome II (ASA 25)
was very popular and a lot of photography in sunlight was
done at f/4 or f/5.6.


I believe the Pentax will sell itself.

Agreed.

(The mistake - wider openings are for focus, being the most shallow in
DOF. Narrower openings are for shooting. Unless you buy a really big
bucks lens, don't expect wide open shots to represent what the glass
really can do.)

Pay no attention to the modest price tag. These were first class
lenses for their time. They are very nice at f/4 and not too
shabby wide open.

Peter.
--

Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
Matt White writes:
One thing to be careful of on EOS bodies (which I assume the 1.3x
crop DSLR is)

No, it's a Nikon F-mount Kodak (see sig.) but I'll make sure
the mirror clears before I use it. Thanks for the warning.

There is another problem then. The Nikon F mount is one of the
few which has a mount to sensor distance longer than the
M42 system. A simple adaptor without optics will not allow
you to focus at infinity with an M42 lens.

Any adaptor which will work at infinity has to include a
small teleconverter. If you don't already have M42 system
lenses, I wouldn't buy them with the intent of using them
on a Nikon-F mount body.

Peter.
--