"Gisle Hannemyr" wrote in message
...
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.

The Pentacon is a pretty good lens, but The Pentax is one of the greatest
50mm lenses ever made.

A slightly later Super-Multicoated-Takumar or, later still, SMC Takumar
would probably be a better bet still, since Pentax's SMC coating is to this
day one of the very best. (The original SMC is as good as modern Zeiss T*
and Fujinon EBC, the current SMC I think edges even both these out.)
However, the latest Super Takumars were multi-coated before the process was
officially launched by Pentax, so take a close look and you _may_ find you
get a bargain if the lens has multicoating but not the 'label' to say so.

The Super Taks started off using Thorium in their glass formulation and some
of the earlier ones have now yellowed due to compounds of the products of
Thorium's radioactive decay. Not all samples seem to exhibit this effect,
it should not be confused with the lens coating which can look yellow/brown
from certain angles. Look through the lens at a piece of white paper to see
if it has become too yellow - a little warmth you may or may not mind, but
appreciable yellowing is a problem. It _may_ be possible to clear a
yellowed lens with UV light, but people argue about this so I wouldn't buy a
yellowed lens on the assumption it will definitely work.


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.

The Pentax is quite good wide open - better than the Pentacon, but stopped
down to around f5.6 is where it will really blow your socks off.


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?

The Penatcon will probably not perform as well, though it won't be miles
behind. The Pentax beats both these examples, though the Nikon may be a bit
sharper wide open, if not when stopped down. Subjective impressions, these.

Personally, however, I like Pentax's lens 'philosophy' better than Canon's
or Nikon's anyway. Canon can look too 'smoothed out' to my eye - not enough
micro contrast, perhaps - as if the whole world (not just people) were
wearing a bit of foundation. Nikon is much more contrasty, and I like that
for B&W, but less so for colour, and the Nikon's bokeh is not attractive.
These are very subjective views and relate to what works best for my style
and subject matter, so YMMV.


Peter