A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 22nd 05, 06:59 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #3  
Old September 22nd 05, 07:57 AM
Chris Loffredo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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...
  #4  
Old September 22nd 05, 08:07 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #5  
Old September 22nd 05, 01:56 PM
Matt White
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #6  
Old September 22nd 05, 02:36 PM
JMW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #7  
Old September 22nd 05, 02:43 PM
Paul Bielec
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #9  
Old September 22nd 05, 03:23 PM
Peter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.
--


  #10  
Old September 22nd 05, 03:31 PM
Peter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.
--


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
nikon 55mm f/1.2 over various 50mm f/1.4 Bruce Murphy 35mm Photo Equipment 3 November 29th 04 07:36 PM
nikon 55mm f/1.2 over various 50mm f/1.4 Bruce Murphy Digital SLR Cameras 3 November 29th 04 07:36 PM
FS: Canon A-1 and Canon 50mm f/1.4 FD SSC Witold 35mm Equipment for Sale 1 November 22nd 04 10:18 AM
FS: Canon A-1 and Canon 50mm f/1.4 FD breechlock lens Witold 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 October 19th 04 12:12 PM
FA: Pentax Super Takumar Macro Lens 50mm f/4 screw mount UncaMikey 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 May 31st 04 08:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.