p.1 #1 · Takumar 135 3.5--has anyone ever seen any charts?
I am wondering if anyone has ever seen any MTF charts on the Super Takumar 135 3.5, or any of the other old Takumar M42 lenses for that matter, and could either direct me to them or tell me how they fared. The reason I ask about that lens in particular is that I have had a copy sitting in a box for quite some time. Found it at the flea market for a few dollars in very nice shape so I picked it up. Never really used it. I don't use the 135 rage much; I have a bunch of lenses like that, picked them up cheap and wound up throwing them in the box. Anyway, I am leaving for a trip and I though I might want something in that range, so pulled it out for a closer look--when I really got into it, I was stunned. This lens is incredibly sharp. I don't have the Canon 135L to compare it to, but I do have the 200 2.8 L and the 100 2.8 macro, both very sharp and respected lenses. I set up roughly equivalent shots for each, and that Takumar was note for note with them, right down into the very corners--very sharp, very precise. So it got me wondering if there are MTF charts for the old M42 Takumars around, because I have never seen them. I would be interested in knowing how those lenses rate, because this is not the first time I have found one that performed this way--I have a Super Takumar 50 1.4 and also an SMC Takumar 55 2 which also seemed to have exceptional resolving power. Of course, MTF measures, what--the ability to resolve pairs of lines or some such? Well, I don't photograph pairs of lines, and nor does anyone I know, so I have always considered MTF to be only partially applicable to real world subjects. But still, the charts are an interesting referent, and I am curious to know how the Takumars rate on them.
A 135/3.5 I picked up for $20US is what got me started collecting MF lenses, in particular M42 S-M-C Takumars -- at the time I thought I wanted a Canon 200/4L. Heck, I got most of a complete set of S-M-C Takumars for the same price. They perform quite well competing favorably with canon L-glass IQ, for a small fraction of the cost.
p.1 #3 · Takumar 135 3.5--has anyone ever seen any charts?
Why not just purchase, mine on B/S-and find out for yourself. $30.00 shipped. Look at the two pictures i took with it on my 30D, and almost 80 year old eyes! Why worry about charts for this price? I know you have one-but maybe someone out there respects your and my opinion, enought to buy mine.
Cheers
Harry
p.1 #8 · Takumar 135 3.5--has anyone ever seen any charts?
Thank you Burnt Toast. Interesting comparisons, I just wish that the pictures were bigger--that would make the images a bit more helpful. But the Takumars do certainly equate themselves well in that comparison--so I guess my copy is not that unusual. I am curious, if anyone else looks at the comparisons in the link above, would anyone like to render their opinions about which they like? I would be very interested in other people's opinions on which, if any of those, stood out the most.
p.1 #9 · Takumar 135 3.5--has anyone ever seen any charts?
burnt_toast wrote: http://oomz.net/135/
Hi.
I believe, the original poster, asked to see MTF charts, for various Pentax 135 F3.5 l3nses-not photos of Church tops. Correct me if iam wrong.
p.1 #10 · Takumar 135 3.5--has anyone ever seen any charts?
Yeah, that's correct--but you know, church tops are nice too, and it was an interesting comparison. But yes, if someone knows of MTF charts I would like to see them. Actually, not just of the 135s, but for any of the old Takumar m42 lenses. It's not some crucial thing, just something I am curious about.
p.1 #12 · Takumar 135 3.5--has anyone ever seen any charts?
Hmm, I've got comparision shots from the Pentax 135/3.5, Leica R 135/2.8 and Contax Zeiss 135/2.8 at my site. Didn't want to link them to this post after the comments burnt_toast got for giving samples. Not used to see such silly attacks here. We all usually post all sorts of helpful response to a given subject.
p.1 #13 · Takumar 135 3.5--has anyone ever seen any charts?
Chococat wrote:
Thank you Burnt Toast. Interesting comparisons, I just wish that the pictures were bigger--that would make the images a bit more helpful.
I believe you are seeing 100% crops there, so they are the equivalent of full res JPEGs.
I have never seen MTFs for any of the Taks, but I can confirm that the S-M-C 135/3.5 was one of the sharpest 135mm lenses I have ever owned (right from wide-open), with incredible color (best I have ever seen?). It also had the worst bokeh that I have ever seen.
p.1 #16 · Takumar 135 3.5--has anyone ever seen any charts?
Regarding the comparison of the church tops, I hope my comment was not taken the wrong way--I was not being sarcastic, because while I did ask about MTF charts, it was nice for me to see those. And so if anyone has any other comparisons, I would very much like to see them as well. If those are indeed 100% crops, then by f/8 or so, so many of those lenses are good enough finding differences between the good ones (and of there are some bad ones in there also) becomes more like nit picking. One of the things that prompted me to start this thread is that I like my Takumar 135 3.5, and I think it gives nice images and good colors. And I should point out that I always use it stopped down, around 8 or 11, so I can't attest to the bokeh much. But I am not quite sure what to compare it to--I have a Pentacon (which seems good), a Vivitar (good, but CA), and an Olympus (not as good), but I have always wondered about how it compares to something flashy like the Canon. If those church tops are representative, then it doesn't seem as if it would ever be worth spending all the money to buy a Canon L if I have a Takumar that is giving me quite good quality. So maybe I should redirect the thread if anyone is still interested, and ask about any comparisons between their older 135s and the Canon L, or comparisons between the Takumar 3.5s and 2.5s, or the Jena--a couple posters seem to feel the Jena outdoes the Takumar, SMC outdoes the Super Tak. Any opinion also on the Takumar 3.5 vs. 2.5?
p.1 #17 · Takumar 135 3.5--has anyone ever seen any charts?
Chococat - I hope you don't think my comments were aimed at you because they were not.
Check out the gallery linked below. About in the middle you will see some images of a red cabin shot with my 3 135s to include the Pentax. The Pentax actually handles the CA better than the Contax Zeiss or Leica R and in just as sharp. Add in it's lighter weight and smaller size and you start appreciating it for the gem it is.
p.1 #18 · Takumar 135 3.5--has anyone ever seen any charts?
James--thank you for the link, and I see the photos of the red cabin. It's hard to really give them due consideration, though, because the presence of the processed photo from the Contax looks so good that it just kind of overwhelms the other. Processed do you think the Takumar would look as sharp and bold?
Yes, I agree--light in weight and small in size. But that's really true of all these old lenses compared to the modern ones. It's part of the funny reaction you get when meet up with people who don't realize you can adapt these old lenses (and there are still plenty of people who don't know). I remember I once had the Olympus 28mm 3.5 on my camera, and that thing is miniscule--it's seriously about the size of Reese's Peanut Butter Cup or something. And I saw a friend of mine, she had her camera and the 24-70L on it, which is massive. She stared at me at disbelief, and said, "you can't seriously think you are going to take a picture with that tiny thing?" I told her to set her lens to 28mm and compare it with mine--the old Olympus whipped it good, by the time you got to the corners the L zoom wasn't even close. I have often wondered how and why lenses got so huge, because history shows a lens does not have to be physically large to deliver a good image. It's like modern lenses are on steroids or something.
p.1 #19 · Takumar 135 3.5--has anyone ever seen any charts?
Chococat wrote:
....I have often wondered how and why lenses got so huge, because history shows a lens does not have to be physically large to deliver a good image. It's like modern lenses are on steroids or something.
No kidding, although I think it has to do mostly with AF and increasingly fast glass. I'm in the same boat as you. I picked up a CZ Jena 135 3.5, and I'm amazed at the performance and small size. It's sharp wide open. I'm getting ready to go on a trip, and I ended up canceling my rental for a much larger lens, because the little m42 performs well and is lightweight.
p.1 #20 · Takumar 135 3.5--has anyone ever seen any charts?
Definitely adding gears for the AF would make them bigger, but there are still AF lenses which are small and function quite adequately--the Canon 35 f2 for instance is still quite small. I used to collect Minolta Maxxum lenses when I was shooting a Sony DSLR, and they were AF and also not that big--my 50 1.7 was an AF and only a 49mm filter. Maybe the USM, etc., type drives make them bigger. But I don't know if I accept the fast glass suggestion because always back in the day they had 1.4 lenses, even some 1.2 lenses, and many of them were still tiny by modern standards. Takumar and Olympus 1.4 lenses are still only 49mm filter sizes. Of course, those old lenses had metal shells--maybe going the cheaper way by using plastics somehow made them larger. Or who knows, maybe they like making them bigger because people think bigger is better. Then again, there is still my steroids theory . . .
All I know is, like you taking the CZ Jena, I love traveling with these old lenses because it takes so much less space. Used to be that if I were taking a camera and three lenses I had a pretty full bag. Last time I went on a trip I took all old lenses, and I just kept putting them in the bag because there was suddenly so much room--then I stopped and counted them and said, "wait, this is crazy, I don't need to take 12 camera lenses"--but it turned out I could fit 12 old ones where I used to fit three giant modern ones.
