I was enjoying Guy's posts so much that I thought I'd compare these light weights for those who are looking for more options. The Takumar is the metal focus ring SMC, not the later one with the rubber ring, though they're suppose to be the same optically.
Mainly, they were both manually focused on a tripod with a remote shutter release and mirror lock up . They're both unprocessed except for the bokeh test, which I added a bit of curves. I was actually very suprised by the results, though I guess it was a bit expected. One disapointment that I noticed though is the takumar's yellow cast, I guess this means that I'll have to stick it out in the sun for a day or two to see if the UV rays eliminate it. Anyhow, I'll post later about that.
Anyhow, let me know what you think, and if I forgot anything.
Clayton, great test for those of us who have been messing around with M42 mount lenses for a while. Looks like I need ot get rid of My Canon 50 Mark 2 as that is optically inferior to the mark I isn't it?
I'm probably in a good place to compare some 35's when I get round to buying some breakfast cereals as I have the 35L, Takumar 35/2 and the Flektogon 35/2.4.
Isca wrote:
Clayton, great test for those of us who have been messing around with M42 mount lenses for a while. Looks like I need ot get rid of My Canon 50 Mark 2 as that is optically inferior to the mark I isn't it?
Yea, from what I've heard also, or was it that the quality control was apparently better (?). Anyways, it seems like I'll be getting rid of my Mk1 too. Though I think I need to see if Rachael will make a focus assist screen for my D60 before I do that.
I'm probably in a good place to compare some 35's when I get round to buying some breakfast cereals as I have the 35L, Takumar 35/2 and the Flektogon 35/2.4.
Hey, that sounds like it would be a really good comparision. I'm sure alot of people would be interested, including me... though I'd be a bit worried it would make me consider letting go of my Canon 35 f/2.
pookipichu wrote:
That Takumar is very very nice. Sharp, bokeh is well rendered :-) Thanks for sharing.
Yea, I thought the quality would really drop off wide open, but supisingly, it seems to have held together really well. Weird, since this is something I had come to learn when researching this lens before I bought it.
PS- you are using an eos adapter for the Takumar? It's so sharp at 1.4! Have you compared to canon 50mm 1.4?
Actually, I got the EOS to M42 adapter from SteveS on the forum when I bought a helios 85mm 40-2 off of him. You can usually find the adapter going for about 20 dollar US on ebay. They don't have any optics and luckily infinity focus is retained.
As for the last question, I wish I had a canon 50 1.4 to compare to the Tak. . Though, if my 50mm Mk1 is truly a good copy, as I thought it was, then the Tak might fair really well compared to the Canon 1.4. I know in a couple comparisions the mk 1 beats the canon 1.4 in the center wide open -- though not in the corners. So who knows. Glad you liked the comparison.
Not to start another flame war but I find it very amusing that people here are absolutely determined to fit any lens on their Canon DSLRs as long as it isn't Canon branded. So many state they chose Canon because of the great lens lineup and I.S. and good, cheap lenses, etc... and then immediately go out to figure out what other lenses are better than anything Canon.
Why are so many people so determined to stick with Canon when everything from Olympus to Nikon to Leica to Zeiss to Pentax to Schneider lenses are being forced onto them?.
For fans of the Pentax threadmount universe, check out this Rangefinderforum thread. Bill Mattocks succinctly tests for sharpness and bokeh from an assortment of old glass, including the Pentax 50/1.4 Super Takumar. Some lenses are dime-store close-outs, but perform amazingly.
Natron wrote:
Not to start another flame war but I find it very amusing that people here are absolutely determined to fit any lens on their Canon DSLRs as long as it isn't Canon branded. So many state they chose Canon because of the great lens lineup and I.S. and good, cheap lenses, etc... and then immediately go out to figure out what other lenses are better than anything Canon.
Why are so many people so determined to stick with Canon when everything from Olympus to Nikon to Leica to Zeiss to Pentax to Schneider lenses are being forced onto them?.
Funny funny..
lol true, it does seem to be a trendy thing to do these days. For me though, I have a old Ricoh screw mount camera that I like to use from time to time. So being able to use lenses between my 2 bodies makes things easy.. and hey, I didn't expect the tak to do as well as it did wide open. So it was a good suprise. If I can manage to get a prism focus assist screen for my D60, it might also help with low light shooting. Atleast these are my thoughts right now.
jmardy wrote:
Is this the lead-filled radioactive one?
Nice!
Yea, I do believe it is. Atleast, this would explain the yellow cast that is very easy to see when looking through the lens. Hopefully UV rays will clear it up.. and that I won't get cancer in the process..
Natron wrote:
Not to start another flame war but I find it very amusing that people here are absolutely determined to fit any lens on their Canon DSLRs as long as it isn't Canon branded. So many state they chose Canon because of the great lens lineup and I.S. and good, cheap lenses, etc... and then immediately go out to figure out what other lenses are better than anything Canon.
Why are so many people so determined to stick with Canon when everything from Olympus to Nikon to Leica to Zeiss to Pentax to Schneider lenses are being forced onto them?.
Funny funny..
Yes, many people jump on Canon ship for the reason you mentioned, but I also know many other people choose Canon just because they want to shoot on best digital sensor with their existing lenses, including Olympus OM, Leica, Zeiss, Pentax, Schneider...It's perfectly OK for you to stay with Canon camp and feel all your needs are met by Canon lenses, but for us outsiders, when we look inside, we also feel it's very funny
Jun 15, 2005 at 01:30 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Natron wrote:
Not to start another flame war but I find it very amusing that people here are absolutely determined to fit any lens on their Canon DSLRs as long as it isn't Canon branded.
I personally bought into Canon due to their superior DSLR bodies and their shallow flange to focal plane distance. I love Canon's sensors and ergonomics, however their lens offerings on the wide end are lacking. On my 10D this shortcoming isn't much of an issue, however when I move to a 1 series body, I'll be glad that I can choose from a wide assortment (poor pun intended) of lenses.
I shoot M42 lenses on my Canon because I also shoot with a mint condition Pentax H3 and SPII 35mm's. It never ceases to amaze me how a lot of the older MF lenses with there simple design are just as good if not at times better optically as some of the newer AF lenses.
70% of my shooting is done in manual mode any way. I bought Canon initially for their digital body.
I need AF and MF for my style of shooting. Both have a place. Plus I like my lenses!
Well, I made a comparison between some 35mm that came in handy : Canon EF 35mm f2.0, CZJ Flektogon 35mm 2.4 MC and CZJ Flektogon 35mm 2.8. Well, I think there went something wrong, because the Canon isn't near the Flektogon. I enjoyed using it wide open during the winter for inside shots, but now I am wondering if there wouldn't be better to get a split screen for my 300D.
Here's the link to that test : http://stelun.100webcustomers.com/test/35mm.html
What do you think about it ?!?
Regards, Stefan
Yes, it is indeed, especialy considering the price paid. I have to admit being a great fan of the Canon 35mm f2.0 for it's ability to shoot in low light, but the CZJ is surprisingly good even wide open ( ok, not like the big guns that are priced 10x and more, but a very good lens as I found out ), and stopped down a little it is very sweet ...
But I have to admit, I would like to see a 50mm Tak on my camera - the pictures here are very promising...
I recently had a client order new B&W prints that he had previously purchased. He is opening up a new office, and wanted to decorate with these new prints. The previous prints he had purchased were all 16"x20" darkroom prints that I had made. The negatives dated to the 1960's , 70's and 80's. He said he wanted bigger prints this time for his office. The new prints were all digital prints made from scanned B&W negatives, and printed on my Epson 7600, using Premium semi-mat paper and Bill Atkinson's free profiles. The sky areas had nice sharp film grain, and a certain "feel" due to the vintage lenses used. The client LOVED them!
I decided I wanted to re-capture that certain B&W "look" with my modern camera (1Ds Mk II), so I went on eBay and bought four screw mount Takumar lenses: a 24mm, 28mm, 50mm f1.4 and 105mm. I will use The Image Factory's "Convert to B&W Pro" to process the color files to B&W, and add red or orange camera filter effect, and select from various B&W "Film Looks" in the program (such as Tri-X, Ilford FP-4, etc). I am now looking to add "film grain" to the images. The "grain filter" in PS does not work (blows out the highlights).
So, you see, there are other reasons to use old prime lenses on modern cameras. BTW the Takumars were all dirt cheap.
Regards
Dave Gurtcheff
Anyhow, I'll post later about that.
Though I think I need to see if Rachael will make a focus assist screen for my D60 before I do that. 
