Takumar f1.4 50mm vs f1.8 55mm
mike II
better choice? Both are m42 threads and roughly the same vintage.Any
noticeable difference in results? The f1.8 seems to be a bit more
commonly available in the used camera sections...
mike
ROBMURR
was a bit sharper or contrasty than the
1.4 but I liked the metal focus ring on
the 1.4 so I sold the 55mm difference
was slight.
Avogadro
Both lenses are very good, but according to my tests, on my specimens,
the 1.4 is noticeably sharper. Others report varying results in
comparing them. There seems to be some sample variance.
IMHO, Super Multi Coating is a more important factor than whether or
not it is the 1.4 or 1.8. SMC is very effective in controlling flare,
and also blocks UV light.
The 1.4 goes for quite a bit more money than the 1.8.
The 55/1.8 is designed to give a 1:1 image in the viewfinder. You can
look thru the viewfinder with one eye and directly with the other eye
and the images are the same size. That doesn't work with the 50/1.4.
The 50/1.4 tends to yellow, especially if stored dark. Not a big
problem with neg film, but might be an issue if you shoot slides. The
yellow color can be bleached out with light. (See other thread.) The
55/1.8 does not yellow.
Avogadro
DunxUK
>Date: 10/06/03 03:19 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3EE5404C...@look.ca>
Just a side note; watch out for a possible issue with the 1.4, the optics hang
out of the back some distance. It can catch the mirror on some M42 cameras when
at infinity. I've got one and it *just* clears a Fujica ST605N.
Jeremy
> >better choice? Both are m42 threads and roughly the same vintage.Any
> >noticeable difference in results? The f1.8 seems to be a bit more
> >commonly available in the used camera sections...
They both sell for around $40-75.00 on eBay. Why not own both? They have
got to be the best buy in used lenses. They are both Zeiss Planar designs,
and the fit and finish are superb. They were great values when they were
new. They are incredible values now. Get both!
(There is also a 55mm f/2 version available (it is identical to the f/1.8,
but it is blocked internally to open only as wide as f/2. It was available
on the SP1000 camera body, and was not sold separately. You can buy 'em on
eBay, dirt cheap, and they are typically in pristeen condition.)
There are a few differences between the 50mm 1.4 and the 55mm 1.8
(everything I say about the 1.8 also applies to the f/2):
Th 1.4 has 7 elements (some early models had 8 elements). The 1.8 has 6
elements. Less air-to-glass surfaces on the 1.8, and theoretically, less
flare.
The 1.4's angle of view is 39 degrees horizontal, the 1.8's is 36 degrees
horizontal.
The 1.4 weighs in at 252 grams. The 1.8 is 201 grams.
The 1.4 has the advantage of producing the brightest screen image for fast,
critical focusing under low light conditions. The 1.8 has slightly less
light gathering power, but it is no great disadvantage under most outdoor
lighting conditions.
Flare control: (the lower the score, the better) The 50mm f/1.4 comes in
at 0.47 (by way of comparison, the previous model--the Super Takumar
non-multi-coated lens came in at 0.9--twice as much flare). The 55mm f/1.8
scored 0.58 (the previous version--the Super Takumar 55mm f/1.8 scored 1.28.
Big improvement when Super Multi Coating was applied to this lens).
Compare those scores to some other top-quality lenses of that period: the
Leica Summilux 50mm f/1.4: 0.9 (double the score of the SMC Takumars); The
Carl Zeiss Distagon 50mm f/1.4: 1.37; the much-touted EBC Fujinon 50mm
f/1.4: 1.04; the Mamiya-Sekor ES 55mm f/1.8: 1.66; The Nikkor S 50mm f/1.4:
0.93; The Miranda 50mm f/1.8: 1.0; The Canon FD 50mm f/1.4: 0.88; The Canon
FD 50mm f/1.8: 0.73. These scores were based on testing on-axis, wide open
and without hoods.
The 1.4 was designed primarily for the Spotmatics and ES models. The rear
element may not clear the swinging mirror in other camera models, including
other Pentax bodies that were manufactured prior to the Spotmatic Series.
If you are planning on using the lense with bodies other than the Spotmatic,
Spotmatic II/IIa, Spotmatic F, ES or ES II, you will probably be better off
with the 1.8.
The 50mm f/1.4 does exhibit yellowing caused by radioactive rare earth
glass. The 1.8 does not contain that glass, and exhibits no yellowing. If
you shoot slides, where the colors cannot be corrected during processing,
you are better off with the f/1.8.
I have always felt that the f/1.8 produced sharper images than did the
1.4--although the differences were slight. Still, the 1.8 does seem to have
the edge. Bob Monaghan's web site expresses the issue as follows:
"The tradeoffs and corrections for a fast 50mm f/1.4 lens often result in
the slower and easier to design and build 50mm lenses at f/1.8 and f/2 being
even better corrected and sharper than their faster cousins? If you are
using a slower f/1.7 or f/1.8 lens . . . you may be enjoying even higher
resolution factors."
Even the 50mm f/1.4 outperformed the f/2 Summicron and the Elmar 50mm f/3.5
for sharpness! See this link:
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/rangefinder.html#keppler
Erwin Puts addresses the issue of distortion on his Leica web site, where he
compares the Leica f/1.4 to the f/2.0 lens, and the principles apply equally
to Takumar lenses:
_________________________________________
"The design of a 50mm high speed lens is quite a challenge. Its sibling, the
2/50mm, offers image quality of the highest caliber (at least in the Leica
stable). And the optical aberrations to correct are quite stubborn. Most
reviewers of high speed lenses even today will tell you that a 1,4 design is
a compromise. What then is the optical problem? Any lens produces a circular
image area within which the 24x36mm format has to fit. This circular area
can be divided in three parts, the center, the zonal area and the farout
zones. The center (or the paraxial zone or Gaussian zone) is quite easy to
compute. The zonal areas are more difficult to correct.
Optical aberrations have the habit to grow disproportionately if the
aperture and/or the field-angle become wider. Many aberrations grow with the
square root or the cubic root in relation to the aperture diameter or even
more. OK you would say, lets settle for a bit less image quality in the
corners. The snag however is this: the zonal aberrations have a strong
influence on the performance in the center. Moreover: when stopping down the
effect on some aberrations is not reduced. The combined result of all
aberrations is always a reduction in contrast: a softening of small details
and a low overall contrast."
________________________________________
Here is my take on this:
When you compare the price of a new Summicron-R 1:1,4/50mm ($1999.00), with
the price for BOTH the SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 AND the 55mm f/1.8 (somewhere
around $100 bucks), why agonize over the decision. Get both (actually get
the f.2 as well). You will not get more bang for the buck anywhere else in
35mm normal lenses.
Nick Zentena
>
> The 1.4 goes for quite a bit more money than the 1.8.
If you buy either with a body the lens is basically free.
>
> The 50/1.4 tends to yellow, especially if stored dark. Not a big
I think that's only one model of the 50/1.4. The one that's radioactive.
Nick
Lewis Lang
>From: "Jeremy" jer...@no-spam-thanks.com
>Date: Tue, Jun 10, 2003 11:42 AM
>Message-id: <LujFa.38856$rO.36...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Excellent post, Jeremy, and very detailed - makes me wonder which 50/1.4s (and
f/1.2s?), both past and present, are the equal or better than their slower 50mm
f/1.7/8 and f/2 and f/2.8 and f/3.5 cousins (besides the 50/1.4 Takumar)...
Regards,
Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Remove "nospam" to reply
Gordon Moat
> . . . .
> >
> >Here is my take on this:
> >
> >When you compare the price of a new Summicron-R 1:1,4/50mm ($1999.00), with
> >the price for BOTH the SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 AND the 55mm f/1.8 (somewhere
> >around $100 bucks), why agonize over the decision. Get both (actually get
> >the f.2 as well). You will not get more bang for the buck anywhere else
> >in
> >35mm normal lenses.
>
> Excellent post, Jeremy, and very detailed - makes me wonder which 50/1.4s (and
> f/1.2s?), both past and present, are the equal or better than their slower 50mm
> f/1.7/8 and f/2 and f/2.8 and f/3.5 cousins (besides the 50/1.4 Takumar)...
While I am not a big fan of Pentax gear, I have owned it in the past. A friend of
mine also has several old Pentax M42 mount cameras, and is very happy with the
image quality. I also know a professional who is all Pentax, though he prefer the
LX and later type of mount system. With all these, there definitely is value for
the money.
Perhaps this might be better for a new thread, but 50 mm lenses use to be more
common as the "kit" lens. I think there have been many good manual focus choices
in the past, and some not so good. With Nikon gear, it does seem to be slightly
easier to get good results from the f1.8 or f2.0 than any of the f1.4 choices.
Many of the f1.2 have also been disappointing, except for the 58 mm f1.2 Noct.
With the older Leica gear, I tend to like the results from the 50 mm f2.0 a bit
more than the f1.4. I think the newer versions might change that, but my
experience with those, or images from those, is more limited.
Newer films really bring out the best of these old lenses. As long as the old
optics are fairly clear, and the focus ring moves okay, there should be little
reason not to expect even more good results in the future.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Lewis Lang
BIG SNIP
>With the older Leica gear, I tend to like the results from the 50 mm f2.0
>a bit
>more than the f1.4.
I owned and used the former (f/2) and shot film from the latter (the earlier
50/1.4 R lens). Both are superb and I remember the 1.4 as having luscious
bokeh, almost like a Pentax lens ;-)
I think the newer versions might change that, but my
>experience with those, or images from those, is more limited.
>
>Newer films really bring out the best of these old lenses. As long as the
>old
>optics are fairly clear, and the focus ring moves okay, there should be
>little
>reason not to expect even more good results in the future.
>
No doubt.
>Ciao!
>
>Gordon Moat
>Alliance Graphique Studio
><http://www.allgstudio.com>
Regards,
Lewis Lang
>Subject: Re: Takumar f1.4 50mm vs f1.8 55mm
>From: "Jeremy" jer...@no-spam-thanks.com
>Date: Tue, Jun 10, 2003 11:46 PM
>Message-id: <_4uFa.39754$rO.37...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
>news:20030610165424...@mb-m26.aol.com...
>
>> Excellent post, Jeremy, and very detailed - makes me wonder which 50/1.4s
>(and
>> f/1.2s?), both past and present, are the equal or better than their slower
>50mm
>> f/1.7/8 and f/2 and f/2.8 and f/3.5 cousins (besides the 50/1.4
>Takumar)...
>>
>
>Thanks, Lewis.
>
You're welcome :-)
>There are two Pentax lenses, in K-mount, that are, I believe, a tad sharper
>than the SMC Takumars from the early 70s: the SMC Pentax 50mm f/1.7
Are you referring to the A version of this lens, here?
and
>the
>latest "Limited" lens (43mm, I think?)
>
Its supposed to be a tad soft wide open (web sample pix I've seen) but it doesn
have a 3-d quality to its bokeh (one of the best for 3-D bokeh (backgrounds
slowly dissolve from in focus to outof focus in a way that's reminiscent of
large format photographs) along w/ the Nikon 50/1.8 Series E which has "comlex
bokeh" which I call "pudding" which causes the planes to separate better due to
causing the oof portion of the image to blur more decisively, _even at the same
wide aperture_ so that the subject and other planes "pop" more easily from
their surroundings and/or background) and (the 43mm Pentax Ltd.) is suppsed to
be super duper sharp when stopped well down, but not just its sharpness (as
most normalish lenses are extremely sharp lenses anyway), but its
clarity/3-dmentionality of the subject itself is supposed to be too.
>My brother has an ME Super, and a single lens: the 50mm f/1.7, and his
>results are superb. And the newest "Limited" lenses have had nothing but
>good things said about them.
>
The 43mm Ltd. is supposed to be the "crappiest" of the Ltd. lenses though it
too is a superb/world class lens from what little results I've seen from it and
comments I've read about it.
>The SMC Pentax-M lens (50mm f/1.7) is not quite as nicely built as the
>Takumar or the first K-mount models ("SMC Pentax") lenses were. Still their
>optical performance was right up there.
>
I'll take your word on that, but you do have to realise that when you say "not
quite as nicely built" you mean a thousand light years difference between a
"not quite as nicely" and other current plasticky AF lenses.(Pentax or other
brands) ;-)
>It's not that one can't do as well, or better, with today's lenses--from
>Zeiss, Leitz, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc. BUT: where can you get this level
>of performance for under $100 bucks? The screwmount lenses are plentiful,
>they are cheap, and anyone interested in 35mm photography on a budget ought
>to consider buying them.
>
I would except if I ever get back into Pentax again my preference would be for
the A lenses for their extra metering modes and their still excellent optical
and buid quality (they still probably beat most AF lenses hands down in
construction).
>I believe that it was in 1983 that the SCMP-A line of lenses came out--and
>they were not as well made, nor did they have that legendary smooth focusing
>feel, of the SMC Takumars.
See comments above. I love the A lenses - I still find them to be excellent and
wouldn't mind people throwing the A lenses they don't want at me (I'll do my
best to catch them and keep them w/o breaking them ;-)), particularly the
50/1.7 A lens whose results from photographs I took w/ it on my then brand new
Pentax Super Program back in 1983 make me both smile and sigh at the same time
:-( :-).
T P
>>With the older Leica gear, I tend to like the results from the 50 mm f2.0
>>a bit
>>more than the f1.4.
>
>I owned and used the former (f/2) and shot film from the latter (the earlier
>50/1.4 R lens). Both are superb and I remember the 1.4 as having luscious
>bokeh, almost like a Pentax lens ;-)
Comparisons between Leica and Pentax 50mm lenses (or any other focal
length for that matter) always seem to omit one thing, an extremely
important factor that makes the Leica lens clearly and demonstrably
superior.
I wonder why that is?
(Hint: The same factor also distinguishes between many Pentax screw
mount and later Pentax lenses of the same focal length/aperture.)
;-)
Bandicoot
news:_4uFa.39754$rO.37...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
[SNIP]
> There are two Pentax lenses, in K-mount, that are, I believe, a tad
sharper
the
> latest "Limited" lens (43mm, I think?)
>
The 43mm is - my impression - sharper when stopped down, but is not as sharp
wide open. I think its resolution may well be higher right the way through,
but accutance is probably not as high as the 50mms till you stop down to f4
or so. Not a problem for me, and the 43mm has other qualities.
The 50mm f1.4 A and FA are both said to be sharper than than any of the
other 50s, but I haven't verified this myself. Any difference is very
slight in any case.
>
> I believe that it was in 1983 that the SCMP-A line of lenses came out--and
> they were not as well made, nor did they have that legendary smooth
focusing
> feel, of the SMC Takumars.
>
I often hear this, but am not wholly convinced. I don't think an A looks as
nice as a K or M in good condition, but with the exception of a couple of
the cheapest zooms I don't think the construction is actually any less good.
The focus feel is a little 'softer', but still pretty smooth - not quite as
nice as the K, M or "S" (S for Screw) lenses but still better than almost
anything else out there.
Peter
Bandicoot
[SNIP]
> > and the latest "Limited" lens (43mm, I think?)
> >
>
> Its supposed to be a tad soft wide open (web sample pix I've seen) but it
doesn
> have a 3-d quality to its bokeh (one of the best for 3-D bokeh
(backgrounds
> slowly dissolve from in focus to outof focus in a way that's reminiscent
of
> large format photographs) along w/ the Nikon 50/1.8 Series E which has
"comlex
> bokeh" which I call "pudding" which causes the planes to separate better
due to
> causing the oof portion of the image to blur more decisively, _even at the
same
> wide aperture_ so that the subject and other planes "pop" more easily from
> their surroundings and/or background) and (the 43mm Pentax Ltd.) is
suppsed to
> be super duper sharp when stopped well down, but not just its sharpness
(as
> most normalish lenses are extremely sharp lenses anyway), but its
> clarity/3-dmentionality of the subject itself is supposed to be too.
Definitely. If sharpness were the only criterion, a 1.7 or 1.4 A is much
cheaper and just about as sharp stopped down, sharper wide open. The reason
to buy the Limited is that it is a high resolution lens without the 'cold
and clinical' feel that that can often entail. The bokeh is very pleasing,
and the sense of three dimensionality striking. This three dimensionality
isn't only due to the bokeh, it still seems to be there in landscapes that
are stopped down and have, essentially, no OoF areas in them.
[SNIP]
> The 43mm Ltd. is supposed to be the "crappiest" of the Ltd. lenses though
it
> too is a superb/world class lens from what little results I've seen from
it and
> comments I've read about it.
It is the least 'instantly impressive' of the three, but that may be due as
much to it having the 'normal' perspective as anything else: I theorise that
it is harder to 'wow' the eye at this focal length than when the perspective
is slightly altered. Whatever, it is a wonderful lens, but the 77mm and
31mm ones are even more impressive. The 77mm has the most marked sense of
3-D of them all - but this may be something that is more pronounced with
longer lenses anyway: the (non-Limited) 200mm f2.8 FA* and 300mm f4.5 F*
both come rather close to pulling off the same trick.
>
> >The SMC Pentax-M lens (50mm f/1.7) is not quite as nicely built as the
> >Takumar or the first K-mount models ("SMC Pentax") lenses were. Still
their
> >optical performance was right up there.
> >
>
> I'll take your word on that, but you do have to realise that when you say
"not
> quite as nicely built" you mean a thousand light years difference between
a
> "not quite as nicely" and other current plasticky AF lenses.(Pentax or
other
> brands) ;-)
The Ms are hardly different to the Ks in build, and often actually have a
more luxurious feel. Some optical designs changed with the move to M
however, and not all were as good as the Ks. The M series was designed to
be more compact, and sometimes this compromised the optics. Still, many are
exactly the same as the K optics, and in most of those that changed the
difference is slight.
>
> >It's not that one can't do as well, or better, with today's lenses--from
> >Zeiss, Leitz, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc. BUT: where can you get this
level
> >of performance for under $100 bucks? The screwmount lenses are
plentiful,
> >they are cheap, and anyone interested in 35mm photography on a budget
ought
> >to consider buying them.
> >
>
> I would except if I ever get back into Pentax again my preference would be
for
> the A lenses for their extra metering modes and their still excellent
optical
> and buid quality (they still probably beat most AF lenses hands down in
> construction).
I agree: I don't share the common belief that the A lenses were much less
well built than their predecessors, even if they lack the all brass
construction of a screw-mount Takumar. Some of the optical designs were
improved with the As anyway, and it seems that the SMC coating may have been
further improved at this point too, making the best flare control better
still. And the ability to use the matrix metering and AE exposure on a
'modern' body is an advantage for some. There is a 'fix' you can do to a K
or M lens to make it function like an A in terms of allowing matrix
metering - I've not tried it, but it looks perfectly practical.
>
> >I believe that it was in 1983 that the SCMP-A line of lenses came
out--and
> >they were not as well made, nor did they have that legendary smooth
focusing
> >feel, of the SMC Takumars.
>
> See comments above. I love the A lenses - I still find them to be
excellent and
> wouldn't mind people throwing the A lenses they don't want at me (I'll do
my
> best to catch them and keep them w/o breaking them ;-)), particularly the
> 50/1.7 A lens whose results from photographs I took w/ it on my then brand
new
> Pentax Super Program back in 1983 make me both smile and sigh at the same
time
> :-( :-).
I'll be backstop, catch any that get by you...
Peter
T P
>
>The 43mm Ltd. is supposed to be the "crappiest" of the Ltd. lenses though it
>too is a superb/world class lens from what little results I've seen from it and
>comments I've read about it.
Hi Lewis,
The range of verdicts on all three Pentax "Limited" lenses (31mm,
43mm, 77mm) is actually very wide. Pentax marketing, and the views of
some die-hard Pentax enthusiasts, would like you to think that the
lenses were designed with smooth bokeh as a priority, however the
results from the 43mm and 31mm prove otherwise.
The 77mm is probably the best of the three, or 'least worst' if you
prefer. The 43mm is sharp and has a three-dimensional quality but the
bokeh is harsh, with bright edged (and dim centred) highlights. The
31mm is also sharp, with unremarkable bokeh that is not quite as bad
as that of the 43mm, but is still harsh.
But both the 43mm and 31mm have (in my view) a specific optical
weakness that should disbar them from being considered in any way
"special", other than by reason of their price tags. When you
consider the price being asked for these lenses, the unpleasant bokeh
and this other optical weakness mean that (in my view) they are
exceptionally poor value for money.
They also have mediocre build quality, despite their attractive
outward appearance. 'All that glistens is not gold.'
I believe that there are far better lenses available for the same or
not much more money, from a number of manufacturers. For example, my
previously little-used and near-mint Leica M glass cost me much less
than these Pentax Limited lenses cost new, and is demonstrably
superior in each and every respect I have mentioned above. I have no
doubt that the Carl Zeiss lenses for manual focus Contax SLRs and even
the G Series (if you are lucky enough to get accurate focus) are
optically superior to the Pentax Limiteds in every respect.
The peculiar focal lengths chosen by Pentax obviate direct comparison
with previous Pentax designs (perhaps intentionally?), but I feel that
the 28mm f/2.8 A, 35mm f/2 K,M,A, 50mm f/1.4 A and 85mm f/1.4 A* (and
later versions of all) are optically significantly superior to the
Limited lenses and therefore offer stunning value for money.
Quite frankly, better results than the 31mm and 43mm are obtainable
using a 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 A (or later) available used at a mere
fraction of the price of just one of the three Limiteds, and that zoom
even gives the 77mm Limited a good run for its money, with quite
remarkable optical qualities for a lens of its type and era.
I regard this Pentax 35-105mm zoom as almost the equal of the 75-150mm
f/3.5 Nikon Series E in terms of its overall optical achievement,
combining sharpness, very good bokeh and excellent 3D qualities for a
zoom. Lewis, you know just how much respect I have for that Series E
lens, so you will be aware that this is high praise indeed.
Best regards,
Tony
Bandicoot
news:0j2eevc87pukfecke...@4ax.com...
[SNIP]
> The 77mm is probably the best of the three, or 'least worst' if you
> prefer. The 43mm is sharp and has a three-dimensional quality but the
> bokeh is harsh, with bright edged (and dim centred) highlights. The
> 31mm is also sharp, with unremarkable bokeh that is not quite as bad
> as that of the 43mm, but is still harsh.
I should have mentioned this. I like the bokeh of the Limiteds - but _not_
where there are bright highlights in the background. This is almost a
'special case' for me, and I don't mind using other lenses when it happens,
but it is true that the rather creamy bokeh the Limiteds give with softly
lit OoF areas seems to be at the expense of not dealing well with harsh
highlights.
The other point in favour of the Limiteds that I forgot to mention was their
good coma performance. All three are superb lenses for night scenes with
bright lights against dark backgrounds.
>
> But both the 43mm and 31mm have (in my view) a specific optical
> weakness that should disbar them from being considered in any way
> "special", other than by reason of their price tags. When you
> consider the price being asked for these lenses, the unpleasant bokeh
> and this other optical weakness mean that (in my view) they are
> exceptionally poor value for money.
Weakness you refer to is?...
> They also have mediocre build quality, despite their attractive
> outward appearance. 'All that glistens is not gold.'
Very good build for AF lenses, but not as good as old time Pentax manual
lenses certainly.
[SNIP]
> The peculiar focal lengths chosen by Pentax obviate direct comparison
> with previous Pentax designs (perhaps intentionally?), but I feel that
> the 28mm f/2.8 A, 35mm f/2 K,M,A, 50mm f/1.4 A and 85mm f/1.4 A* (and
> later versions of all) are optically significantly superior to the
> Limited lenses and therefore offer stunning value for money.
You must tell me where you get your cheap 85mm f1.4 A* lenses from!
(Though it is indeed going to be about half the cost of the 77mm Ltd.)
> Quite frankly, better results than the 31mm and 43mm are obtainable
> using a 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 A (or later) available used at a mere
> fraction of the price of just one of the three Limiteds, and that zoom
> even gives the 77mm Limited a good run for its money, with quite
> remarkable optical qualities for a lens of its type and era.
That is a superb zoom. But it doesn't give me results I like as much as the
Limiteds for the sorts of scenes I use them for. It is a horses for courses
thing, not every lens excels in every situation.
Peter
Leon Mlakar
> The 43mm is - my impression - sharper when stopped down, but is not as
sharp
> wide open. I think its resolution may well be higher right the way
through,
> but accutance is probably not as high as the 50mms till you stop down to
f4
> or so. Not a problem for me, and the 43mm has other qualities.
>
> The 50mm f1.4 A and FA are both said to be sharper than than any of the
> other 50s, but I haven't verified this myself. Any difference is very
> slight in any case.
>
f/1.7. To check it I set up a test target, and since I was at it I also took
my other 50mm lenses along. I made test shots with Pentax-M 50 f/1.7,
Pentax-A 50 f/2, Pentax-F 50 f/1.4 and Pentax-F 50 f/1.7. I took one shot
with each lens wide open and another at f/8. The test target was a simple
meter (with milimeter lines) fixed diagonally on the wall.
Wide open the Pentax-M 50 f/1.7 was sharper than the rest of the bunch, by a
clear margin. The next was -A 50 f/2 (perhaps owing to a bit smaller
aperture), followed by Pentax-F 50 f/1.4. The Pentax-F f/1.7 was indeed
faulty (misaligned optics) and I had to take it to repair. All lenses,
except the faulty one, came very close together at f/8.
Now, my goal with this test shots was merely to check whether the -F 50
f/1.7 needed repair or not. Out of curiosity and since I wasted a roll
anyway, I just took the rest of the lenses along. I cannot make any claims
about how representative such test really is. In real life I find the -F 50
f/1.4 perfectly adequate and use it more than other 50s.
> > I believe that it was in 1983 that the SCMP-A line of lenses came
out--and
> > they were not as well made, nor did they have that legendary smooth
> focusing
> > feel, of the SMC Takumars.
> >
>
> I often hear this, but am not wholly convinced. I don't think an A looks
as
> nice as a K or M in good condition, but with the exception of a couple of
> the cheapest zooms I don't think the construction is actually any less
good.
> The focus feel is a little 'softer', but still pretty smooth - not quite
as
> nice as the K, M or "S" (S for Screw) lenses but still better than almost
> anything else out there.
>
The -A 50 f/2 indeed looks big and ugly when compared to -M 0/1.7 but
certainly appears better built than any of the -Fs.
T P
>
>The 50mm f1.4 A and FA are both said to be sharper than than any of the
>other 50s, but I haven't verified this myself. Any difference is very
>slight in any case.
Hi Peter,
I think it is perhaps a little more complex than that.
The 50mm f/1.4 A is *very significantly sharper* than the 50mm f/1.4
M, whose softness wide open is almost an embarrassment. Both have
very creamy bokeh. The 50mm f/1.4 A was designed to restore the
Pentax reputation for "sharp but smooth" f/1.4 standard lenses after
the (relative embarrassment of the) 50mm f/1.4 M.
But the 50mm f/1.7 A and M are both sharper than any Pentax 50mm
f/1.4. Subjectively, they are at least as sharp as the 43mm Limited
but with a smoother rendition of OOF highlights. Also subjectively, I
find that they have quasi-3D effects that are just as good as those of
the 43mm Limited but without the harsh OOF highlights that, for me,
ruin that lens.
Most of this is down to personal taste, as different people expect
different things from a lens. But I don't think that there is much
room for disagreement about the 50mm f/1.4 M, which is just soft.
Best regards,
Tony
T P
>"T P" wrote:
>> The 77mm is probably the best of the three, or 'least worst' if you
>> prefer. The 43mm is sharp and has a three-dimensional quality but the
>> bokeh is harsh, with bright edged (and dim centred) highlights. The
>> 31mm is also sharp, with unremarkable bokeh that is not quite as bad
>> as that of the 43mm, but is still harsh.
>
>I should have mentioned this. I like the bokeh of the Limiteds - but _not_
>where there are bright highlights in the background. This is almost a
>'special case' for me, and I don't mind using other lenses when it happens,
>but it is true that the rather creamy bokeh the Limiteds give with softly
>lit OoF areas seems to be at the expense of not dealing well with harsh
>highlights.
OK, I am happy to agree with that. The problem is that I like OOF
highlights, and try to include them in shots whenever I feel that they
add a little something (a.k.a. je ne sais quoi!), so the 43mm and 31mm
Limiteds are not for me.
>The other point in favour of the Limiteds that I forgot to mention was their
>good coma performance. All three are superb lenses for night scenes with
>bright lights against dark backgrounds.
Interesting - I'm shooting at least one night scene calendar for 2005.
>> But both the 43mm and 31mm have (in my view) a specific optical
>> weakness that should disbar them from being considered in any way
>> "special", other than by reason of their price tags. When you
>> consider the price being asked for these lenses, the unpleasant bokeh
>> and this other optical weakness mean that (in my view) they are
>> exceptionally poor value for money.
>
>Weakness you refer to is?...
Clue: it is not something that overly bothers you, Peter, but it is
of critical importance to me.
>> They also have mediocre build quality, despite their attractive
>> outward appearance. 'All that glistens is not gold.'
>
>Very good build for AF lenses, but not as good as old time Pentax manual
>lenses certainly.
Agreed. But the fact that the build is good for AF lenses merely
indicates the lamentably low standard of build of Pentax AF glass.
>You must tell me where you get your cheap 85mm f1.4 A* lenses from!
>(Though it is indeed going to be about half the cost of the 77mm Ltd.)
Then I hope you agree that, at about half the price of the 77mm
Limited, an A* (or later) 85mm f/1.4 has to be outstanding value.
>> Quite frankly, better results than the 31mm and 43mm are obtainable
>> using a 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 A (or later) available used at a mere
>> fraction of the price of just one of the three Limiteds, and that zoom
>> even gives the 77mm Limited a good run for its money, with quite
>> remarkable optical qualities for a lens of its type and era.
>
>That is a superb zoom. But it doesn't give me results I like as much as the
>Limiteds for the sorts of scenes I use them for. It is a horses for courses
>thing, not every lens excels in every situation.
Point taken.
Best regards,
Tony
Bandicoot
> "Bandicoot" wrote:
[SNIP]
> >The other point in favour of the Limiteds that I forgot to mention was
their
> >good coma performance. All three are superb lenses for night scenes with
> >bright lights against dark backgrounds.
>
> Interesting - I'm shooting at least one night scene calendar for 2005.
Borrow a 31 and try some night shots, it is very impressive. I used all
three Limiteds at night in Las Vegas at the start of this year and was
bowled over by the performance in this situation - this was just 'out having
fun', hand held on E100VS.
>
> >> But both the 43mm and 31mm have (in my view) a specific optical
> >> weakness that should disbar them from being considered in any way
> >> "special", other than by reason of their price tags. When you
> >> consider the price being asked for these lenses, the unpleasant bokeh
> >> and this other optical weakness mean that (in my view) they are
> >> exceptionally poor value for money.
> >
> >Weakness you refer to is?...
>
> Clue: it is not something that overly bothers you, Peter, but it is
> of critical importance to me.
Sharpness wide open?
> >> They also have mediocre build quality, despite their attractive
> >> outward appearance. 'All that glistens is not gold.'
> >
> >Very good build for AF lenses, but not as good as old time Pentax manual
> >lenses certainly.
>
> Agreed. But the fact that the build is good for AF lenses merely
> indicates the lamentably low standard of build of Pentax AF glass.
Everyone's AF glass, except at the 'serious' end - Pentax *, Canon L, etc.
> >You must tell me where you get your cheap 85mm f1.4 A* lenses from!
> >(Though it is indeed going to be about half the cost of the 77mm Ltd.)
>
> Then I hope you agree that, at about half the price of the 77mm
> Limited, an A* (or later) 85mm f/1.4 has to be outstanding value.
Yes, absolutely - though the 1.8 is much better value still: 98% of the
performance of the 1.4 in everything bar speed (obviously) for maybe 45% of
the cost. And the FA* would not be for me (or you, at least not for scenic
calendars), since it seems to be optimised for portraits at the expense of
distance performance. Still, an A* just went by on eBola for £325 and I was
sorely tempted.
Peter
Bandicoot
news:h6FFa.821$78.3...@news.siol.net...
[SNIP]
> The -A 50 f/2 indeed looks big and ugly when compared to -M 0/1.7 but
> certainly appears better built than any of the -Fs.
>
well, cheap.
Peter
Lewis Lang
>Date: Wed, Jun 11, 2003 10:53 AM
>Message-id: <9b2eev4mjreklm1to...@4ax.com>
Does it begin w/ a "b" and end w/ an "okeh", Tony ;-)
Lewis Lang
BIG SNIP
>I agree: I don't share the common belief that the A lenses were much less
>well built than their predecessors, even if they lack the all brass
>construction of a screw-mount Takumar.
Agreed, we're talking about levels of "superbity" here ;-).
Some of the optical designs were
>improved with the As anyway, and it seems that the SMC coating may have
>been
>further improved at this point too, making the best flare control better
>still.
I was suprised how little flar and/or ghosting was in my 28-135 Pentax A (when
I owned it) even when pointed straight into the sun.
And the ability to use the matrix metering and AE exposure on a
>'modern' body is an advantage for some. There is a 'fix' you can do to
>a K
>or M lens to make it function like an A in terms of allowing matrix
>metering - I've not tried it, but it looks perfectly practical.
>
What's the fix/how Peter?
>>
>> >I believe that it was in 1983 that the SCMP-A line of lenses came
>out--and
>> >they were not as well made, nor did they have that legendary smooth
>focusing
>> >feel, of the SMC Takumars.
>>
>> See comments above. I love the A lenses - I still find them to be
>excellent and
>> wouldn't mind people throwing the A lenses they don't want at me (I'll
>do
>my
>> best to catch them and keep them w/o breaking them ;-)), particularly
>the
>> 50/1.7 A lens whose results from photographs I took w/ it on my then brand
>new
>> Pentax Super Program back in 1983 make me both smile and sigh at the same
>time
>> :-( :-).
>
>I'll be backstop, catch any that get by you...
>
>
>
>Peter
LOL
Lewis
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <0j2eevc87pukfecke...@4ax.com>
>
>cont...@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote:
>>
>>The 43mm Ltd. is supposed to be the "crappiest" of the Ltd. lenses though
>it
>>too is a superb/world class lens from what little results I've seen from
>it and
>>comments I've read about it.
>
>
>Hi Lewis,
>
Hi Tony :-)
>The range of verdicts on all three Pentax "Limited" lenses (31mm,
>43mm, 77mm) is actually very wide. Pentax marketing, and the views of
>some die-hard Pentax enthusiasts, would like you to think that the
>lenses were designed with smooth bokeh as a priority, however the
>results from the 43mm and 31mm prove otherwise.
>
>The 77mm is probably the best of the three, or 'least worst' if you
>prefer. The 43mm is sharp and has a three-dimensional quality but the
>bokeh is harsh, with bright edged (and dim centred) highlights.
I guess (other than its large price) its like my 50/1.8 Series E, ultra sharp,
three-dimensional quality, yet probably best to use on overcast days, except
for the fact that I find the 50 Series E to have much more pleasing hilight
distribution in the oof coc than most people give it credit for. I guess then I
would probably have to consider the 43mm Ltd. Pentax lens as an ultra high
priced "special purpose lens" when I would need three-dimensionality but only
for use on overcast days and/or when there were no bright specular
lights/reflections in the foreground/background...
The
>31mm is also sharp, with unremarkable bokeh that is not quite as bad
>as that of the 43mm, but is still harsh.
>
Actually I found the 31mm bokeh to have a quite even oof coc distribution but
this was only through the viewfinder of an MZ-S at the Photo Expo in NYC, on
film performance may be slightly different.
>But both the 43mm and 31mm have (in my view) a specific optical
>weakness that should disbar them from being considered in any way
>"special", other than by reason of their price tags. When you
>consider the price being asked for these lenses, the unpleasant bokeh
>and this other optical weakness mean that (in my view) they are
>exceptionally poor value for money.
>
Besides the bright rimmed coc "rings" what else is unpleasant (if anything)
about their bokeh and under what types of lighting conditions is this
"unpleasantness" most evident (day/night, direct sun, light source in frame,
something else?)?
>They also have mediocre build quality, despite their attractive
>outward appearance. 'All that glistens is not gold.'
>
I am surprised they have made such a poor impression on you, is the build
quality really that bad or is it the large money factor that is swaying your
opinion away from them?
>I believe that there are far better lenses available for the same or
>not much more money, from a number of manufacturers. For example, my
>previously little-used and near-mint Leica M glass cost me much less
>than these Pentax Limited lenses cost new, and is demonstrably
>superior in each and every respect I have mentioned above.
I am surprised that the used M prices are that low, could you give an example
of one vs. the other on pricing?
I have no
>doubt that the Carl Zeiss lenses for manual focus Contax SLRs and even
>the G Series (if you are lucky enough to get accurate focus) are
>optically superior to the Pentax Limiteds in every respect.
>
My Contax MM lenses will be glad to hear that ;-).
>The peculiar focal lengths chosen by Pentax obviate direct comparison
>with previous Pentax designs (perhaps intentionally?), but I feel that
>the 28mm f/2.8 A, 35mm f/2 K,M,A, 50mm f/1.4 A and 85mm f/1.4 A* (and
>later versions of all) are optically significantly superior to the
>Limited lenses and therefore offer stunning value for money.
>
Would the 24/2 FA fall into the category of "superior to the Limited lenses" in
terms of optical quality (and bokeh too) (even though there is no direct focal
length in the Limited line to compare them with)?
>Quite frankly, better results than the 31mm and 43mm are obtainable
>using a 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 A (or later) available used at a mere
>fraction of the price of just one of the three Limiteds, and that zoom
>even gives the 77mm Limited a good run for its money, with quite
>remarkable optical qualities for a lens of its type and era.
>
>I regard this Pentax 35-105mm zoom as almost the equal of the 75-150mm
>f/3.5 Nikon Series E in terms of its overall optical achievement,
>combining sharpness, very good bokeh and excellent 3D qualities for a
>zoom.
Damn! that must be a good lens! The 75-150/3.5 is one of those lenses which
makes me sad I left Nikon :-(
Lewis, you know just how much respect I have for that Series E
>lens, so you will be aware that this is high praise indeed.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Tony
Yes indeed :-)
Regards,
Lewis Lang
>I should have mentioned this. I like the bokeh of the Limiteds - but _not_
>where there are bright highlights in the background. This is almost a
>'special case' for me, and I don't mind using other lenses when it happens,
>but it is true that the rather creamy bokeh the Limiteds give with softly
>lit OoF areas seems to be at the expense of not dealing well with harsh
>highlights.
>
>The other point in favour of the Limiteds that I forgot to mention was their
>good coma performance. All three are superb lenses for night scenes with
>bright lights against dark backgrounds.
Peter, regardless of lack of coma, wouldn't the "bright ringin bokeh" (of the
43mm, at least) make it a poor choice for bright lights against dark
backgrounds since you'd see perfectly shaped donut circles of confusion rather
than perfectly shaped gaussian circles (or even "neutral bokeh" which would be
perfectly shaped evenly illuminated oof circles of confusion)?
>> Quite frankly, better results than the 31mm and 43mm are obtainable
>> using a 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 A (or later) available used at a mere
>> fraction of the price of just one of the three Limiteds, and that zoom
>> even gives the 77mm Limited a good run for its money, with quite
>> remarkable optical qualities for a lens of its type and era.
>
>That is a superb zoom. But it doesn't give me results I like as much as
>the
>Limiteds for the sorts of scenes I use them for. It is a horses for courses
>thing, not every lens excels in every situation.
>
>
>
>Peter
What results doesn't the 35-105 Pentax give you (vs. the Ltds.) and why, Peter?
Lewis Lang
BIG SNIPS
>Quite frankly, better results than the 31mm and 43mm are obtainable
>using a 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 A (or later) available used at a mere
>fraction of the price of just one of the three Limiteds,
I thought that the 35-105 Pentax A lens had a fixed aperture of f/3.5 not
3.5-4.5, were there several MF versions of this lens w/ one being fixed
aperture and the other(s) being variable aperture, Tony?
TIA
Mark Roberts
>> And the ability to use the matrix metering and AE exposure on a
>>'modern' body is an advantage for some. There is a 'fix' you can do to
>>a K or M lens to make it function like an A in terms of allowing matrix
>>metering - I've not tried it, but it looks perfectly practical.
>
>What's the fix/how Peter?
You need to provide insulators for the various contacts on the "A" and
later lens mounts. Details at http://www.robertstech.com/matrix.htm (Be
patient if it doesn't load or is very slow - my web host is upgrading
servers and moving some other equipment around this week.)
>>I believe that it was in 1983 that the SCMP-A line of lenses came
>>out--and they were not as well made, nor did they have that legendary
>>smooth focusing feel, of the SMC Takumars.
One that was notoriously bad was the SMC-A 50/1.7 because they really
cheaped out on the material used for the aperture ring. It became very
stiff and notchy with use. Even a proper clean and lube doesn't make it
much better. The A 50/1.4 used different material and is much more
durable, but the 50/1.7 sold in much greater numbers and I think this
lens in particular gave the A lenses their largely undeserved
low-quality reputation.
>>See comments above. I love the A lenses - I still find them to be
>>excellent and wouldn't mind people throwing the A lenses they don't
>>want at me (I'll do my best to catch them and keep them w/o breaking
>>them ;-)), particularly the 50/1.7 A lens whose results from
>>photographs I took w/ it on my then brand new Pentax Super Program
>>back in 1983 make me both smile and sigh at the same time
Yes, from an optical performance standpoint it's a gem.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Lewis Lang
>Subject: Re: Takumar f1.4 50mm vs f1.8 55mm
>From: Mark Roberts ma...@robertstech.com
>Date: Thu, Jun 12, 2003 12:09 PM
>Message-id: <T3_Fa.858$o87...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>
>
>cont...@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote:
>
>>> And the ability to use the matrix metering and AE exposure on a
>>>'modern' body is an advantage for some. There is a 'fix' you can do to
>>>a K or M lens to make it function like an A in terms of allowing matrix
>>>metering - I've not tried it, but it looks perfectly practical.
>>
>>What's the fix/how Peter?
>
>You need to provide insulators for the various contacts on the "A" and
>later lens mounts. Details at http://www.robertstech.com/matrix.htm (Be
>patient if it doesn't load or is very slow - my web host is upgrading
>servers and moving some other equipment around this week.)
>
Thanks for the URL, Mark :-)
>>>I believe that it was in 1983 that the SCMP-A line of lenses came
>>>out--and they were not as well made, nor did they have that legendary
>
>>>smooth focusing feel, of the SMC Takumars.
>
>One that was notoriously bad was the SMC-A 50/1.7 because they really
>cheaped out on the material used for the aperture ring. It became very
>stiff and notchy with use. Even a proper clean and lube doesn't make it
>much better. The A 50/1.4 used different material and is much more
>durable, but the 50/1.7 sold in much greater numbers and I think this
>lens in particular gave the A lenses their largely undeserved
>low-quality reputation.
>
What you say may be true, but I never had any problems w/ my 50/1.7 A nor did I
have any complaints as to its build quality either.
>>>See comments above. I love the A lenses - I still find them to be
>>>excellent and wouldn't mind people throwing the A lenses they don't
>>>want at me (I'll do my best to catch them and keep them w/o breaking
>>>them ;-)), particularly the 50/1.7 A lens whose results from
>>>photographs I took w/ it on my then brand new Pentax Super Program
>>>back in 1983 make me both smile and sigh at the same time
>
>Yes, from an optical performance standpoint it's a gem.
>
>--
>Mark Roberts
>Photography and writing
>www.robertstech.com
Definitely agreed on that point :-).
T P
>Does it begin w/ a "b" and end w/ an "okeh", Tony ;-)
Nope.
;-)
Lewis Lang
>Date: Thu, Jun 12, 2003 2:12 PM
>Message-id: <kh2hev4q5jmt7e5hd...@4ax.com>
Then does it begin w/ a "w" and end w/ an "ide open sharpness/resolution",
Tony? ;-)
Mark Roberts
>>From: Mark Roberts ma...@robertstech.com
>>
>>cont...@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote:
>>
>>>>I believe that it was in 1983 that the SCMP-A line of lenses came
>>>>out--and they were not as well made, nor did they have that legendary
>>>>smooth focusing feel, of the SMC Takumars.
>>
>>One that was notoriously bad was the SMC-A 50/1.7 because they really
>>cheaped out on the material used for the aperture ring. It became very
>>stiff and notchy with use. Even a proper clean and lube doesn't make it
>>much better. The A 50/1.4 used different material and is much more
>>durable, but the 50/1.7 sold in much greater numbers and I think this
>>lens in particular gave the A lenses their largely undeserved
>>low-quality reputation.
>
>What you say may be true, but I never had any problems w/ my 50/1.7 A nor did I
>have any complaints as to its build quality either.
Did you get yours new. I've had several, but all acquired in the last 5
years or so in eBay deals, so they were all pretty old by the time I got
them. Every one had aperture rings that were stiff and notchy to one
degree or another. Many others on the Pentax list have commented on
this, which is the only reason I didn't assume it was just my bad luck.
Very sharp lens but I prefer the bokeh and color rendition of the A
50/1.4 myself. Trouble is, I no longer have that version of the Pentax
50/1.4 - I have the K version and the M, as well as the FA, but I sold
my A in a fit of foolishness a few years ago.
Pål Jensen
"T P" <t...@nospam.com> skrev i melding
news:0j2eevc87pukfecke...@4ax.com...
> The range of verdicts on all three Pentax "Limited" lenses (31mm,
> 43mm, 77mm) is actually very wide. Pentax marketing, and the views of
> some die-hard Pentax enthusiasts, would like you to think that the
> lenses were designed with smooth bokeh as a priority, however the
> results from the 43mm and 31mm prove otherwise.
Not true at all. I have all three and all have buttersmooth bokeh. The 31 mm
do not display the same 3D effect.
> But both the 43mm and 31mm have (in my view) a specific optical
> weakness that should disbar them from being considered in any way
> "special", other than by reason of their price tags. When you
> consider the price being asked for these lenses, the unpleasant bokeh
> and this other optical weakness mean that (in my view) they are
> exceptionally poor value for money.
> They also have mediocre build quality, despite their attractive
> outward appearance. 'All that glistens is not gold.'
This is pure nosense with no bearing on reality whatsoever.
> The peculiar focal lengths chosen by Pentax obviate direct comparison
> with previous Pentax designs (perhaps intentionally?), but I feel that
> the 28mm f/2.8 A, 35mm f/2 K,M,A, 50mm f/1.4 A and 85mm f/1.4 A* (and
> later versions of all) are optically significantly superior to the
> Limited lenses and therefore offer stunning value for money.
The A28 and A 35/2 can be consoidered dogs and the Limiteds are way better
performers.
Pål Jensen
"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> skrev i melding
news:105537900...@doris.uk.clara.net...
> Sharpness wide open?
Huh? The 31 Limited is the sharpest Pentax lens ever at apertures wider than
F:2. It outperformes the 50 1,7, 1,4 and 1,2 lenses. I've owned them all.
Pop photography called it the worlds best. Amateur Photographer used the 43
limited as their reference lens beating their previous reference the Carl
Zeiss 50/1.4 for the Caontax. Regardless of what you think of magazine tests
they are certainly not mediocre in any meaning of the word.
The negative part with this lens wide open performace is the light-fall off
at the corners. All three Limited lenses are sharp as lenses basically gets.
They are all designed with bokeh in mind and the designer, Harakawa, tried
to emulate the bokeh look from the pre computer lens design in cooperation
with famous japanese photographers. Tony is just parroting some comments he
found on mailing list by somone who have never used the Limited lenses,
never seen them and whose modus operandi is to bash equipment he cannot
afford. These allagations has been dismissed by everyone who have actually
used the lenses.
Pål Jensen
> The range of verdicts on all three Pentax "Limited" lenses (31mm,
> 43mm, 77mm) is actually very wide.
I've been following various Pentax forums for years and theres only one
person who claims what you parrot and he has never touched a Limited lens.
One person who owns the 43 Limited is not entirely happy with the bokeh but
he admits that his aperure opening isn't centered and is assymetric.
>Pentax marketing, and the views of
> some die-hard Pentax enthusiasts, would like you to think that the
> lenses were designed with smooth bokeh as a priority, however the
> results from the 43mm and 31mm prove otherwise.
The "results" refer to in this context is a low resolution scan going trough
sharpening in photoshop and then posted on a web page...
Pål Jensen
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> skrev i melding
news:20030612012841.18833.00001116@mb-
> Actually I found the 31mm bokeh to have a quite even oof coc distribution
but
> this was only through the viewfinder of an MZ-S at the Photo Expo in NYC,
on
> film performance may be slightly different.
The 31 Limited has the softest and smoothest bokeh of any lens I've ever
used. No by any measure of the word can it be considered harsh. Harsh bokeh
is what my Pentax FA645 120/4 Macro gives but not the Limiteds.
Bandicoot
> Hi Peter:
[SNIP]
> I was suprised how little flar and/or ghosting was in my 28-135 Pentax A
(when
> I owned it) even when pointed straight into the sun.
Agreed - SMC is good at any time, but on multi-element zooms where one
really expects flare is where it is most amazing. A lens like that just
_shouldn't_ be as low flare and high contrast as it is.
> And the ability to use the matrix metering and AE exposure on a
> >'modern' body is an advantage for some. There is a 'fix' you can do to
> >a K
> >or M lens to make it function like an A in terms of allowing matrix
> >metering - I've not tried it, but it looks perfectly practical.
> >
>
> What's the fix/how Peter?
I was going to give you the URL for Mark Roberts' site, but he has done it
himself already. I really must get round to trying this fix out myself.
Peter
Bandicoot
> Hi Tony:
>
> BIG SNIPS
>
> >Quite frankly, better results than the 31mm and 43mm are obtainable
> >using a 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 A (or later) available used at a mere
> >fraction of the price of just one of the three Limiteds,
>
> I thought that the 35-105 Pentax A lens had a fixed aperture of f/3.5 not
> 3.5-4.5, were there several MF versions of this lens w/ one being fixed
> aperture and the other(s) being variable aperture, Tony?
>
> TIA
>
> Regards,
>
> Lewis
Good spot - mine is f3.5 constant, and it was with reference to that and
assuming that was the one Tony meant that I have made other replies in this
thread.
Peter
Bandicoot
> SNIPS
>
> >I should have mentioned this. I like the bokeh of the Limiteds - but
_not_
> >where there are bright highlights in the background. This is almost a
> >'special case' for me, and I don't mind using other lenses when it
happens,
> >but it is true that the rather creamy bokeh the Limiteds give with softly
> >lit OoF areas seems to be at the expense of not dealing well with harsh
> >highlights.
> >
> >The other point in favour of the Limiteds that I forgot to mention was
their
> >good coma performance. All three are superb lenses for night scenes with
> >bright lights against dark backgrounds.
>
> Peter, regardless of lack of coma, wouldn't the "bright ringin bokeh" (of
the
> 43mm, at least) make it a poor choice for bright lights against dark
> backgrounds since you'd see perfectly shaped donut circles of confusion
rather
> than perfectly shaped gaussian circles (or even "neutral bokeh" which
would be
> perfectly shaped evenly illuminated oof circles of confusion)?
I guess, and this did occur to me after I posted. But my night scenes tend
to be of the stopped-down-at-hyperfocal-distance type, so there are no OoF
highlights. maybe I'll take one or two just as an experiment.
> >> Quite frankly, better results than the 31mm and 43mm are obtainable
> >> using a 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 A (or later) available used at a mere
> >> fraction of the price of just one of the three Limiteds, and that zoom
> >> even gives the 77mm Limited a good run for its money, with quite
> >> remarkable optical qualities for a lens of its type and era.
> >
> >That is a superb zoom. But it doesn't give me results I like as much as
> >the
> >Limiteds for the sorts of scenes I use them for. It is a horses for
courses
> >thing, not every lens excels in every situation.
> >
> >
> >
> >Peter
>
> What results doesn't the 35-105 Pentax give you (vs. the Ltds.) and why,
Peter?
>
Apart from the zoom being big, heavy, and (by comparison) slow...
The Limiteds have better flare control: though the 35-105 is very good,
especially for a zoom, it can't touch the performance of these small primes
with the Pentax ghostless coating. They also have OoF areas that I like
better - agreed maybe not for specular highlights, but for 'general
softness'. And, at least at the apertures I use, I think they have the edge
in sharpness. Close focus performance is better too, and they retain very
good sharpness and distortion control at close distances.
And that sense of 3-d 'reality' in the images is very desirable in the
landscapes (and cityscapes) and gardens that I major in. Perhaps it is a
bit of a Pentax thing, as all their lenses seem to do this - for my eyes -
better than other manufacturers, but it is the Limiteds that take it
furthest.
Peter
Mark Roberts
>"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
>news:20030612011020...@mb-m20.aol.com...
>> Hi Peter:
>
>[SNIP]
>
>> I was suprised how little flar and/or ghosting was in my 28-135 Pentax A
>(when
>> I owned it) even when pointed straight into the sun.
>
>Agreed - SMC is good at any time, but on multi-element zooms where one
>really expects flare is where it is most amazing. A lens like that just
>_shouldn't_ be as low flare and high contrast as it is.
Ever try the FA*80-200/2.8? Simply amazing. I was pretty much a prime
lens purist until I got this lens.
Lewis Lang
>Date: Fri, Jun 13, 2003 12:36 AM
>Message-id: <105546453...@doris.uk.clara.net>
Thanks for the thought, though, Peter :-)
Lewis
Lewis Lang
>Date: Thu, Jun 12, 2003 10:47 PM
>Message-id: <bn7Ga.6122$Hb.1...@news4.e.nsc.no>
Thanks Pål:
But, softness of bokeh and sharpness aside, does or doesn't the the 31mm Ltd.
have the 3-D effect/enhanced clarity/tonality and gradualness of bokeh
attributed to the 43mm Ltd. (I'm talking about a gradualness of focus that sets
apart various oof planes from each other (not just a typical selective focus
effect of setting apart just two planes - the sharp subject plane from a
soft/oof focus background plane that most lenses do when used at/near wide
open) but a la a large format and its tonality/3Dness "look")?
Example of 43mm Ltd. lens's "3-D Bokeh":
<A
HREF="http://www.pentax-fan.jp/photo/view2.asp?lens_name=SMC+PENTAX+FA43%2
F1%2E9+Limited&index=3">PENTAX-Fan SMC PENTAX FA43/1.9 Limited çÏó· (No…</A>
Or, if that doesn't work, try cutting and pasting this link:
http://www.pentax-fan.jp/photo/view2.asp?lens_name=SMC+PENTAX+FA43%2F1%2E9
+Limited&index=3
Regards,
Lewis Lang
>Date: Fri, Jun 13, 2003 12:53 AM
>Message-id: <105546582...@doris.uk.clara.net>
Thanks Peter :-)
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <105546582...@doris.uk.clara.net>
Further than Leica? :-) ;-)
Sorry, had to post it again (this 43mm Ltd. example image) I love the 3D bokeh!
- looks like it was shot on an old view camera in black and white :-)
Regards,
<A
HREF="http://www.pentax-fan.jp/photo/view2.asp?lens_name=SMC+PENTAX+FA43%2
F1%2E9+Limited&index=3">PENTAX-Fan SMC PENTAX FA43/1.9 Limited çÏó· (No…</A>
Lewis
Lewis Lang
>Date: Thu, Jun 12, 2003 5:25 PM
>Message-id: <0I2Ga.944$o87...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>
Hi Mark:
I definitely bought it new, Mark (far as I can remember/guess anyways - its
been about 20 years ;-)). Though "I feel your pain" (best Clinton voice) about
the 1.4, I feel the same way (as you well know ;-)) about the 1.7...
Regards,
Pål Jensen
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> skrev i melding
> But, softness of bokeh and sharpness aside, does or doesn't the the 31mm
Ltd.
> have the 3-D effect/enhanced clarity/tonality and gradualness of bokeh
> attributed to the 43mm Ltd. (I'm talking about a gradualness of focus that
sets
> apart various oof planes from each other (not just a typical selective
focus
> effect of setting apart just two planes - the sharp subject plane from a
> soft/oof focus background plane that most lenses do when used at/near wide
> open) but a la a large format and its tonality/3Dness "look")?
I usually don't shoot images where bokeh is important with the 31 Limited.
But I've done extensive tests because someone wha has never use the Limited
lenses claims things about its bokeh.
My tests shows that the 31 Limited have extremely smooth bokeh but don't
have that 3D of the 43 and 77. At least not to the same extent. I cannot
describe this effect and the links you provide doesn't show it at all. As
"bandicoot" have pointed out it is an illusion of stereoscopy that really
doesn't translate well in a scan; particularly not a low resolution one
posted on a web page. I don'æt know what makes this effect just that the
designer have said that he have fine tuned various optical aberations to
achieve this look.
Lewis Lang
>Subject: Re: Takumar f1.4 50mm vs f1.8 55mm
>From: "Pål Jensen" paalj...@sensewave.com
>Date: Fri, Jun 13, 2003 10:35 AM
>Message-id: <NKhGa.6181$Hb.1...@news4.e.nsc.no>
>
>
>"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> skrev i melding
>news:20030613020510.23300.00000531@mb-
>
>> But, softness of bokeh and sharpness aside, does or doesn't the the 31mm
>Ltd.
>> have the 3-D effect/enhanced clarity/tonality and gradualness of bokeh
>> attributed to the 43mm Ltd. (I'm talking about a gradualness of focus
>that
>sets
>> apart various oof planes from each other (not just a typical selective
>focus
>> effect of setting apart just two planes - the sharp subject plane from
>a
>> soft/oof focus background plane that most lenses do when used at/near
>wide
>> open) but a la a large format and its tonality/3Dness "look")?
>
>
>I usually don't shoot images where bokeh is important with the 31 Limited.
>But I've done extensive tests because someone wha has never use the Limited
>lenses claims things about its bokeh.
Me? Somebody else on the PDML?
>My tests shows that the 31 Limited have extremely smooth bokeh but don't
>have that 3D of the 43 and 77. At least not to the same extent. I cannot
>describe this effect and the links you provide doesn't show it at all. As
>"bandicoot" have pointed out it is an illusion of stereoscopy that really
>doesn't translate well in a scan; particularly not a low resolution one
>posted on a web page.
I don't know about "stereoscopy" but the transition of focus is more than just
smooth, its "dimensional", and dimensional to an extent that I have not seen on
the web before nor in most prints w/ few exceptions. Be that as it may, the
links I gave you, to me at least, have a superb depth to them, depsite the "web
factor" that I have yet to see from any other lens (on the web, at least) ;-)
I don'æt know what makes this effect just that the
>designer have said that he have fine tuned various optical aberations to
>achieve this look.
I wish this designer made every lens for Pentax and others ;-) :-)
Pål Jensen
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> skrev i melding
> Me? Somebody else on the PDML?
Certainly not you.
> I don't know about "stereoscopy" but the transition of focus is more than
just
> smooth, its "dimensional", and dimensional to an extent that I have not
seen on
> the web before nor in most prints w/ few exceptions. Be that as it may,
the
> links I gave you, to me at least, have a superb depth to them, depsite the
"web
> factor" that I have yet to see from any other lens (on the web, at least)
;-)
Well, you ain't seen nothing yet. Wait to you see a real trasparency or high
quality print!
> I wish this designer made every lens for Pentax and others ;-) :-)
He designs most of Pentax "*" lenses, their high-end glass, and their
medium format lenses. He is highly respected in Japan where he enjoy a cult
following. Via this "cult" I've able to ask question about these lenses,
like why they focus past infinity etc and getting the most athorative answer
possible.
Gregory L. Hansen
Pål Jensen <paalj...@sensewave.com> wrote:
>He designs most of Pentax "*" lenses, their high-end glass, and their
>medium format lenses. He is highly respected in Japan where he enjoy a cult
>following. Via this "cult" I've able to ask question about these lenses,
>like why they focus past infinity etc and getting the most athorative answer
>possible.
Okay, why *do* they focus past infinity?
--
"Is that plutonium on your gums?"
"Shut up and kiss me!"
-- Marge and Homer Simpson
Pål Jensen
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> skrev i melding
news:bccqoj$oek$5...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> Okay, why *do* they focus past infinity?
To compensate for thermal contraction/expansion.
Avogadro
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>In article <2%jGa.6217$Hb.1...@news4.e.nsc.no>,
>Pål Jensen <paalj...@sensewave.com> wrote:
>
>>He designs most of Pentax "*" lenses, their high-end glass, and their
>>medium format lenses. He is highly respected in Japan where he enjoy a cult
>>following. Via this "cult" I've able to ask question about these lenses,
>>like why they focus past infinity etc and getting the most athorative answer
>>possible.
>
>Okay, why *do* they focus past infinity?
Past infinity lies the 5th dimension - allows you to take pictures of
other universes, black holes, etc.
Avogadro
Gregory L. Hansen
That makes sense, but I like the 5th dimension explanation better.
Lewis Lang
SNIPS
>> I don't know about "stereoscopy" but the transition of focus is more than
>just
>> smooth, its "dimensional", and dimensional to an extent that I have not
>seen on
>> the web before nor in most prints w/ few exceptions. Be that as it may,
>the
>> links I gave you, to me at least, have a superb depth to them, depsite
>the
>"web
>> factor" that I have yet to see from any other lens (on the web, at least)
>;-)
>
>
>Well, you ain't seen nothing yet. Wait to you see a real trasparency or
>high
>quality print!
I can hardly wait (said seriously and humorously, but not sarcastically) :-)
Lewis Lang
>Date: Fri, Jun 13, 2003 3:31 PM
>Message-id: <bccqoj$oek$5...@hood.uits.indiana.edu>
>
>In article <2%jGa.6217$Hb.1...@news4.e.nsc.no>,
>Pål Jensen <paalj...@sensewave.com> wrote:
>
>>He designs most of Pentax "*" lenses, their high-end glass, and their
>>medium format lenses. He is highly respected in Japan where he enjoy a
>cult
>>following. Via this "cult" I've able to ask question about these lenses,
>>like why they focus past infinity etc and getting the most athorative answer
>>possible.
>
>Okay, why *do* they focus past infinity?
Because the "*" lenses were inspired by Buzz Lightyear... "To infinity and
beyond..." ;-)
Lewis Lang
>From: glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen)
>Message-id: <bcctf7$r0l$2...@hood.uits.indiana.edu>
>
>In article <VgmGa.20828$8g5.3...@news2.e.nsc.no>,
>Pål Jensen <paalj...@sensewave.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> skrev i melding
>>news:bccqoj$oek$5...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
>>
>>> Okay, why *do* they focus past infinity?
>>
>>To compensate for thermal contraction/expansion.
>
>That makes sense, but I like the 5th dimension explanation better.
So the "*" lenses are actually from "The Age of Aquarius"? ;-)
Lewis Lang
>Date: Fri, Jun 13, 2003 3:54 PM
>Message-id: <pssjevoqib7vlc1k4...@4ax.com>
Actually its so "far out" that you can take pictures of your own behind in
multiple universes w/o a mirror, not the most slimming of effects... ;-)
T P
>Then does it begin w/ a "w" and end w/ an "ide open sharpness/resolution",
>Tony? ;-)
Alas, no. Maybe we should ask Jeremy.
;-)
T P
>Good spot - mine is f3.5 constant, and it was with reference to that and
>assuming that was the one Tony meant that I have made other replies in this
>thread.
Peter,
I apologise for sowing confusion. Mine is also a constant f/3.5.
;-)
I suppose it's just that, much of the time, the zoom lenses we discuss
on here have variable maximum apertures of f/3.5-f/4.5, so I probably
continued out of habit!
While this discussion has centred on the Limited lenses, I think it's
of interest that a relatively prosaic zoom can be compared to such
'exotic' glass. This lens has greatly impressed me, after being
disappointed with the other Pentax zooms I have used.
Tony
Lewis Lang
>Date: Fri, Jun 13, 2003 5:53 PM
>Message-id: <ls3kev0trgl11otgc...@4ax.com>
OK, you got me, I give up, what does it begin with and end with, Tony?
Bandicoot
news:cZ9Ga.1667$o87....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
No, I don't use zooms often enough - or wide open often enough - to really
justify the cost. Maybe one day I'll try one out. The 200mm f2.8 FA* is
an incredible lens, so my standards at that length are pretty high!
Peter
Bandicoot
"Pål Jensen" <paalj...@sensewave.com> wrote in message
news:2%jGa.6217$Hb.1...@news4.e.nsc.no...
>
> "Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> skrev i melding
> news:20030613072309.06973.00000942@mb-
> > I don't know about "stereoscopy" but the transition of focus is more
than
> just
> > smooth, its "dimensional", and dimensional to an extent that I have not
> seen on
> > the web before nor in most prints w/ few exceptions. Be that as it may,
> the
> > links I gave you, to me at least, have a superb depth to them, depsite
the
> "web
> > factor" that I have yet to see from any other lens (on the web, at
least)
> ;-)
>
>
> Well, you ain't seen nothing yet. Wait to you see a real trasparency or
high
> quality print!
>
>
> > I wish this designer made every lens for Pentax and others ;-) :-)
>
>
> He designs most of Pentax "*" lenses, their high-end glass, and their
> medium format lenses.
Makes sense - some of the * lenses I have seem to have some of this 3-D
quality, not as much as the Limiteds, but more than the rest of my Pentax
glass. I've mentioned the 200mm f2.8 and 300mm f4.5 in this connexion
before, and the 135mm f1.8 has a bit of it too.
Peter
Bandicoot
news:514kevkv3i8pp7ftd...@4ax.com...
Which ones disappointed you specifically? I'm not a big zoom fan, but I use
them "when appropriate" - fast moving subjects, or when trying to travel
light. That 35-105mm is a nice one, but there are others I'm pretty happy
with too.
Peter
Lewis Lang
>Date: Fri, Jun 13, 2003 11:34 PM
>Message-id: <105554727...@doris.uk.clara.net>
That's nice but also a shame, boo hoo, I'm a wide angle (and a fast normal) fan
;-)
Bandicoot
> >Subject: Re: Takumar f1.4 50mm vs f1.8 55mm
> >From: "Bandicoot" "insert_handle_here"@techemail.com
> >Date: Fri, Jun 13, 2003 11:34 PM
> >Message-id: <105554727...@doris.uk.clara.net>
> >
> >
> >"Pål Jensen" <paalj...@sensewave.com> wrote in message
> >news:2%jGa.6217$Hb.1...@news4.e.nsc.no...
> >>
> >> "Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> skrev i melding
> >> news:20030613072309.06973.00000942@mb-
[SNIP]
> >>
> >>
> >> He designs most of Pentax "*" lenses, their high-end glass, and their
> >> medium format lenses.
> >[SNIP]
> >
> >Makes sense - some of the * lenses I have seem to have some of this 3-D
> >quality, not as much as the Limiteds, but more than the rest of my Pentax
> >glass. I've mentioned the 200mm f2.8 and 300mm f4.5 in this connexion
> >before, and the 135mm f1.8 has a bit of it too.
> >
> >
> >
> >Peter
>
> That's nice but also a shame, boo hoo, I'm a wide angle (and a fast
normal) fan
> ;-)
>
> Lewis
There is one * wide angle at present: the 24mm f2 FA*. I haven't tried one,
but it is said (at equivalent apertures) to match the sharpness of the K and
A f2.8 versions, which are superb. It would be interesting to know more
about its performamce in other areas, and if it does have any of the '3-D
magic'.
The 28mm f3.5 K and 35mm f3.5 K don't quite have the 'magic' but both seem
to me to produce more 3-D images than most rivals - they are very cheap
used, so you could try one and see if you liked it.
The 15mm f3.5 A also has an astounding sense of 3-D - but at this wide
almost any lens is going to look impressive on the right subject.
Peter
Lewis Lang
>There is one * wide angle at present: the 24mm f2 FA*. I haven't tried
>one,
>but it is said (at equivalent apertures) to match the sharpness of the K
>and
>A f2.8 versions, which are superb. It would be interesting to know more
>about its performamce in other areas, and if it does have any of the '3-D
>magic'.
I tested the 24/2 FA* wide open years ago on a door screen and it had quite
poor sharpness (read soft) when used wide open. I did not test it for its
performance when stopped down nor on three-dimensional scenes to see if it
has/had any of that Pentax 3D magic.
>The 28mm f3.5 K and 35mm f3.5 K don't quite have the 'magic' but both seem
>to me to produce more 3-D images than most rivals - they are very cheap
>used, so you could try one and see if you liked it.
I already have one of the best 28mm 3D lenses on the planet (the 28mm f/2.8
Zeiss Distagon MM lens) but my favorite focal length is in the 24/25 range so
it would be pointless for me to get or test something I already have well taken
care of in that deaprtment ;-) - though I do thank you for the suggestion.
Contax also makes a Zeiss Distagon 25mm but that's soft wide open too and the
images (image quality) I've seen projected in slides seemed unspectacular when
compared to my Zeiss 16mm and 28mm lenses. Nikon has a great 24mm f/2.8 (both
manual and AF versions) for sharpness (I don't know about 3D quality or bokeh
since I shot the thing at f/11) but that's another system too.
>The 15mm f3.5 A also has an astounding sense of 3-D - but at this wide
>almost any lens is going to look impressive on the right subject.
I've seen the 15/3.5 Pentax lenses shots but I don't remember if it was the A
version (most likely) or how three dimensional it was, only that it took in a
very wide field of view, "duh" ;-) :-).
Bandicoot
> SNIPS
>
> >There is one * wide angle at present: the 24mm f2 FA*. I haven't tried
> >one,
> >but it is said (at equivalent apertures) to match the sharpness of the K
> >and
> >A f2.8 versions, which are superb. It would be interesting to know more
> >about its performamce in other areas, and if it does have any of the '3-D
> >magic'.
>
> I tested the 24/2 FA* wide open years ago on a door screen and it had
quite
> poor sharpness (read soft) when used wide open. I did not test it for its
> performance when stopped down nor on three-dimensional scenes to see if it
> has/had any of that Pentax 3D magic.
I've yet to see a 24mm f2 that is really sharp wide open, but Pentax in
particular do seem to let wide open sharpness take second place to stopped
down performance, so I'm not surprised.
>
> >The 28mm f3.5 K and 35mm f3.5 K don't quite have the 'magic' but both
seem
> >to me to produce more 3-D images than most rivals - they are very cheap
> >used, so you could try one and see if you liked it.
>
> I already have one of the best 28mm 3D lenses on the planet (the 28mm
f/2.8
> Zeiss Distagon MM lens) but my favorite focal length is in the 24/25 range
so
> it would be pointless for me to get or test something I already have well
taken
> care of in that department ;-) - though I do thank you for the suggestion.
> Contax also makes a Zeiss Distagon 25mm but that's soft wide open too and
the
> images (image quality) I've seen projected in slides seemed unspectacular
when
> compared to my Zeiss 16mm and 28mm lenses. Nikon has a great 24mm f/2.8
(both
> manual and AF versions) for sharpness (I don't know about 3D quality or
bokeh
> since I shot the thing at f/11) but that's another system too.
The 28mm Zeiss is a nice lens indeed.
My preferred 24mm is a Pentax 24mm f2.8 A - same design as the K. This
manual focus lens is massively cheaper than the f2 AF lens, and I like its
performance. The 20mm f2.8 A is also excellent, and has a real sense of
depth to its images, even if not the 3-D 'snap' of the Limiteds.
>
> >The 15mm f3.5 A also has an astounding sense of 3-D - but at this wide
> >almost any lens is going to look impressive on the right subject.
>
> I've seen the 15/3.5 Pentax lenses shots but I don't remember if it was
the A
> version (most likely) or how three dimensional it was, only that it took
in a
> very wide field of view, "duh" ;-) :-).
The A and _most_ of the K versions are exactly the same optically, though
it is possible the coating is slightly enhanced on the A. The very earliest
K versions differ in using an aspherical element, so close focus performance
should be a little better - but there is no indication on the lens which it
is and I don't really know how you would tell.
The story I heard was that Zeiss was bringing out a 15mm aspherical at
Photokina so Pentax decided that the 15mm they were designing at the time
should also be aspherical. In the market the Pentax was a success but the
Zeiss never went into production, and as the cost of the aspherical element
was extremely high Pentax decided that since the expected competition from
Zeiss hadn't materialised they could simplify the design. I gather it makes
no difference at longer shooting distances.
Certainly the field is wide. It is also surprisingly distortion free.
>
> Lewis
Peter
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <105581463...@echo.uk.clara.net>
Hi Peter:
Zeiss has had a 15mm rectlinear for a number of years, however I don't know if
its the aspherical lens you speak of. Maybe what you referred to was the
(unreleased) predecessor. All I do know is that the current 15mm (unless Zeiss
or Leica has retooled the desing) Zeiss is also the same lens Leica uses as the
basis of its 15mm. The 24/2.8 Leica is supposedly based on a Minolta lens
design as is Leica's 16mm (probably different coatings if not different glass
are used on the Leica versions. My Maxxum 24-50/4 is sharper (supposedly) than
Minolta's fixed 24 so I see little to be gained in going w/ any other 24 unless
it was significantly daster or better than my current Maxxum zoom in that
range. The Pentax 24/2 would fit that spec, but other than for dof effects, and
unless the Pentax 24/2 became superb by 2.8 I don't see what I would be gaining
w/ a Pentax 24/2 or even the 24/2.8 A lens (only one stop difference). I like
the idea (and practicality) of a fast wide angle in the 24mm range but what use
is a fast lens that's crappy wide open (I guess a crappy image is better than
none at all). Before anybody else jumps in though, my standards are very high
and I expect to get good to excellent 16x20" fine art prints at or near wide
open - that's why I am being so anal about all this. Though expensive, the
Canonb 24/1.4 EOS L lens seems like an option (as does its slower brother the
24/2.8 EF lens) but this would (aside from resurrecting my 630 via repair)
require me to build up a Canon system again and the L glass I would want (fixed
or zoom in the 24mm range) is just too damned expensive for my budget :-(. Plus
the fact that I find most Canon 35mm SLRs to be oversized and have poor
eyepoints (another bugaboo I can't stand). Nikon makes a great 24/2.8 in MF and
AF but that would mean getting back into Nikon and Nikon's really wide angles
are not necessarily noted for their good bokeh at/near wide open nor for their
lack of lateral color (at least w/ the faster f/2 24mm I believe). And the
25-50/4 Nikon AIS I used to own is great but hugeish, heavyish and not any
faster or sharper? than my current (excellent 24-50mm f/4) Maxxum zoom. :-(
Does anybody here have experience w/ the 24/2 FA AL (right designation?) Pentax
AF lens from f/2 through f/4 as well as at optimum aperture? I'd rent the lens
but try getting rentals of 35mm Pentax equipment w/o having to pull a rabbitt
out of your hat to do it ;-).
Regards,
russell holroyd
and others have green? When Asahi redesigned the f1.4 lens, they also
redesigned the mirror assembly to ensure it cleared the back of the new
lens. The earlier cameras have a green "R" and the later ones have red.
"Jeremy" <jer...@no-spam-thanks.com> wrote in message
news:LujFa.38856$rO.36...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >If a person could carry only one of these lenses, which would be the
> > >better choice? Both are m42 threads and roughly the same vintage.Any
> > >noticeable difference in results? The f1.8 seems to be a bit more
> > >commonly available in the used camera sections...
>
>
>
> They both sell for around $40-75.00 on eBay. Why not own both? They have
> got to be the best buy in used lenses. They are both Zeiss Planar
designs,
> and the fit and finish are superb. They were great values when they were
> new. They are incredible values now. Get both!
>
> (There is also a 55mm f/2 version available (it is identical to the f/1.8,
> but it is blocked internally to open only as wide as f/2. It was
available
> on the SP1000 camera body, and was not sold separately. You can buy 'em
on
> eBay, dirt cheap, and they are typically in pristeen condition.)
>
> There are a few differences between the 50mm 1.4 and the 55mm 1.8
> (everything I say about the 1.8 also applies to the f/2):
>
> Th 1.4 has 7 elements (some early models had 8 elements). The 1.8 has 6
> elements. Less air-to-glass surfaces on the 1.8, and theoretically, less
> flare.
>
> The 1.4's angle of view is 39 degrees horizontal, the 1.8's is 36 degrees
> horizontal.
>
> The 1.4 weighs in at 252 grams. The 1.8 is 201 grams.
>
> The 1.4 has the advantage of producing the brightest screen image for
fast,
> critical focusing under low light conditions. The 1.8 has slightly less
> light gathering power, but it is no great disadvantage under most outdoor
> lighting conditions.
>
> Flare control: (the lower the score, the better) The 50mm f/1.4 comes in
> at 0.47 (by way of comparison, the previous model--the Super Takumar
> non-multi-coated lens came in at 0.9--twice as much flare). The 55mm
f/1.8
> scored 0.58 (the previous version--the Super Takumar 55mm f/1.8 scored
1.28.
> Big improvement when Super Multi Coating was applied to this lens).
>
> Compare those scores to some other top-quality lenses of that period: the
> Leica Summilux 50mm f/1.4: 0.9 (double the score of the SMC Takumars); The
> Carl Zeiss Distagon 50mm f/1.4: 1.37; the much-touted EBC Fujinon 50mm
> f/1.4: 1.04; the Mamiya-Sekor ES 55mm f/1.8: 1.66; The Nikkor S 50mm
f/1.4:
> 0.93; The Miranda 50mm f/1.8: 1.0; The Canon FD 50mm f/1.4: 0.88; The
Canon
> FD 50mm f/1.8: 0.73. These scores were based on testing on-axis, wide
open
> and without hoods.
>
> The 1.4 was designed primarily for the Spotmatics and ES models. The rear
> element may not clear the swinging mirror in other camera models,
including
> other Pentax bodies that were manufactured prior to the Spotmatic Series.
> If you are planning on using the lense with bodies other than the
Spotmatic,
> Spotmatic II/IIa, Spotmatic F, ES or ES II, you will probably be better
off
> with the 1.8.
>
> The 50mm f/1.4 does exhibit yellowing caused by radioactive rare earth
> glass. The 1.8 does not contain that glass, and exhibits no yellowing.
If
> you shoot slides, where the colors cannot be corrected during processing,
> you are better off with the f/1.8.
>
> I have always felt that the f/1.8 produced sharper images than did the
> 1.4--although the differences were slight. Still, the 1.8 does seem to
have
> the edge. Bob Monaghan's web site expresses the issue as follows:
>
> "The tradeoffs and corrections for a fast 50mm f/1.4 lens often result in
> the slower and easier to design and build 50mm lenses at f/1.8 and f/2
being
> even better corrected and sharper than their faster cousins? If you are
> using a slower f/1.7 or f/1.8 lens . . . you may be enjoying even higher
> resolution factors."
>
> Even the 50mm f/1.4 outperformed the f/2 Summicron and the Elmar 50mm
f/3.5
> for sharpness! See this link:
>
> http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/rangefinder.html#keppler
>
> Erwin Puts addresses the issue of distortion on his Leica web site, where
he
> compares the Leica f/1.4 to the f/2.0 lens, and the principles apply
equally
> to Takumar lenses:
> _________________________________________
>
> "The design of a 50mm high speed lens is quite a challenge. Its sibling,
the
> 2/50mm, offers image quality of the highest caliber (at least in the Leica
> stable). And the optical aberrations to correct are quite stubborn. Most
> reviewers of high speed lenses even today will tell you that a 1,4 design
is
> a compromise. What then is the optical problem? Any lens produces a
circular
> image area within which the 24x36mm format has to fit. This circular area
> can be divided in three parts, the center, the zonal area and the farout
> zones. The center (or the paraxial zone or Gaussian zone) is quite easy to
> compute. The zonal areas are more difficult to correct.
>
> Optical aberrations have the habit to grow disproportionately if the
> aperture and/or the field-angle become wider. Many aberrations grow with
the
> square root or the cubic root in relation to the aperture diameter or even
> more. OK you would say, lets settle for a bit less image quality in the
> corners. The snag however is this: the zonal aberrations have a strong
> influence on the performance in the center. Moreover: when stopping down
the
> effect on some aberrations is not reduced. The combined result of all
> aberrations is always a reduction in contrast: a softening of small
details
> and a low overall contrast."
> ________________________________________
>
> Here is my take on this:
>
> When you compare the price of a new Summicron-R 1:1,4/50mm ($1999.00),
with
> the price for BOTH the SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 AND the 55mm f/1.8
(somewhere
> around $100 bucks), why agonize over the decision. Get both (actually get
> the f.2 as well). You will not get more bang for the buck anywhere else
in
> 35mm normal lenses.
>
>
Avogadro
wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>"russell holroyd" <rhol...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>news:BfwHa.140$7z1....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>
>> Has anyone noticed that some Spotmatics have a red "R" on the rewind knob
>> and others have green? When Asahi redesigned the f1.4 lens, they also
>> redesigned the mirror assembly to ensure it cleared the back of the new
>> lens.
>
>Here is the lowdown:
>
>The rear element of the 50mm f/1.4 SMC Takumar projects back further than
>usual, and this lens was designed primarily for use with the Spotmatics (The
>original Spotmatic, the Spotmatic II and IIa, and the Spotmatic F), and
>their aperture priority cousins (the ES and ES-II).
>
>In addition to those models, the lens can also be used with the SP500 and
>SP1000 models, and two other cameras that preceeded the Spotmatics: The
>Honeywell Pentax H3v and H1a WITH AN ORANGE COLORED "R" MARKING ON THE FILM
>REWIND KNOB. (I do not recall offhand what the corresponding model numbers
>were for the non-Honeywell (i.e., Asahi) models.
>
>These 50mm SMC Takumar lenses are often offered for sale on eBay and
>described as being compatible with "all screwmount M42 camera bodies." That
>is simply not the case.
>
>Persons planning on using SMC Takumar normal lenses on camera bodies other
>than the Spotmatics, SP500/1000 or ES models would be well advised to go
>with the 55mm f/1.8 SMC Takumar normal lens, or the 55mm f/2 SMC Takumar.
>These lenses to not have the rear element problem, and will not damage the
>mirrors on other makes of cameras.
>
>Of course, to exploit the wide-open aperture metering capabilities built
>into virtually all SMC Takumar lenses, one should mount them onto a Pentax
>body (Spotmatics, SP500/1000 or ES/ES-II). Those Pentax bodies were
>significantly improved over the previous models, and many say that they were
>as sturdy as Nikons. They certainly have held up over the decades. I have
>5 of them, and they all operate as they did when they were brand new.
The Spotmatic and other regular Spotmatic models won't do open
aperture metering. You need the Spotmatic F, ES and ES II for that.
Avogadro
T P
>> The Spotmatic and other regular Spotmatic models won't do open
>> aperture metering. You need the Spotmatic F, ES and ES II for that.
>>
>
>Yep! You're right.
>
>I was THINKING open aperture metering, but I was WRITING as if for rear
>element compatibility.
More misleading nonsense from Jeremy.
Bandicoot
news:ejsuev0vqu3vp5p59...@4ax.com...
> Be very careful if mounting a full-aperture-metering-enabled Takumar on a
> -non- Pentax camera body. The full-aperture-metering Takumars have a very
> tiny pin that extends from the rear of the lensmount, designed to prevent
the
> lens's Auto/Manual stopdown switch from operating on a
full-aperture-metering
> body. (These bodies have the lensmount milled to allow the pin to extend;
> earlier bodies with non-milled mounts will press the pin into the lens,
> allowing the stopdown switch to operate.)
>
> The problem is that certain bodies use front-mounted screws to attach the
> mount to the front standard. The result is that the pin will pop into the
> screw hole when you mount the lens onto the camera, resulting in a
> permanently mounted lens, partially screwed onto the body.
>
This happened to a friend once years ago (sorry, I can't remember the
'guilty' body). I worked out what must have happened and freed the lens by
slipping into the remaining gap between the lens and body a thin metal
feeler gauge (the sort you use to set the gaps in spark plugs) and working
it under the tip of the pin so the lens could be backed off. I don't
gaurantee it'll always work, but maybe useful to know for anyone else who
runs into this problem.
Peter
Jeremy
>
> I've also heard of people experiencing the deadly embrace with bellows
> attachments that used screws to attach the lens mount.
>
You are referring to the incompatibility between Super-Multi-Coated Takumar
lenses and the OLD Bellows II, having the dual support rods. The lenses may
lock when used with that unit.
All Pentax lenses can be used on the SINGLE TRACK Bellows I, NEW model
Bellows II ("New?" It has been discontinued for 25 years already!), and
the Auto Bellows.
It is unfortunate that there are two Bellows II units available on the used
market. IF THE BELLOWS II DOES NOT HAVE TWO RODS, IT'S ALLRIGHT.
This lens/bellows incompatibility problem affects ONLY the
SMC/Super-Multi-Coated Takumar lenses with wide open metering lugs. The
older Super-Takumars, Auto-Takumars and plain old "Takumar" lenses will not
lock up on the original model Bellows II unit (with 2 rods).
That little incompatibility issue is so "ancient" that I had forgotten all
about it until you mentioned it in your post. Since relatively few people
bought bellows units, the inconsistency remained an obscure one, thankfully.
If one purchased a bellows unit back when they were being offered for sale
as new, he/she would have gotten the correct one, as the original Bellows II
had already been withdrawn. I don't think anyone could have foretold that
people might be buying the incompatible lens/bellows combinations a quarter
century later, when this information would have been almost completely
forgotten.
The screw mount bodies and lenses have proven themselves to be legendary
workhorses, having withstood the test of time. I wonder if anyone,
including Asahi Optical Company, would have thought that these cameras would
remain in use thirty years after their introduction?
Ron Todd
Lewis Lang wrote:
>
> Hi Mark:
>
> >Subject: Re: Takumar f1.4 50mm vs f1.8 55mm
> >From: Mark Roberts ma...@robertstech.com
...
> >One that was notoriously bad was the SMC-A 50/1.7 because they really
> >cheaped out on the material used for the aperture ring. It became very
> >stiff and notchy with use. Even a proper clean and lube doesn't make it
> >much better. The A 50/1.4 used different material and is much more
> >durable, but the 50/1.7 sold in much greater numbers and I think this
> >lens in particular gave the A lenses their largely undeserved
> >low-quality reputation.
> >
>
> What you say may be true, but I never had any problems w/ my 50/1.7 A nor did I
> have any complaints as to its build quality either.
>
FWIW, My experience is the same as Lewis's.
I am quite happy with my 50/1.7 A, both mechanically and
photographically.
--
*****************************************
Boycott list:
Belgium, France, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, China, Iran,
Syria,
Hollywood, San Francisco, Massachusetts, New York City, Sierra Club,
ACLU,
Movies of the first blacklist, Turner, Madonna, S. Crowe, Dixie Chicks,
Cher, U2, rapp,
Trudeau, Wiley, Disney, ABC news, CBS news, NBC news, CNN, PBS,
Sometimes the only influence you have is to say, "No, I'm not buying."
ROBMURR
The aperature ring is a very poor
design with 2 tiny strips of metal
glued to the ring to make it work...
I sold it broken and bought the M
model, much better.
Lewis Lang
>Date: Fri, Jun 20, 2003 12:26 PM
>Message-id: <20030620082645...@mb-m15.aol.com>
Sorry to here about your bad experience Rob :-(