Just Got these Takumar Lenses

What camera are you using these on? 'Takumar' lenses are Pentax's' own. Any Carl Zeiss lens is worth getting.

the 20D

That's one way to get some good glass without paying a fortune.

exacty could have gotten all three for $200. Will probably sell one of the takumars though and get either the Zeiss flektogon or sonnar 135

'Editor Mike Johnston quoted a Japanese camera executive who said that if
the
SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 lens could be manufactured and marketed today, it
would sell for between $1200 and $1500 dollars!'

How much are the used SMC Takumar 50 f/1.4 going for these days? Just curious. And is there a particular application you would be using the lens for, such as macros or what have you? I have that lens but I never got around to getting an adapter to use it on my EOS camera yet.

sti jaguar wrote:
exacty could have gotten all three for $200. Will probably sell one of the takumars though and get either the Zeiss flektogon or sonnar 135

'Editor Mike Johnston quoted a Japanese camera executive who said that if
the
SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 lens could be manufactured and marketed today, it
would sell for between $1200 and $1500 dollars!'

I think you'll find that the Pentax wide-angle lenses will likely perform better than the Zeiss Jena wide-angles. Carl Zeiss Jena's wide angle designs were worked out in the 20's and 30's, following closely Angenieux's retrofocus design, and were probably never updated after the Germanys split following WWII. The Distagon is a more modern design, as is the Schneider Curtagon. The Japanese manufacturers also used more current designs.

I have several Flektogons for medium format, and they are not on the same planet as are the Sonnars made by Carl Zeiss Jena.

Some asked about the going rate for 50mm Takumars. I paid about $45 for my Super Takumar 50/1.4, which was right in the middle of the range of usual prices.

The 135mm Sonnar is a wonderful lens and an outstanding value. The 50mm Pancolar is considered the best of the Jena normals, but I would take the Super or SMC Takumar instead any day. Any wider and I would definitely expect the good Japanese lenses to perform better.

I do not think the 50mm Takumars are any better than the Canon 50/1.4 lens, so the notion that they would cost $1500 to produce today seems rather misleading, even if true.

Rick "who thinks technology has improved zooms and wides most" Denney

yep, i got my Super for around $50. and the SMC for $20 more. The SMC is supposed to have slightly better coating. I bet one can nott ell the difference. Can't wait to try it out.

'And is there a particular application you would be using the lens for, such as macros or what have you?'

I have no idea what this means..lol i am still new to this.

Net citizen Tom W. believes that if the Canon 50/1.8 FL breech-lock lens were marketed today, it would be about $800-1000. They don't make lenses like that any more - the smooth, finely machined operation that even many L lenses don't possess.

RDenney - I have a Zeiss Jena DDR 20/2.8 that is quite sharp from one corner to another, at least on the 1D II (not tested yet on full-frame). But it does lack a good deal in terms of contrast, at least compared to the 16-35L. It does have that very smooth operation that is a signature of older, well-machined lenses.

I intend to test it fully when I get a mind to do so.

If that's the CZJ Flektogon 35/2.4, then YES!!! It's a gem!

I find it interesting when people say the contrast is bad, but the lens is sharp.

Sharpness and contrast is the same thing. If the lens isn't contrasty it can't resolve the small detail. If it can't resolve the small detail, it can't be contrasty.

DDR lenses are ok in terms of sharpness, but the color rendition sometimes isn't there.

They're related, but they aren't the same. The differentiation of detail constitutes sharpness. This is designated by the high-frequency 30-40 lp/mm curve on the MTF chart. Dark to light ratio constitutes contrast. This is related more to the low-frequency curve (5-10 lp/mm) on the MTF chart. If you can pick out minute details on a scene with very little variation in brightness, you have sharpness. If you have a scene with great variation in brightness, you have great contrast. If your lens can reveal both, it's a good thing.

See this link for some better explanation than I can give....

http://www.photozone.d​e/3Technology/mtf.htm

My Jena seems to have a rather poor ratio from dark-to-light. It's a washed-out image, and might be due to the silver-colored aperture blades causing some internal reflections. But the detail still shows through very well. That is what I mean.

What we normally think of as constrast has to do with the difference between light and dark parts of the image (compared to the original scene) in large enough clumps to see in a finished print from normal viewing distance. It affects the performance of the lens at a relatively low frequency of detail. That's why MTF curves at 10 lines/mm are thought to be good measures of contrast for small-format lenses.

What we normally think of as sharpness (at least what those of us who approach prints with a loupe think) is really resolution of fine detail, and has to do with resolving details at high frequency. MTF curves at 40 lines/mm are often thought to be a measure of resolution.

It's quite possible for a lens to have a reasonably good MTF performance at 40 lines/mm but be only so-so at 10 lines/mm. All you have to do to prove this to yourself is to photograph through fog. The fog scatters light rays and obscures detail, but what detail is visible can still be rendered sharply. An unconstrasty lens has a slight fog element in it, usually because of too many air surfaces (in the case of old lenses) or a little undercorrected spherical aberration.

MTF curves are measured by comparing black and white adjacent stripes. An uncontrasty lens will render the black as dark gray, and the white as light gray, and if the stripes are relatively wide it will be visible in the picture as poor contrast. If the stripes are very narrow, even an uncontrasty lens might still render the stripes as separate, even though they are still dark and light gray. If the stripes were originally alternating grays of close but still different density, then an uncontrasty lens might not see them as stripes. That's the sort of detail that fog loses. But in a contrasty scene, that sort of detail might not matter.

It's true that a lens with very good performance at 10 lines/mm might appear to be sharper than a lens with better performance at 40 lines/mm, just because of the role contrast plays in our perception of sharpness in the final print. Because contrast is more connected to apparent sharpness, lenses tend to be designed more for contrast if a design requires a choice. It takes pretty high pixel density to evaluate lens performance at 40 lines/mm. That's one reason I prefer larger formats--you get both more easily at normal print sizes.

I'm reminded of the comparison I have made between a photograph by Ansel Adams, Tenaya Creek and Dogwoods. I have a Special Edition print of that photograph, which is a real chemical print made by Bob Ross from the original negative and sold through the Ansel Adams Gallery at Yosemite. I have compared that print to a similarly sized reproduction in Yosemite and the Range of Light. The reproduction appears sharper from normal viewing distance. The reason is that by screening the image for duotone lithography for the book, the screen imposes false edges by obliterating low-contrast very fine detail. You need a loupe to see it. So, the reproduction has the same apparent contrast, greater apparent sharpness, but less actual resolution. And under a loupe (i.e., at high-frequency detail), the reproduction comprises high-contrast black and gray dots on a white background, while the print has relatively low-contrast continuous tone.

Rick "who has some lovely OLD large-format lenses that are very sharp but have low contrast" Denney

The CZJ Sonnar 135mm 3.5 is really an awesome piece of glass. I couldn't be happier with mine. The only problem is getting the last 5% of performance from it using the small 350D viewfinder. Beautiful piece of kit. I happily paid a premium for a mint boxed example. I would love some similar quality primes from around 24mm and up. I may look at a 30mm 1.4 Sigma and a 50mm 1.4 Canon and sell what I currently have across that range. I'd actually prefer a couple of CZJ or similar MF lenses but finding mint and boxed is very difficult at the right price.