50mm comparison: Takumar SMC 1.4 - Canon 1.8 II

Hi,
Here is my quick comparison of the 50 1.8 II and SMC takumar 50 1.4 @ f2 (the exif says otherwise, but my chipped adapter is only saying 1.4). I ran the test on a canon 40D (i.e. crop). The images are straight JPG out of the box.

There is a big difference between the two. Look like the canon pick up more, the histograms seems to agree. Is it my lens, or it is a general observation?

Please comment. I want to know if my takumar is a bad copy.

Looks fine to me.. Appears to be some yellowing, but you can test that out yourself.. just look through it at a newspaper or some other white area.. Mine has the same, I've been working on the de-yellowing for a couple of weeks now, it's getting better.

Generally, when people talk about a bad copy of a lens, it's with regards to the AF system.. so the only way for you get a bad copy of a Tak 50 1.4 is for something physically to be wrong with the optics or internal mechanisms.

If those are the two images at f/2, I'd say your copy is fine, just a bit yellow, which is normal for that lens and the age of it.

I do think it's pretty funny you're using a color chart with completely out of whack WB though.. +1 for irony.

Also, if you change the aperture on both the lens and the camera, your chip should update the image EXIF with the correct aperture value.. Mine (dandelion chip) does this.. just have to keep in mind to change it in both places.

OP, why are comparing IQ of two lens by taking of crap shots?
1/5 shutter speed, wrong WB. Noisy, maybe because of underexposure.

Are both the same color temperature? Try to take better pictures in better lighting. Bad lighting will make even a good lens look like crap.

SiaoP wrote in post #15387209
Are both the same color temperature? Try to take better pictures in better lighting. Bad lighting will make even a good lens look like crap.

Hi,
Thanks for the comments. The two picture were taking in the same condition, same white balance,etc. I just swap the lens and focus using live view. I will take "better" pictures later.

My concern is the height of the peak on the left part of the histogram. Just like if the takumar was not picking the low light part as well as the canon.

Colors are more vibrant with the Takumar. I would ignore the histogram and look at the picture itself. The Takumar probably is a little yellow. Look up how to de-yellow it by leaving it in the sun. That should help.

Ok,
Here we go again. This time I used the built in flash (to control the conditions) and f2.8. I used UFRaw and select the gray square and auto-adjust the white balance. I also auto-correct the black. Here are the results with histogram. I appreciate your comments and knowledge.

Canon:

That's a better test! I think the second one came out a little bit brighter though, which the histogram shows as a bit of overall movement to the right. Can you manually set the flash on the camera, or is it set to ETTL? That might explain the exposure difference, or if you had a lens filter on the 50 1.8.. or it could just be lens variations..

Either way, I think you can see that your lens is fine..

These pictures are being taken at different apertures. Compare using the same settings in manual. The last two in particular are totally different... F/1.4 vs F/2.8.

SoCalTiger wrote in post #15390185
These pictures are being taken at different apertures. Compare using the same settings in manual. The last two in particular are totally different... F/1.4 vs F/2.8.

They're the same.. read the first post.

BrandonSi wrote in post #15390189
They're the same.. read the first post.

Oops my bad

Honestly, if OP or any body really wants to check if he got bad copy of old lens, he just need to go out a nd shoot the subjects he intended to shoot with the lens, not just a color pallet or cat whisker. Just shoot some portrait with colorful background @F1.4. You will be floored with creamy painting like bokeh.

mzondeki wrote in post #15390240
Honestly, if OP or any body really wants to check if he got bad copy of old lens, he just need to go out a nd shoot the subjects he intended to shoot with the lens, not just a color pallet or cat whisker. Just shoot some portrait with colorful background @F1.4. You will be floored with creamy painting like bokeh.

Hi,
Thanks for the comments.

I wanted to shoot some picture at night outside (well night here starts a 3PM, so it is hard not to shoot at nigh). The Canon was picking a lot more than the takumar on long exposure (no flash). I just wanted to go to the root of it.

From the first test. When the light was low. The peaks on the takumar were lower than the peaks of the canon. Maybe I am just making it up.

The camera meters differently when using large aperture lenses like f1.4 lenses. The camera thinks the Takumar is f1.4, and uses that for its metering calculations, even when you stop it down to f2 or more. So there will be differences in metering and such that make direct comparison against a slower, electronic aperture lens very difficult.

Short version, as suggested, shoot subjects, not test charts. I don't see anything here that suggests a lens problem.