Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-25-2011, 03:22 PM   #16
JVi
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 105
The Tak is easily sharper @2.8 than the competitors in both pinholecam's and alper's examples.

04-25-2011, 06:37 PM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 360
I would take the 28-75, it's a great lens, so much more convenient to use too.

But I suck at MF lol, and I don't move around much when I shoot stuff so zoom fits me better. Thinking of selling my MF lens too... probably sell some lens to get a 18-250 when the price drop (i rarely use my primes...).
04-25-2011, 07:07 PM   #18
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,921
QuoteOriginally posted by JVi Quote
The Tak is easily sharper @2.8 than the competitors in both pinholecam's and alper's examples.
Do you have some examples to share?
I'd really like to see how much better it is.
Thanks
04-25-2011, 07:28 PM   #19
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 288
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by clockwork247 Quote
I would take the 28-75, it's a great lens, so much more convenient to use too.

But I suck at MF lol, and I don't move around much when I shoot stuff so zoom fits me better. Thinking of selling my MF lens too... probably sell some lens to get a 18-250 when the price drop (i rarely use my primes...).
I like my 50 1.4 and when I get a good shot it's great. I don't like the MF part of it and I don't know if I want to invest in the split prism and I don't like focusing with the live view.

04-25-2011, 07:32 PM   #20
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 288
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
Do you have some examples to share?
I'd really like to see how much better it is.
Thanks
I wasn't as convinced. I thought it was close but not easily better. But I have glasses.
04-25-2011, 08:17 PM   #21
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteOriginally posted by justtakingpics Quote
Because I have considered selling all my super taks lenses to get the tamron. I know some really like the manual lenses but I'm really wanting a good quality zoome for the price. I've read lots of good things on here about the Tamron. I've seen the images from my super taks and they look great when you get everything right. Just wanted opinions.

edit: you can also put the 17-50 (also like the 90 macro) in the mix. very nice images on that one too.
I have shot extensively with the 4 lenses you mention. If shooting people, I'd stick with the 28-75 most of the time. You can get great shots with the ST 50 1.4, but the AF and versatility of the zoom are going to do more for you in the long run. Great portrait shots are not all about sharpness.

I had good success shooting people with the 17-50 and the 90, but the 28-75 is obviously the better tool for this job. Out on the hiking trail, the 17-50 & I were married, for 15,000 shots and 3 years. In the wild meadows, the 90 and I could not be separated.

You can make any lens do anything, but picking the best lens for the job will make things easier.
04-25-2011, 08:22 PM   #22
JVi
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 105
QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
Do you have some examples to share?
I'd really like to see how much better it is.
Thanks
Sorry. I do not own that particular Tamron but several others (17mm f3.5, 28mm f2.5, 90mm f2.5, 400mm f4.0; 80-200mm f2.8 (30A)). I currently have three 50mm f1.4 Taks (the oldest version); had one other that turns "yellow" with time (the 2nd version) and am awaiting an M version. All the Taks I have owned are very sharp at f2.8. Alper's comparison shows more clearly a difference at f2.8 w.r.t. the compared lenses than with your comparison. However I do see a clear difference too in the good sharpness of the Tak to that of the Tamron in your example.
04-26-2011, 12:59 AM   #23
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,921
QuoteOriginally posted by JVi Quote
Sorry. I do not own that particular Tamron but several others (17mm f3.5, 28mm f2.5, 90mm f2.5, 400mm f4.0; 80-200mm f2.8 (30A)). I currently have three 50mm f1.4 Taks (the oldest version); had one other that turns "yellow" with time (the 2nd version) and am awaiting an M version. All the Taks I have owned are very sharp at f2.8. Alper's comparison shows more clearly a difference at f2.8 w.r.t. the compared lenses than with your comparison. However I do see a clear difference too in the good sharpness of the Tak to that of the Tamron in your example.
Alright, thanks. I was hoping to see how much better is the Takumar, as the Tamron and A50 are already quite nice at f2.8. To be sharper does speak a lot for the lens.

04-26-2011, 05:35 AM   #24
JVi
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 105
QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
Alright, thanks. I was hoping to see how much better is the Takumar, as the Tamron and A50 are already quite nice at f2.8. To be sharper does speak a lot for the lens.
You're right. Sharpness is not everything. My favourite lens is the 75mm 1.5 Biotar because of its astigmatism with sharpness only in the center. The rest is a packaged, ever-ready van Gogh.
04-26-2011, 05:54 AM   #25
Veteran Member
Frogfish's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 4,490
QuoteOriginally posted by JVi Quote
I currently have three 50mm f1.4 Taks (the oldest version); had one other that turns "yellow" with time (the 2nd version)
To get rid of the yellow all you have to do is leave it exposed to sunlight for some time .... in the window for a week or two.
04-26-2011, 05:56 AM   #26
Veteran Member
Frogfish's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 4,490
QuoteOriginally posted by Jewelltrail Quote
Great portrait shots are not all about sharpness.
As JT said ... portraits are never about sharpness, they are in fact usually a touch on the 'soft' side if anything !
04-26-2011, 06:18 AM   #27
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 288
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Frogfish Quote
As JT said ... portraits are never about sharpness, they are in fact usually a touch on the 'soft' side if anything !
That's where my inexperience comes in. To me sharpness is everything when considering a lens. Even if it means touchups. on the other hand I've never had to touch up 500 images for a customer. I might welcome a not so sharp but great looking image after that.
04-26-2011, 07:37 AM   #28
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
QuoteOriginally posted by Frogfish Quote
I don't see the point of comparing a classic A50 1.4 with the 28-75 when the OP has a Super Tak 50/1.4 !

The Taks do vary in sharpness - quite a lot (relatively) I believe. I have the SMC Tak 50/1.4 which is different to the S.M.C Tak 50/1.4 which is different to the Super Tak 50/1.4 (I believe but I'm not certain - this is the runt of the litter). Where is Palio Pete when you need him !

However for me it's no contest. I've looked into the 28-75 a lot and it's very much near the top of my current Wish List. Superb lense (check out the Tamron Lense thread - the 28-75 shots will blow your socks off).

If you really need a low light lense then stay with the Tak 50/1.4 (or buy the SMC or S.M.C version to improve it) otherwise it's a no brainer.
Just to be clear, there are many many pentax 50mmF1.4 lenses as you point out, However, there are 2 versions specifcally of the super takumar 50F1.4, the earlier version is highly sought after, and has an optical design using 8 elements. It was, at the time (maybe still is) the sharpest 50mmF1.4 made.

all subsequent super takumars, s-m-c and SMC tak's plus the SMC, SMC-M, SMC-A and autofocus 50mmF1.4 lenses use 7 elements, the reason was cost.

Many of the designs ade very similar optically for all the 7 element versions, but clearly coatings will advance quite a lot.

SO when the OP asks about comparing the super tak to the tammy, the first thing you need to discuss is what version of super tak.

I have the 8 element version and the tammy,. I use them both, but notably I use the 50mmF1.4 at night wide open, so I can't compare it to the Tammy because I have a 2 F stop advantage with the Tak.
04-26-2011, 07:53 AM   #29
Senior Member
1r0nh31d3's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 136
Orange
Xena
Ford

QuoteOriginally posted by Hound Tooth Quote
What an odd question... is an old, fast, manual focus prime lens better than a newer, slower, AF zoom lens?

May as well ask if celery is better than an orange.

Could Tarzan beat Xena in a fight?

Can Ford compete with Harley Davidson?

Does it really matter what's "better"? It's pretty clear that "better" won't really mean squat in this case. What you should be asking yourself is "which will be more useful to me?"

Indoor portraits of static subjects? Probably the Super Tak.

Outdoor images of moving subjects at varying distances? Probably the Tamron.

And there are many degrees in between those two extremes.
04-26-2011, 08:08 AM   #30
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 288
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
Just to be clear, there are many many pentax 50mmF1.4 lenses as you point out, However, there are 2 versions specifcally of the super takumar 50F1.4, the earlier version is highly sought after, and has an optical design using 8 elements. It was, at the time (maybe still is) the sharpest 50mmF1.4 made.

all subsequent super takumars, s-m-c and SMC tak's plus the SMC, SMC-M, SMC-A and autofocus 50mmF1.4 lenses use 7 elements, the reason was cost.

Many of the designs ade very similar optically for all the 7 element versions, but clearly coatings will advance quite a lot.

SO when the OP asks about comparing the super tak to the tammy, the first thing you need to discuss is what version of super tak.

I have the 8 element version and the tammy,. I use them both, but notably I use the 50mmF1.4 at night wide open, so I can't compare it to the Tammy because I have a 2 F stop advantage with the Tak.
I don't know which one I have but was only meaning up to 2.8. I don't know if I need the extra 2 stops.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
images, k-mount, lenses, pentax lens, slr lens, taks, tamron
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 18-125mm, Tamron SP 90mm macro, Super Takumar 50mm F1.4, and film bodies jackmao Sold Items 8 12-04-2010 09:35 AM
For Sale - Sold: Takumar: Super Takumar 135mm f3.5 includes case, hood and caps Peter Zack Sold Items 7 05-17-2010 07:12 PM
Super Takumar 135mm f/3.5 and Super Takumar 55mm f/1.8 Fixcinater Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 21 08-30-2009 09:34 AM
For Sale - Sold: Super Macro Takumar 50mm, Super Takumar 200mm, F 35-80mm Lenses Nick Siebers Sold Items 4 02-01-2009 08:56 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:01 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top